    The Dubious Strategy Guide of Space Empires IV
    		Compiled and Edited by Dubious
		Rev: 23 Oct 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS: (use a case insensitive search to locate sections)
Disclaimer:
Introduction:

WARNING:
GETTING STARTED:
Beginner's Game Tips:
 * In The Beginning
 * General observations and recommendations
 * Must have technologies
 * Combat tips
 * Opinion
 * Basic Strategy
The First Fifty Turns: 
 * Facilities
 * Colonies
 * Ships, Satellites, etc
 * Warp points
 * Exploration
 * Research Strategies
 * Weapon Research Comparisons
 * Remote Mining
 * Riot Control
First Contact: 
 * MEE
 * Politics & Anger
 * Treaties
System Defense:
 * Controlling Costs
 * Restricting System Access
 * Minefields
 * Fighters in Defense
 * Buying Time
Projecting Your Influence: (aka "conducting military operations")
 * Fleet Operations
 * Mine Sweeping
 * Boarding Parties
 * Capturing Ships
 * Taking planets
 * Ground Combat Lessons
 * Scanners and Obscuration
 * Cloaking
 * Formations
Favorite Designs:
 * Dreadnought
 * Battleship
 * Light Cruiser
 * Destroyer
 * Baseships
 * Starbases
 * Carriers
 * Fighters
 * Satellites
 * Underappreciated Weapons
 * Close Combat Weapons
Armor, Shields, and Damage:
Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence:
AI Behaviour:
Strategic Combat:
PBW/PBEM:
Annoyances and the Unexpected:
Mods and Mod Packs:
Patches:

DISCLAIMER:
This "strategy guide" is not a product of Shrapnel Games (which is the "distributer" (read "marketing and sales/distribution") for Space Empires IV, hereafter SE4) nor Malfador Machinations ("MM", which is the developer of the game SE4), and thus is "unofficial" and "unauthorized".  It is a compilation of the information provided by the players who frequent the SE4 Forum on the Shrapnel Games "Intel forums" "Space Empires IV" discussion board, and as such is "empirical" in nature.  This means it is not based upon an understanding of the code behind the program but rather merely upon their collective, subjective experience.  In other words, it SEEMS to work this way, but we may be wrong.  (If so, join the forum and let us know your experiences.)

INTRODUCTION:
The term "strategy guide" is a bit misleading, which is why it is in quotes.  However most people look for a "strategy guide", so we stick with the name.  There are as many approaches to playing the game as there are players.  We don't really provide "proven strategies for winning" (which while the most common, is not the only possible goal of the game) as much as suggestions for how to get the most efficiency from the game mechanics.  ("Your mileage may vary.")  It is very much a "work in progress", so check the revision date at the beginning of the document.

It is assumed you have read the printed and HTML manuals provided with the game.  This is not a substitute for that information, but is intended to complement it.

The guide is divided in general "topics" or sections (labelled in all CAPS) to make it easier to locate what you are interested in at the moment.  Each topic has an introduction and possibly a summary at the beginning of the section which lays out what appears to be the concensus of opinion (which may be very little), followed by specific postings (bounded by ">>" and "<<") offered by forum participants.  (Some editting for clarity and space has been employed.  See below.)  Some topics may have sub-topic headers as well (also in all CAPS prefixed by a "*"), to make it easier to locate a speicifc series of related postings (called a "thread").  Dates and times are provided, as frequent patches (this is a BENEFIT, not a curse) may make it adviseable to review the suggestions in light of subsequent improvements to the game, as well as providing a clue if ideas have changed over time.  Sometimes a quote has been placed out of strict chronological sequence if it logically fits well with another as either a response or alternate view, even if not intended as such by the original author or even was part of a different thread.

The advantage to using discussion on a public forum as a guide to best utilizing aspects of the game is that it functions as a "peer review" process.  Many eyes examine each assertion and those which pass without adverse comment can reasonable be considered to reflect an absence of evidence to the contrary (which is not the same as "truth" or "fact").  The drawback is that not everyone is interested in digging into the why's and wherefore's of each element of the game, so some assertions may pass unchallenged even if not precisely correct.

Collecting these discussions into a guide preserves them after they have scrolled off the forum for those who need the information at a later point in time.  The collator/editor's role is merely to reduce the discussion "threads" to only the informative parts (eliminating redundancy, irrelevancy, and "me too" statements), clarify where necessary (such as by explaining abbreviations or references), and provide some organization to make it easier to locate the desired information.  No attempt is made to evaluate or modify any statement as to accuracy or "correctness".  Other than as noted above and the correction of some spelling, confusing grammer (not everyone is a native English speaker), and typos, no essential changes have been to anyone's statements.

A note about the presentation of participant quotes:  The names are "handles"/"monikers"/"aliases" chosen by the individuals themselves (such as "God Emperor xxx", "General yyy", or "Baron zzz") and are not "rankings" of their knowledge about the game. The military style "rank" given under each name is an indication of how many times that individual has submitted something to the forum, and is a function of the forum software.  It can get reset from time to time if the forum software is changed or for other administrative reasons, though this is not common.  This is the explanation for some apparent "demotions".  Some people are very active, while others are only occasional contributors.  Rank should not automatically be taken as an indicator of the "quality" of the content or even of how long an individual has been playing the game.

The forum board has the line "All times are ZULU" at the bottom of each thread page (omitted here).  ZULU time is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), the time at Zero Longitude and the international reference "midnight" time zone.  By setting all posting times to ZULU, everyone can determine exactly when a message was posted relative to their own time zone by merely determining their plus or minus offset from GMT.  Beyond keeping the posting sequence consistent, it has little bearing.


WARNINGS:  

1. Version 1.35 introduced a Map Editor.  There have been reports that games saved using an edited map can become corrupted if you reload the saved game without first 'Quiting' the game session.  Since it is not certain that this problem only occurs with 'edited maps', you might wish to adopt this as a general practice, at least until the problem is confirmed to be fixed.  V1.41 includes a fix to this problem if the map has more than 255 systems.  It is not known if this completely resolves the corrupted file issue.

Even with the largest galaxy possible, you will probably encounter another race within the first 50-60 turns (5-6 game years: 10 turns to the year).  In a small galaxy or with many opponents you may have an encounter very quickly.  Some have found themselve with different opponents in ALL of the very next star systems.  What should you concentrate on first: defense, offense, research, infrastructure, exploration?

2. Version 1.41 appears to have introduced a major problem with the way the "Counter-Intelligence" projects work.  The discussion covers it best:
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 30 June 2001 22:14
   I wondered why the enemy races are more successful with their intel attacks in my new game (v1.41), so I have done some tests with my old "CI bug savegames", one of the CI bugs is solved now, thank you, Aaron:
   Version 1.39:
   8. Fixed - Successful intelligence defense would sometimes result in you having intel defense projects more accomplished then when they started.
   But it looks like we've got a new problem now, even with multiple CI projects with enough points accumulated, the projects always seem to counter just one Intel attack (maybe one per race?). Unfortunately I don't have a savegame with more than 2 races with intel points and with established contacts to each other, and I'm too lazy to create one now, so I hope someone could help me out.
   What I have tested is this:
   Race A has got 30,000 intel points distributed evenly to 3 CI level III projects
   Race B attacks with 3 intel attacks (5,000 points each), one fails, the other 2 attacks are successful
   Similar configurations (2 CI against 2 attacks, 4 CI against 3 and so on...) display the same, it's just always one attack which can be countered.
   Could anybody of you who has a similar savegame (best would be with 3 or more races, to see if it's one counter per race *shudder*) check this out ?
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 01 July 2001 06:40
...
   Meanwhile I have done some more tests about that: It's ALWAYS the first slot of the intel attacks which is just countered, so if you want your valuable intelligence attacks to come through then you just have to waste a 5,000 point slot at the beginning (e.g. census thefts) and put the more valuable attacks to the 2nd, 3rd and so on slot...
   Another bad thing about this is: the CI projects of the countering race will loose their accumulated CI points in all slots (one  slot for each intel attack) although the counter projects (except one) will fail. And the (first) attack (the only one which is countered successfully) is not mentioned in the Log (like: "we have countered an enemy attack successfully").
<<
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 03 July 2001 19:11
...
   Very bad news on this question: All of my CI projects just counter ONE (the very first) attack and they fail on the next attacks which are done in the same turn. This means (even with 12 almost full CI level 3 projects):
   Race 1 attacks you with e.g. 5,000 points and fails against your CI projects, if it has a 2nd, 3rd... attack in the same turn : these are successful although all CI projects which SHOULD counter an attack are reset to zero.
   Every further attack of race 2,3,4... in the same turn are successful.
   Unfortunately this is a systematic error, not a function of random.
>>
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 08 July 2001 13:27
   I have created a savegame (original, without mods, ver 1.41) with three races under player control. Each race produces about 30,000 intel points, and everyone has established contacts to the other races. I have sent this save to MM. If anyone is interested to do some intel experiments then I would send it by e-mail.
   Since this problem causes several balance problems (especially multiplayer) I disabled Applied Intelligence Tech and unchecked Allow Intelligence Projects in Game Settings for my games until this bug is fixed.
   OTOH, if you like to experiment with this problem: since you only can counter the very first attack just use one CI project, the others are worthless... I sometimes have done this:
   slot 1 : offensive attack with 5,000 points (because this one is the only one which could be countered)
   slot 2-x : better offensive attacks (like crew insurrections)
   slot x+1: about 30,000 (rest) points for one CI project
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 15 July 2001 00:02
   Ok, I have done some testing and made another observation.
   Defensive operations that take longer than 1 turn never finish. If you have enough points to finish it in 1 turn it does, (more than 100K for level 1) but if a defensive operation takes more than 1 turn, no points get applied to it each turn.
   I hope this gets fixed soon.
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 16 July 2001 16:55
   Originally posted by Slaughtermeyer:
   "Has anybody tried multiple "intelligence sabotage" (cost 30000) missions to see if they stop the "unstoppable" multiple offensive intel missions?"

   Well, another player tried this against me in a PBeM. I had a number of intelligence projects and a single counter-intelligence (it was the last project). My enemy attempted (among other projects) an intelligence sabotage. I completed successfully all projects, then he sabotaged my counter intelligence...
Anyway, I take my turn before him (I'm player #1, he's player #2) so it's possible that this works the other way around (i.e., that I can destroy his intelligence projects...).
<<


GETTING STARTED:

Noone seems to dispute your first three steps: Colonize, colonize, colonize.  Put a colony on every planet (and some say moon) you can in your home system.  This provides you with additional resources as well as room to grow your population and build facilities while hopefully preventing your neighbors from establising a foothold.

The next step for expansion is to go exploring.  If you are worried about the possibility of neighbors close by, you may want to delay this until you have gotten some defenses in place, but if you want to grab real estate you have to get a colony on it before they do.  This also applies to grabbing "advanced technology" lying around in ancient ruins.  You have to build a colony on the "special" planet before anyone else, which automatically gets you the loot.

After that you start to get into differences of opinion which really boil down to a matter of "style" of play.  Decide on your basic style for each game and stay focussed on researching the techs which will benefit that style.  Trying to research everything in the beginning is a sure way to lose early.


BEGINNERS GAME TIPS:
Let's start with some Questions and Answers (Q&A) from MM's web site (questions related only to the demo are omitted):
Q 17. Population growth is incomprehensible. 18% Jubilant ... but actual pop growth is tiny turn to turn?
A. Population growth is per year! (not per turn)
Q 18. Some planets build very slow, why?
A. Depends on the rate of your space yard. It also depends on how much population is on your planet. The higher the population, the higher the rate.
Q 26. How does starting tech levels work with setting your traits in a new game?
A. Tech levels don't effect your race creation in any way.
Q 27. Can you turn off mines, fighters and others from the new game menu?
A. Not at this time.
Q 35. How do I change the video resolution the game is being run at?
A. You can't. The game can currently run in 800x600, or 1024x768. If you're smaller than 800x600, then the window will be larger than your screen. If you run in larger than 1024x768, then there will be a black border around the main window when you play. Some windows will use your full screen size such as some of the list windows and the Tactical Combat window. We're looking into having the program automatically change your windows to a certain resolution if you select that option (and then set it back again when you're done).
39. Will a CD-Rom be required to play? ie when it is purchased, can one download it and play imediately? Yes, a CD will be required to play. The full game size is about 35 megs compressed, and we don't want people to have to download that. In addition, there is music that is played directly from the CD.
40. Will there be a data editor release? In SE4, all of the data files are simple text files. You can just open them up in Notepad and edit them directly. You can create whatever components, facilities, or ship sizes you like. (However, in the demo this feature is disabled). We may eventually release an editor, but it really isn't needed.
Q 41. I've built a space station with two Space Yard II components on board, but for some reason it will only build one ship at a time. Am I doing something wrong, or is there no point in putting multiple build components on one platform in SE4?
A. This is a bug. There can only be one space yard on a ship. A ship or planet only has one construction queue, so even if you did put multiple space yards on it, you would only be able to build one thing at a time.
Q 42. In SE3 you could build Facilities on a planet at the same time as ships were being built at the space yard. Now it seems that the planetary space yard uses the same queue as facilities construction. Consequently either a ship or a facility can be worked on, but not both simultaneously. Is this a bug, or a fundamental change?
A. In SE4, there is only one construction queue per ship or planet. So a planet uses the same build queue for both is ship and its facilities under construction.
43. Is there a way to limit the number of planets per system? You can do this by modifying the data files and adding new Quadrant Types. Look into the data file SystemsTypes.txt in the data directory. There will be more details on these data files in the full version.
Q 45. Can you still adjust your production on the Jubilant to Angry scale as in SE3?
A. Nope. Production Output has been removed from SE4. You now have to keep your population's happy by your actions, not just by changing the production output.
Q 49. In the Game setup - Quadrant, What do Finite resources mean?
A. Finite resources is a new way to play Space Empires. Normally when you play the game, each planet can generate an infinite amount of resources. Each planet has a value that is expressed as a percentage. But when you play with finite resources, then each planet as a maximum number of resources of each type that can be mined from it. The value of the planet will be displayed as an actual amount in kT of resources. Once these resources have been expended, you cannot generate any more from that planet. This feature adds a bit of viciousness to the game as you must continually expand or die.
Q 50. When a ship is hit in combat, but no component has been destroyed (I know that as comps have different damage resistance, some of them are able to stand several his) how do I know which comp has been hit? Does the component remain "half damaged" forever or it's repaired before next combat?
A. Damage in SE4 has changed since SE3. Instead of one damage point destroying one component, each component now has a damage resistance. This is the amount of damage it must take before it is destroyed. When you take damage in combat, you may not see a specific component destroyed. But don't be fooled, your ship has taken damage. Once the damage amount to a particular component reaches its damage resistance, then it will be marked as destroyed. A component is fully functional until it is destroyed. Once you leave combat, all "partial" damage is removed.
Q 53. I started a race for rock planets with no atmosphere yet I couldn't colonize the astroid belts in my system. I had population on the ships, what am I doing wrong?
A. In SE4, you cannot colonize asteroids. You can only remotely mine them for resources.
Q 55. How do you construct a ring world or a sphere world? Since the components are larger than any ship that I can find I am uncertain as to how I would construct one of these beasts.
A. To construct a ringworld or a sphereworld, you will need to build the required components on starbases. How do you get them to the location? This is where a spaceyard ship comes in. First, build a space yard ship and send it to the location (the star) where you want to build your sphere world. Next, have the space yard ship construct the starbases with the required components (you may want to have more than one space yard ship to speed this along). Once the starbases are constructed, select the one with the activating component and select Stellar Manipulation. Choose Stellar Construction on the window. When you do this, all of the starbases with required components will be de-constructed and formed into the sphere world.
Q 56. I constructed a sphere world but it does not show up as one of my colonies. What gives?
A. A ring world or a sphere world is merely a constructed planet. After you build it, you still need to colonize it. Once you colonize it, it will behave like any of your other colonies. You can then start building facilities on it.
Q 58. There are several references in the config files and UI screens for a unit type of "drone", but no actual data on them. Would you care to comment on what these were going to be and why they aren't in the game after all?
A. Drones were originally going to be in the game as a sort of computer controlled missile. They would be launched from a planet like a fighter and then seek towards a designated target completely under computer control (or possibly player control). However, due to a number of difficulties with targeting, pathing, and intent for the drones, we decided to remove them from SE4. The pictures are still present, as are some references in the data files, as it is our intention to eventually patch these into the game when the design issues have been worked out.
Q 59. How do I access the CD manual in HTML. I can't find it while in the game, and I can't find it while looking at the contents on the CD through Windows Explorer. Where is it?
A. The HTML manual is installed with the game into your SE4 directory. From the Start Menu, select Programs \ Shrapnel Games \ Malfador Machinations \ Space Empires IV Manual. We will be adding a shortcut to the manual from the game in the next patch.
Q 77. Is there somewhere an overview of the different galaxys where i can find the differences between Midlife, Ancient, Spiralarm and the others?
A. Mid-Life - A standard quadrant with regular planets. Systems are layed out randomly.
   Cluster - Systems are grouped into clusters on the map.
   Galactic Edge - Systems are spread out as far as possible from each other.
   Spiral Arm - Systems are arranged spiraling out from a central circle.
   Grid - Systems are arranged in a grid pattern.
   Ancient - Systems are arranged randomly. There are many more black holes and nebulae in the quadrant.
Q 78. I've noticed that I am only able to get at the first few colonies when I select the "Redesignate Colony" button - the scroll bar only goes to about the first 25 or so planets. Does the designation actually do anything?
A. The list window that is displayed when you press Set Colony Type will only show you the colonies which are visible in your list. If you scroll down the colony list, then when you hit the button, the list displayed will show what the colony list is displaying. The Colony type is useful for players to know what they intended the planet for, and for the ministers so they know what the player wants to use the planet for.
Q 91. The range of enemy designs to choose from seems very small. Why is this? It probably has to do with time and my level of familiarity with each empire; but I'd like to know what governs this.
A. The list of enemy ships to choose from in the combat simulator is given by the ship you have seen in your game (been in combat with). Once you are in combat with more ships in the real game, you will have more to choose from in the combat simulator. Keep in mind that you can also fight your own ships in the combat simultator as well.

>>
Nitram Draw/Marty Ward
First Lieutenant
posted 12 April 2001 13:08
[Ed: This was developed for his own version of a similar strategy guide, which he offered for inclusion when I happened to publish first.  This summarizes many of the points raised in the threads which follow it.  If you want to get started quickly, these are all sound suggestions.]
   If you are like me and were introduced to the Space Empires series by SE4 it can be extremely overwhelming when you start your first game. There are so many choices. Hopefully, the following tips will help you in your early efforts to learn the game. 
   First of all, let me say I am no SE4 expert. I lose as many of my SE4 games as I win. I have played it a lot though and thought I would write down my observations of what works for me. These tips are for beginners.  Most experienced players will already use some these tips or will have devised effective counter strategies and more advanced techniques.  All I can say to them is, please take it easy on me if we ever get into a game.
   There are so many ways to play SE4 that creating a step by step guide is pointless. The number of players, size of the quadrant, starting tech, resources, etc all combine to give a tremendous variety to the game. Most of my tips are based on my own game preferences; large quadrant, standard resource amount, 1-3 starting planets, large number of AI's, low tech and colonize only home planet type. Once you are comfortable with playing the game you can make it more challenging by adjusting the set up. Some ideas are:


* IN THE BEGINNING:
1. Give the AI 5000 points to use while the human players use no more than 3000 points.  
2. Set the AI difficulty to high. 
3. Raise the AI bonus level. 
4. Get the Mod Packs and user designed races from the Shrapnel Forum. These races are much tougher opponents than the standard races supplied with the game. 
5. Start in a small quadrant and manually add 10 - 15 races of your choice.
6. Choose an Ancient quadrant, there are fewer planets available in this type of quadrant.
7. Choose all computer opponents allied against you.
8. See if you can beat yourself. Play until you are the dominant race in the game, in first place by a comfortable margin. Check which race is in last place. Use the main menu to access the players in the game. Change your race to computer control and choose the last place race for human control.
9. Try to win without building combat ships. Only use shield depleting weapons, ship capture, planetary invasion and intelligence operations to fight. It also helps to be a good diplomat!
10. Try playing as a Pirate.  suicide_junkie [Ed: a player] has posted a mod in the Shrapnel forum that allows this. It is a very different game when played this way.
11. Try some of the different mods available for download. Many of these have new or enhanced items that provide variety to the game. 

Some related discussion on game setup:
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 19:55
   Hi all,
   Other newbie question:
   I downloaded from this site many zip files with shipsets for star trek type races. I unzipped these into the ../Pictures/Races/racename directory.
   (racename could be Breen, or Dominion, or whatever). I then have a bunch of bitmaps and txt files there. But when creating a new game I still cannot add these new races to my game, presumably because there is no .emp file for them in the Empires directory.
   What do I do now? What am I missing?
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 20:07
   Yep you need .emp files. If they didn't come with them you can do the following:
Start a new game, large quadrent
Un-check computer generates neutral empires.
Set the number of computer empires to high.
Choose your race.
Start the game.
Before taking your turn open the game main menu and click players.
Click on each green dot of a race without an .emp file to change player to human control.
When that player turn comes click main menu again and click save empire.
   Save each empire this way. You can increase you odds of picking the star trek races by temporarily removing most of your existing races from your race directory.
   There may be easier ways to do this but I know this way works.
<<
>>
Atrocities
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 20:08
   When I made the ship sets, I did not include EMP files because so many people like to set the races up themselves.
<<
>>
Lucanos
Sergeant
posted 20 June 2001 20:12
   .emp files are LOADED at game startup while clicking "Add Existing". These files are created by SAVING an empire at startup or in the game (not recommended). If you want to play any of the downloaded races you should click "Add New".
   From there (Add New) you have accessed the "Empire Setup" and you should find the new pictures under "general details" - at the scrollbar.
   The only hangup is that you hafta distribute your race's points by yourself.
   See if you can find an *.emp file in the zip folder so you can click "Add existing" instead.
   These *.emp files should be placed in the SEIV/empires folder. (SEIV=gamefolder)
   And don't forget to remove all races from your pictures/races folder that you don't wanna play against - or there is a chance that the game will select them as computer opponents. This really sucks if these races lack proper AI files.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
1: Victory Conditions: are these cumulative? In my last game, (I had assumed that reaching any of the conditions would win the game), my game suddenly terminated because I think I reached the level of required points. I also had "1.0 years of peace" required and am sure that requirement was not met, but still the game stopped. Unfortunately you cannot continue playing after that.  Now, in my third game, I have reached the points requirement, but somehow I can continue playing?! Must I now meet ALL the requirements I configured? (80% of tech, 1 year of peace, etc. ?)
...
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
1: Don't know what's going on there, but Victory conditions do *NOT* carry over from one game to the next. Did you set the "conditions only apply after X turns" on?
...
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 19:35
...
   Originally posted by dogscoff:
   "1: Don't know what's going on there, but Victory conditions do *NOT* carry over from one game to the next. Did you set the "conditions only apply after X turns" on?"

   Yes, I had conditions apply after 5 years. I met one condition in year 9, the game continued, then yesterday I met a second condition (300% score of player2) and then the game finally decided I had won. My original question is still unanswered though...
...
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 22:33
...
   1:  You must satisfy every victory condition to win the game (AFAIK).
...
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 21 June 2001 19:52
   Hello all,
   I am currently trying a game with SE4 verison 1.35 and TDM Modpack 1.72. (previusoly I tried other configurations but that led to problems). This configuration is almost problem-free. I play against 15 AI players, all races that were included in the Modpack (and thus compatible with it) plus a few neutrals. I played for about 20 turns and encountered one neutral and two other AI races (the Narn and the Colonials).
   The weird thing is, the Narn do not respond at all to my diplomatic messages, e.g. treaty requests. The others respond normally..(they're not interested
   IS this normal?
   Also, I still notice that when I finish my turn, the AI processes the turns for about 5 or 6 players normally (takes about a second per player) but the others flash by in less than 1/10th of a second. That suggests that those races are not being played/controlled/handled by the AI at all...
   Can anyone comment? Has anyone seen this before? Is my game crippled or should I continue it?
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 21 June 2001 20:39
   Seems to be that you have selected manually the races, but you forget to change the race to AI control.
<<
>>
LazarusLong42
Private First Class
posted 21 June 2001 20:59
   I've always found that the turns for neutrals take a lot less time.  That's likely the cause on the latter problem.  As for the Narn... I don't know what to say there.  It may be something in the AI scripting, or a weird bug.
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 21 June 2001 21:03
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "What I did was manually select the players, start the game, and in turn one (before doing anything else) hit F2, Players, and turn over all races except my own to the AI.
   So I don't think that's the cause..."

   Also for every race, inside the minister options, you need to select the option to full AI control.
   One more thing: when you're starting a game, if you select manually the race, you should change the race to AI control, using the "Edit Empire" option. This is more fast and easy.
<<
>>
Tampa_Gamer
Major
posted 21 June 2001 22:50
   When using added AI players, you should always set them to computer control in the game set-up phase.  Setting them after starting the game gives them a serious disadvantage b/c they do not utilize all of their unique AI files (using the default instead)and they lose out on the initial turn tech point bonus.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 12 June 2001 02:52
[Ed: start of a new thread titled "Environmental Resistance".]
   Anyone figured out exactly what effect it has yet?
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 12 June 2001 03:17
   Basically it modifies Planetary Conditions.  IE, if you had a high enough Environmental Resistance, a world shown as Deadly would be Optimal or Good for you.  Thus a 150% Env.Resist. + 9% Reproduction race are a lot like rabbits.
<<
>>
Droplede
Private First Class
posted 12 June 2001 03:20
   Yup. Drake did a test a while back and posted his results in a thread titled "General question" that started on March 13. Since then, I've tried it out and successfully duplicated his results. Here's the complete text of Drake's post:
   "From previous testing I've done, Env. Resist. has only shown to have an effect on growth rate,independant of anything else.
   Every 5 points in it raises growth by 1%. I tested this for Unpleasant and up, so if someone wants to double check this for worse conditions, be my guest.
   Unfortunately, this appears to be a case where it'd make sense for it to affect how well your population handled poor conditions, people assumed that's what it did, and the misinformation spread...
   FYI, I basically had several growth tables laid out with the percentage increase charted for variations in condition, Env. Resist. values, and reproduction values. In every case across the board, the 5% to 1% ratio held true. The border is between 0/1 and 5/6, so you can reduce your starting % to 96% with no ill effect. I'd suggest making it 81% and using the points in reproduction to compensate - it's cheaper until you hit the breakpoint for repro."
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 25 June 2001 08:17
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Which is odd, since the manual says this:
   Determines how well your race can stand up to the harsh conditions on other planets. Increasing this value will improve your population's ability to stand up to bad planetary conditions.
   One of those features that doesn't work right/was never actually implimented I guess.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 12 June 2001 07:51
   Thanks for the info. Does the 5 points for every 1% hold true for reproduction as well or is that 1 point for 1% increase?
<<
>>
Droplede
Private First Class
posted 12 June 2001 23:33
   Jubala: Reproduction is a 1/1 basis, unlike Env. Resistance. So, dropping E.R. to 81% and raising Repro. to 109% evens out cost wise, and you end up with +6% reproduction in the bargain (-3% from E.R., +9% for Repro.). Yet another reason why using breakpoints is just begging for abuse by point-optimizers -- none of whom, I'm sure, play this game.
<<
>>
Zarix
Private First Class
posted 13 June 2001 16:06
   Manual says that enviromental resistance effects also on hapiness. Does anyone know how?
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 25 June 2001 03:37
   A bad planetary environment is supposed to affect happiness levels negatively. I would guess that environmental resistance reduces this negative effect. I don't know how to test this, though. Look at the effects of the UPC. It would be very small, on the order of 1 percent or something.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 27 June 2001 20:38
   I seen posts from some people that say when they generate a map the choose not all WP's connected and generate a map until they are all connected. Am I missing something here? What is the differance between doing this and choosing them all connected?
<<
>>
PurpleRhino
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 21:11
   Well, basically, you get less warp points... so there are more (natural) choke points in the game. I even saw once a one-way warp point... Not sure if it was a bug or what, but I was shocked. By one way, I mean there wasn't a warp point where the other dropped you off... And this was on a freshly generated map... no chance for a random even yet. (was in the map editor)
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 27 June 2001 22:29
   I use "not-all-connected" and re-re-generate the map.
   Simply, it makes the warppoint map look more "natural", since there are no wierd WPs stretching across the map in wierd directions to connect the super groups of stars.
   All connected tends to have those extra WPs go between two (sort of) random systems in the supergroups.  So the warp lines can cut through other systems, and be abnormally long.
   It probably dosen't affect the game much, but I enjoy the natural look (in an artificial universe  ).
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 22 June 2001 19:11
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   All,
   When you configure your game you can set the AI on Hard (I always do) and starting bonus to High (which I also do). But what does the bonus consist of? Resources? Tech? Starting units?
<<
>>
Baal
Corporal
posted 22 June 2001 19:19
   The bonus gives the AIs extra resources and extra building power each turn.
   Resource modifiers
2x - low bonus
3x - medium bonus
5x - high bonus
   I don't know exactly how much faster the SY go but they sure pump out ships.
<<
>>
God Emperor
First Lieutenant
posted 23 June 2001 02:22
   Research points are generated with the same multiplier as Resource points too.
   It should be noted that at medium and high bonus, the AI's usually have trouble using all of their resource points - this can be fixed by modifying the values in their Construction_Vehicles files.....
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 25 June 2001 13:25
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I decided to test and see what Cultural Modifiers actually worked and created a culture with a 50% bonus in everything. Here's the result:
Production Does not work
Research Works
Intelligence Works
Trade Works
Space Combat Does not work
Ground Combat Works
Happiness Works
Maintenance Works
SY Rate Works (both types)
Repair Works
   A couple of things I learned while doing this:
   The minimum 5% maintenance is definitely hardcoded. [Ed: effective v1.41]
   Repair seems to be rounded down. In my test with I had a ship with 9 damaged components visit a planet with a space yard that had a repair rate of 5. It repaired 7 components in one turn. 5*1.5 = 7.5 which by mathematical rules would have been rounded up but the game rounded it down. Haven't done any extensive testing to verify this but I believe it is correct.
<<
>>
JenMax
Private First Class
posted 25 June 2001 13:57
   Yes, is sad. You tested the "cultural Modifiers." Basically, then, when designing an empire, one might as well set "ship def" as low as it will go, and use the points to improve other things, like happiness?
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 25 June 2001 14:41
   JenMax,
   I think it only effects the cultural modifier. I've never seen any complaints that the characteristic modifiers don't work. I hope they do!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 25 June 2001 15:00
   Originally posted by Jubala:
   "The minimum 5% maintenance is definitely hardcoded."

   Do you mean that even if you use +25% in maintenance reduction, you still have 5%? Or is the maintenance reduction just limited to +15% (in SETTINGS.TXT)?
   And, also, if this screws up my Nomad's negative maintenance on resource ships, I will NOT be happy.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 25 June 2001 15:31
   JenMax, this is the cultural modifiers you get when selecting a culture under the culture tab when designing a race. Each culture has a set number of advantages/disadvantages. Not the characteristics you can change at will under the characteristics tab. As far as I know the characteristics all work just fine. They always have for me anyway.
   suicide_junkie, I'm not really sure. All I know is that my race with a 50% cultural modifier to maintenance still payed 5% maintenance.
   The only lines 'settings.txt' that deal with maintenance are these:
Maintenance Cost Amt Per Dead := 20000
Empire Starting Percent Maint Cost := 25
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Max Pct := 120
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Min Pct := 80
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Pct Cost := 50
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Threshold := 10
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Threshhold Pct Cost Pos := 200
Characteristic Maintenance Aptitude Threshhold Pct Cost Neg := 5
   Looks to me like it has to be hardcoded since I can't find a line in 'settings.txt' that defines minimum maintainance. And since the maintenance reduction can still go to 20% and is not limited to +15% in 'settings.txt' I'd say it's hardcoded. Looks like you're Nomads are up shit creek without a paddle.
   Please don't shoot the messenger.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 25 June 2001 17:08
...
   It definetely is hardcoded to 5% maintenance now, in another Thread (AI without maintenance) I have tried to vote for a button in game settings to disable this...
<<
>>
JenMax
Private First Class
posted 25 June 2001 20:44
   Yes, Jubala, I do understand the difference between CULTURAL modifiers, and other empire characteristices.  I was concerned BECAUSE racial points, (shold more properly be called "empire points?"), etc. all feed into one another.  Juggling them has become a mini game within a game.  So perhaps, me thinks, the problem with cultural modifies MIGHT also overflow into the others.  I am glad they do not. One less thing to fix...Thank you for all the work on ascertaining what works and what doesn't.  I appreciate it.
<<
>>
Lucanos
Sergeant
posted 25 June 2001 21:14
   Originally posted by JenMax:
   "...racial points, (shold more properly be called "empire points?")..."

   Finally someone who understands me.

   Originally posted by Jubala:
   "I decided to test and see what Cultural Modifiers actually worked and created a culture with a 50% bonus in everything."

   Maybe some culture modifiers doesn't work properly if you increase the bonus too much (50% in this case would be "too much")?
   I know some modifiers doesn't work if you put a negative value on them. Sometimes the game won't execute correctly if you play around with the cultures.txt the way I would to.
   Has anyone confirmed Jubala's great effort? (I'm asking since I'm too lazy to try it myself)
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 26 June 2001 06:00
   That the production modifier for cultures didn't work has been known for some time so I decided to see what else if anything didn't work. Space combat didn't.
   And I just tested Space Combat again with a 10% modifier to see if Lucanos was onto something. He was not since it still didn't work.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 26 June 2001 10:06
   Originally posted by Jubala:
   "Talenn, I don't think it's quite that bad. After all, 8 out of 10 of the cultural modifiers do work. Granted, it's two of the most interesting, but still."

   Production modifiers in culture don't work also (have checked that again), and I guess that ground combat modifiers could be corrupted also...
   So the only working cultures are: Traders, Artisans, Scientists, Schemers, Xenophobes.
   That's less than 50%.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 26 June 2001 12:39
   Yes, that's less than 50%, but only two out of ten modifiers are broken so it would be possible to change the cultures so none of them use the broken ones, ie Space Combat and Production.
   Ground Combat does work. I tested it several times to make sure. The only ones broken are Space Combat and Production.
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 00:11
   Eeeep... and to think that I always picked Berserkers for the Space Combat bonus *sigh*.
   Since Space Combat bonus doesn't work does this also mean that the Space Combat penalty (like Merchants) which some cultures get also don't work?
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 27 June 2001 14:14
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yes.
<<


* GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 
1. Colonize everything. The more colonies you have the more facilities you can have. Don't worry about the atmosphere type or resource values. Every planet has a use. If you have a choice, colonize planets with Ruins and the green cross marked planets first.
2. Planets with Ruins on them yield free technology and you never know what you may find. I have found everything from DUC II [Ed: Depleted Uranium Cannon] to Rock Colonization on them. Colonize them as soon as possible.
3. When a new system is first colonized make sure you build a spaceport in it. The spaceport does not need to be the first facility built in the system but without one you will get no resources from the system. 
4. Research is the key to victory. Unless you start the game with more than 3 planets the majority of your new facilities should be research facilities. The first 25-50 turns are usually very peaceful. Use this time to build up your research base while you expand your empire.  
5.  If you picked one of the special racial traits, organic etc, research those unique abilities. The research is expensive but they cost you a lot valuable racial points so use them.
6. Once you have established a reasonable research base, 25K points or so, you should begin to set up your empire's infrastructure. Depending on your style of play, the facilities you need will vary but some are a necessity. Minerals are needed in large quantities. Some storage is needed to allow for emergencies. If you tend to have a large number of ships active or you are near a large number of colonizable planets, then you should build 5 - 10 resource producers per storage facility. Some other facilities you will find useful are the Urban Pacification Center, Special Racial buildings and Production boosting facilities. There is one building that should be built as soon as the technology and resources are available and that is the Atmospheric Converter. It only needs to be built on planets without the same type of atmosphere you breathe and can be scrapped after the atmosphere is converted. It is a very valuable facility. 
7. Create a Scout ship early on and explore as much as possible. Scouts are for scouting, don't over arm them. One weapon is one to many in my opinion but if you feel the need to be armed go easy. Max out the number of engines and add extra supply to increase their range. Their job is to find planets to colonize and locate other races. A colony ship can make a good short range scout with the added benefit of being immediately able to form a colony when new planets are discovered.
8. Build some Population Transport ships, 1 for every 3 Homeworld planets is a good ratio in the early stages of a game. As your empire grows you can add more or larger ones as needed. Move population to other planets and reap the production benefits of a large population. The Population Minister is one of the few Ministers that I have found to be remotely useful. If the Minister is used, check your Homeworld population periodically, the Minister will empty your Homeworld if you let him.
9. On the first turn you receive bonus research points, use them wisely. Depending on the game setup the bonus can be up to 100K points.
10. The default setting for research is to divide points evenly among projects. This is usually not a good way to research. You should change this setting. Any excess points needed to complete a project are wasted when dividing points equally. Extra points will be used on the next item to be researched if the setting is changed. Don't waste your research points early in the game. Only use the divide points equally setting for special cases.
11. Early in the game you will need to research one or more of the Theoretical Sciences to open up other areas of research. They are expensive to research at this stage of the game. Don't try to do them all early in the game, you will fall far behind in the technology race. When researching one of these areas have a goal, i.e. fighters. Only research Theoretical areas that will let you reach your goal. 
12. Research a weapon, a defense component, and point defense early. By this I mean pick your initial weapon type and research it 2-3 levels. Pick a defense component, armor or shields, are research it 2-3 levels. Always get Point Defense Weapons as early as possible. You are helpless against a missile attack without it. Once you have the above items start researching any area you like but try to have a goal. Almost every area offers useful technology and there is no one path to victory. Once you have secured a good base of systems and have researched your preferred areas, begin to research a variety of weapons and defense components. You must use a variety of ship designs, as concentrating on only one type is easily countered.
13. When initially colonizing a new system build a Shipyard first, unless you are planning to colonize more planets in the system within 5-6 turns. The Shipyard facility appears to assist you in building other facilities. If you plan on colonizing other planets within 4-5 turns then build the Spaceport before the Shipyard.
14. Don't go to war until you are ready. There is little use in building combat ships before you meet another race. They cost resources to maintain and will possibly have outdated technology on them by the time you meet another race. When you meet a race try to stay on good terms with them. Trade is almost always beneficial, even if they benefit more than you do from it. If you decide to go to war, make sure you are equipped to defeat the enemy. Make sure you can build and support your attack fleet. Learn what the enemy has for weapons and make sure you have a counter for it. For example, attacking a fleet full of missile launching ships is a BAD idea if you have no point defense weapons.
15. No system is more valuable than any other one. There is no central system that must be protected at all costs. If you find yourself in a losing war retreat and rebuild. Many times the AI will be angry because it wants a system you own. You can take back the systems you lose at a later time. Don't bankrupt your economy fighting a losing war.
16. Create some specialized ships for your attack fleet. A ship with one beam weapon, one missile launcher and some point defense may be more flexible for single ship operations but in a fleet action it is at a disadvantage. It is better to have each shipped equipped with a single weapon type to allow it a defined role. Overwhelm your targets defense with beam or missile fire while protecting yourself with armor, shields and point defense ships. With the right mix of ships and tactics it is often possible to defeat fleets 3-4 times your size with little or no losses to yourself.
17. Protect your specialized support ships. A repair ship is great to have with your fleet unless you lose it in combat. Supply, repair, shipyard, minesweeper, minelayer and sensor ships should stay far from the battle. Point defense ships should stay behind your main battle line, close enough to give support.
18. Defend on your side of the warp point. This is especially beneficial if the enemy out ranges your weapons. Combat in warp points generally is a close range free for all and generally in an even fight, he who fires first is at an advantage. Use a combination of units for warp point defense. Mines are good early on. Satellites are also good defenders of warp points. If you can get fighters there then they also can provide good defense. None of these units cost maintenance so you should build a lot of them and put them in the warp points leading to your system but don't expect them to stop a large fleet. For that you need ships or bases.  I have found that the best thing to defend a warp point with is a Battle Station or Star Base. They can hold massive amounts of weapon components and can use the Heavy and Massive mounts at the higher levels. It takes a while to build one where you want it but it is usually worth it if the warp point is at a critical location.
19. Defend your planets with a combination of weapons platforms, units and ships. Bases make good planet defenses, due to the extended weapon ranges. Weapons platforms are excellent defense units but the take up a lot of cargo space and their weapon range is not extended like the bases. Weapons platforms can also be expensive and time consuming to build due to the large amount of components they can hold. Make sure you upgrade your weapons platform design to use the best technology available. Weapons platforms are one of the few units that should have a variety of weapon types on them, since they cannot run away from the battle. On planets with a different atmosphere than your own you will only be able to put a few weapons platforms in place due to their size. Don't use all your cargo space on weapons platforms. Leave room for new units to be built and then launch them to make more room. 
20. Fighters are a popular weapon. They are cheap to build and can leave a planet and patrol a system, albeit slowly.  Fighters also die in droves. They can be attacked by regular beam weapons and point defense weapons. Expect to build a lot of them if you plan to use them as your main defense weapon.
21. Upgrade your ships and facilities, you paid for the research so get the benefit. Upgrading facilities allows you to continue to use the facility while it is upgraded*. Never scrap and rebuild when upgrading a facility. Upgrade your ship designs to use the more advanced technologies. Retro fit obsolete ships into newer designs. Remember retrofitting can be done while moving if a repair component is present in your sector.
22. Capturing enemy planets and ships can yield free technologies. If you can capture them you can save a lot of research time.
23. If you have the time and research points available, research Applied Intelligence before you meet another race and build some Intelligence facilities. If you meet an unfriendly race you can immediately begin offensive intelligence operations or protect yourself from their operations. 
24. The AI generally does not use Intelligence operations well; in fact it stinks at it. I consider it unfair to use offensive intelligence operations against the AI but against humans it is a different story. Human opponents will almost certainly use offensive intelligence operations against you, who can resist. You can gain planets, ships, technology and resources with it. You can also lose the same things. Try to keep some counter intelligence operations going at all times and use the offensive operation against races that you expect to fight soon.    


>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 18 August 2001 18:01
[Ed: Start of thread on the "Batural Merchant" racial ability]
   What's so good about this racial tech?  Both of my allies chose it.  It saves you a space port per system, but at the expense of 1000 racial points??
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 18 August 2001 18:22
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
   You are misunderstanding. It does not save you ONE facility slot per system. That's an insignifigant side-effect. It saves you the loss of resource/research/intel points of ENTIRE SYSTEMS when someone attacks the one planet that has the space port. In fact, it might be possible to cut off an entire system's resouces by merely blockading the planet with the space port. I haven't checked that yet. So many things to test...   Anyway, if you don't need space ports, that means your empire cannot be nearly so easily dismantled by resource denial. Land a colony ship in a remote system and you can start building resource extraction immediately. Your logistics are guaranteed. A 'normal' player on the other hand can suffer huge losses due to the destruction of a single planet, or even due to one clever attack with a "Smart Bomb" for that matter.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 18 August 2001 18:25
   In addition to what Baron said, it means that if someone conquers your system they can't get anything out of it until they scrap something and build a space port. It allows you to hide mineral-mining on remote moons, even tiny ones with once facility slot.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Corporal
posted 18 August 2001 20:37
   The value also depends on the type of game. I'm playing in a game where you can only colonize planets of the same type and atmosphere as your home planet (methane ice in my case). That means 1 or 2 planets per system. So Natural Merchant might mean one more facility per planet.
   There is also the benefit of getting cash flow earlier. If a space port takes 3 turns to build then Natural Merchant means that every production facility on the planet is done 3 turns earlier and yields 3 turns more stuff.
   That said I've taken Natural Merchant twice and probably wouldn't take it again.
<<
>>
Kimball
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 August 2001 21:32
   I really don't think Natural Merchants is that important.  Without a space yard facility, you can build a space port in three turns.  The 1000 racial points can be put to better use someplace else.  1000 points goes a long way and can more that offset the inconvenience of having to build a space port if one get destroyed.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 18 August 2001 21:37
   Inconvience won't be the word you use if someone smart-bombs the only Space Port in your most important production system
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 19 August 2001 05:37
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
   That's why those of us with Advanced Storage Techniques sometimes build more than one spaceport in a system.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 19 August 2001 05:46
   In my opinion you got to really screw up big to get your most important production system's space port smart-bombed or blockaged. If that happens your opponent probably is so ahead of you that you have no chance anyway, with or without the space port!
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 19 August 2001 15:59
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
   "Only takes one shot, similar to plague bombs. Forgot to build a sensor platform or two, he sneaks in a ship and.. boom."

   Yeah, the smart bombs actually make the planetary intelligence operations valuable. Once you know where your enemies' space ports are you can deprive them of entire systems worth of production. I wonder if the AI would know how to use a smart bomb equipped ship?
<<


* MUST HAVE TECHNOLOGIES:
1. With the standard game set up the most important technologies are, in my opinion, the 2 colonization technologies you don't start with. Acquiring one or both of these early in the game can decisively shift the game in your favor. If you can get one of them by trade, theft or other means you will save a lot of research time and cost. Timing the research of these technologies is a tough call. Researching them early in the game can leave you vulnerable to attack by a race with superior weapons technology. Researching them too late will leave you playing catch up.
2. Atmosphere converters, acquired by researching the Planet Utilization technology tree, is extremely valuable but expensive to research. They are expensive and time consuming to build. They take a long time to work. The benefits are great however. You can expand the size of your empire dramatically without colonizing additional planets. You should eventually plan on building these on your planets.
3. Sensors are a must. Without some sort of sensor the enemy can send cloaked ships into your systems and launch surprise attacks. Without sensors you will be completely vulnerable to anyone using cloaking. The good thing is you only need to research one type of sensor. The bad thing is sensor research is expensive. 
4. A direct fire weapon. While you can fight with just seekers, missiles and fighters they are easily countered with point defense. You must be able to pound the enemy when the time comes.


* COMBAT TIPS:
   All these tips are based on games against the AI and a few friends in hotseat mode. As with any good strategy game, there are many ways to win and no guaranteed winning strategies, so don't blame me if your opponent has already come up with a counter for every one of these tips :). 
I have absolutely no experience with strategic combat. I always fight in tactical mode so many of these items may be of no value if you use strategic combat. Sorry.
1. Speed is good. The faster your ships are the more likely they are to survive a bad situation. You may not be able to hide but you sure can run. Always use the most advanced engine available on your warships. Add solar sails if you have researched them.
2. Weapon range is even better. If you out range you opponent don't close with them. Advance toward the enemy then gradually retreat while firing at long range. You may take out critical components before the enemy can use them.
3. Concentrate your fire on a single target until it is destroyed, weaponless or immobile. 
4. Keep your point defense weapons concentrated. Missiles, seekers and fighters rely on overwhelming the defenses to be effective. Concentrated point defense can take out hundreds of these units in a single combat.
5. Small ships have their uses. Build escorts with 1 or 2 point defense weapons, missile launchers or explosive warheads. Use them as screens for your main battle fleet or as suicide ships. Most of the time the small ships are not targeted if larger vessels are present. Destroyers and light cruisers make excellent point defense ships. A light cruiser can hold up to 15 point defense weapons. A few of these in your fleet will make you immune to most missile and fighter attacks. Be creative and unpredictable in your designs.
6. Large ships are better. Put 4 or 5 level 5 shields and some armor on a large ship and you can stand up to almost anyone. Large ships can also use enhanced weapon mounts. It is almost always beneficial to use the largest weapon mount available as the damage to size ratio increase is favorable.
7. Know who is coming to visit you. Post a small ship or satellite on the warp point in the systems next to yours. They can see if an invasion fleet is coming towards you. Equip these vessels with the best sensors you have so cloaked ships don't slip by you. Remember that certain Nebulae systems prevent even the highest sensor from spotting ships.
8. You must have a combined arms fleet. Support ships are a must. Each battle fleet must be re-supplied, repaired and upgraded. Having a support fleet nearby will allow you to accomplish this without having to return to a base. Minesweepers are a must. You should have enough minesweeper components to sweep 100 mines. Large mine warheads can take out almost any ship. Running your fleet into a large minefield can result in the loss of the entire fleet.
9. Destroy the enemy support ships. Sometimes the loss of a key support ship can stop an invasion cold. If you use mines for defense, take out the enemy minesweepers. If you can destroy the repair ships then the enemy fleet will remain damaged while you bring reinforcements up to destroy it.

Some other pertinent observations:
>>
Nitram Draw
Captain
posted 17 April 2001 18:03
   Try asking for their surrender. If your are far ahead of their score they will probably accept.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 17 April 2001 19:40
   Research Stellar Manipulation and blow up their planets/suns/etc.  Not very sportsmanlike, but quite effective.  Of course, it's also pretty expensive research.
   The other main point is to take the war to THEIR systems.  You mentioned that you beat them whenever they enter your systems; why aren't you invading their territory and either glassing the planets or taking them whole with ground troops?
<<
>>
dmm
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 April 2001 19:49
   Yeah, take it to them.
   If you're not way ahead of them, they won't surrender.  But they might give some planets and/or ships to you if you demand it.  Do this enough times and they'll be way behind, and ripe for surrender.  But that takes some time, because each demand takes one turn to make and another turn to accept.  (And that's assuming they don't just tell you to go soak your head.)
   But I think it is always worth your time to obtain a surrender.  At least get their homeworld.  Glassing them is a waste.
<<
>>
Menschenfresser
Private First Class
posted 17 April 2001 20:36
   Here's my favorite:
   I believe crew insurrection is 50,000 points. I like to turn this on for what ever empire I am up against, put it on repeat, and just snag as many ships turn after turn. In my present game I have 170,000 intel points so I can have two crew insurrections per turn and still run some counter intel.
   Even large empires can't replace them fast enough. Use the ships you steal to cause as much damage before the enemy catches up to them. Most of the ones I end up with are in orbit. They rarely last more than a couple turns. I am presently doing this against a much larger empire than myself...it really drains them.
   War of attrition. It may not be faster, but half the fun is routing your opponents in a creative manner.
<<
>>
Str8_Gain
Private First Class
posted 17 April 2001 21:42
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Even more fun is when you're a Psychic race going against another Psychic race, and you use Crew Insurrection and Alliegance Subverters.  Last night, I engaged in Tactical Combat with the Cue Cappa.  It was 4 of my ships (3 equipped with AS III) versus nine of his.  I Subverted one, then had that ship subvert the ship next to it, and that one did the same to the one next to it, etc.  Sweet chain reaction, and it bolstered my forces considerably.
   Crew Insurrection is really cool when you take their front-line shiny new battleship away from them and glass a few core worlds with it.
<<
>>
chewy027
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 April 2001 18:33
...
   A strategy I like to use is to close all of the warp points going into the target system. Then when I'm done conquering all of those planets I open the warp back up into the next system and then close all the warps in that system etc. This way you effectively attack one part of an empire at a time and can use your whole fleet against a small percentage of theirs. Just research stellar manipulation a couple of times to get warp open and close components
<<
>>
Menschenfresser
Private First Class
posted 18 April 2001 19:33
[Ed: reply ot previous]
   Used that one as well, Chewy, but to keep those stellar manips running around between your systems to have their parts fixed and the enemies sucks up a lot of resources, and it's also too costly to mothball them every few turns. Time I tried this, my fleet took out the entire system of say 8 planets in 3 turns.
   I like it, but beware of the resource drain...after a few turns I started to panic.
<<
>>
mac5732
Corporal
posted 18 April 2001 19:43
   Another way is to set up defense of your worm holes with small BS (Base Ships) and groups of fighters.  This frees up your fleets to invade his systems. I found 3-4 small BS with 50-100 fighters in support are able to defend your system at the worm hole, then your fleets are free to invade.
<<
>>
dmm
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 April 2001 22:11
   Put minelayer comp on attack ships.  Then take a few of them into a war zone and lay mines.  Sit there looking like an easy target.  Works with colonizers too.
<<
>>
Rigelian Genocidal Maniac
Private First Class
posted 19 April 2001 22:25
[Ed: reply to previous]
   The good thing about this one is that it works against humans too... and it's 10 times more satisfying than doing it to an AI.  Cloaked minesweepers can wreak havoc if you can get them into an enemies rear systems.  Mine a couple of WPs and watch his colony ships and transports run into them...
<<
>>
rdouglass
Second Lieutenant
posted 20 April 2001 13:31
   It has been said earlier in the post, but I will post as well.
   One of my favorite AI killers is to Intel 'Crew Insurrection' to 'Any Ship'.  Then, as I get HIS attack ships behind enemy lines and deep in his territory, I attack anything I can reach with his ships and keep attacking stuff (planets, ships, etc) 'till the ship gets blasted, runs out of supplies, etc.  It seems to keep the AI scrambling - sending fleets back deep into AI territory to protect the homeworlds...hence away from my territory.  It seems to cripple the AI - it doesn't know how to deal with it effectively.
   There is something quite satisfying about nailing 'em with their own guns....
<<
>>
Lord Kodos
Private First Class
posted 21 April 2001 02:26
   BAH I defeated 3 empires at once WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT! I used Puppet Political Parties and Crew Insurrection while we were allies!!!! Twisted yes but my empire has godlike cunnning so they never knew what it was! Hah truely that was a good game.
<<
>>
jowe01
Corporal
posted 22 March 2001 06:53
   How is the number of combat movement points calculated ? I have been studying that for a while, but so far, trying to combine number of engines (round up or down ?), engine bonus and race bonus has not led to clear results.
<<
>>
Drake
Second Lieutenant
posted 22 March 2001 07:46
[Ed: reply to previous]
   half movement speed, rounded up.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 30 May 2001 21:03
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   I searched around for strategies to use as an Organic player to beat a Crystallurgy player but I couldn't find any.  I'm getting my ass kicked royally in a pbem game by a Crystallurgy player. It's damn annoying to see my nice big expensive Dreadnoughts being pulverized by smaller number of Battleships and I need to know how to build Organic ships that can beat Crystal ships. Any ideas?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 30 May 2001 21:13
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Well, if the enemy is relying heavily on those armor-piercing shard cannons, ditch the organic armor.
   Instead, you can layer on the shield generators, and use your organic seeker spores to stay outta range of shard cannon while overloading their PDCs with seekers every other turn.
   If the enemy in using the AP shard missiles, shields & PDC will hold them off, since shard missiles are have horribly low damage ratings.
   Against the HEM deathbeams, you can't use armor (see Shard cannon), so you'll just have to stay outta range and hit em with your missiles.
   Basically, use your organic missile weapons and shields to the max, adding PDCs to fit.
   If you force a long-range missile battle, you'll win since your seekers do twice the damage of the crystalline seekers.
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 30 May 2001 21:14
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Build a class of ships that uses shields instead of organic armor.  Your organic weapons typically pack more punch than his crystaline weapons, and shields will give you protection where armor won't.
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 30 May 2001 21:20
[Ed: reply in thread]
   What SJ and AK said, plus fighters with small acid globule's are pretty tough. That's about the best anti-ship fighter weapon in my mind. Plus you can crank them out fast because they are more balanced resource wise. Not all minerals like DUC fighters.
   Organic's best asset is production. You are not going to design a super-ship to take him on one-on-one. But you ought to be able to out-produce and out-build him. If you have him outnumbered 5 to 1 in every battle, you are going to win more than you lose.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 30 May 2001 23:19
[Ed: reply in thread]
   It's dangerous to assume that a 'special' advantage you have chosen will be the key to winning the game. History is littered with ruined military forces who thought they had a "special angle" that would carry them to victory in all situations. The only real 'trick' that the Crystalline tech tree gives against Organic tech is armor-ignoring weapons. Since your regenerating armor is effectively neutralized, just approach the problem as if you were a "normal" tech player -- as you should approach ALL problems, btw.
   You, and everyone, would face the extra problem of destroying a ship equipped with crystalline armor, of course. But the solution to the armor-ignoring is roughly the same as the solution to the crystalline armor problem. You need to either attack from extreme range so they cannot shoot at you in the first place (missile strategy as suggested by others here) or you need to move very fast to avoid being hit -- 'dance' in and out of range. Also, you want to hit with few attacks and as high a damage as possible for each attack because this reduces the amount of shield regeneration they will gain from the hits. This is easy with missiles. They do lots of damage per hit. If your enemy has lots of PDC then if you didn't have the Acid Globule or Env. Acid Globule I'd say research torpedoes quick, or a special weapon that also skips armor like the Null Space Weapon... it has less range though and makes the "hit and run" strategy harder to use. Ships equipped with as many of the largest mount Acid Globule they can carry and max engines plus at least some shields will give the crystalline ships a lot of trouble if they are given a "max weapons range" strategy.
   As in all games, ECM and Combat Sensors are very important. If your enemy has the same or better level in these than you do, you are in trouble no matter what. Make sure to use Ship and Fleet training facilities, also. It effectively adds a number of turns to 'construction' of your military forces but the advantage can be very important.
   Something I have never been able to do with strategic combat is get missile ships to use their "missile dance" independently of beam ships maneuvers. If you could send in two seperate fleets, one full of beam ships and the other full of torpedo ships, the coordinated attack of these two forces could be very difficult to deal with. Unfortunately, the two fleets tend to get in each other's way. This can be very powerful in tactical combat though.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 31 May 2001 13:01
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I've had pretty good luck with the standard weapons against all racial techs using the (well mentioned in these posts) Phased Polaron Beams and the (not so well metioned) Null Space weapons.  They seem to do especially well against both Organic and Crystalline 'cause NS weapons skip both armor and shields.  The downfall is you have a slow reload time (3) and a relatively short range (5 IIRC) so you'd better have decent engine tech to get you in and outa' there.  But, once you get a shot in, the damage to vital components (weapons, engines, etc.) racks up quite quickly and can shift the tide in your direction.
   Another downfall is ships I've equipped with NS weapons don't seem to do well at all in strategic combat.  But in tactical (with my favorite component - the Talisman), I have taken out 4 dreadnaughts with 1 LC using just NS weapons and standard mounts!!!
   Of course, the PPB's do well 'cause of their quick reload, decent range, and of course, shield skipping for non-phased shields (for early game advantages).
   ...and to Baron:
   quote:
   "If you could send in two seperate fleets, one full of beam ships and the other full of torpedo ships, the coordinated attack of these two forces could be very difficult to deal with..."

   I too would like to do this.  I have made a suggestion before (and other posters have as well) about a 'Battle Group' feature - being able to combine more than 1 fleet into a group.  Give each fleet different combat orders, yet move them as fleets work now.  That way you could have for instance, a group of missle ships working as a fleet doung their 'dance' and direct fire ships flanking to close off their escape and at the same time, fighter groups from a mini-fleet of carriers closing in close to overwhelm any PDC's and mop up the straglers...
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 31 May 2001 16:54
[Ed: reply in thread]
   The Null Space weapon is great as either an 'ambush' weapon -- put it on satellites guarding a warp point for example -- or as a siege weapon where you have to go in and attack some incredibly huge and well defended base/planet. You can start doing damage immediately instead of having to break through all the shields/armor. But in standard combat where you have to close with another moving ship to fire and then get away the slow fire rate can be a problem. Note: The PPB penetrates planetary shields. They are 'normal' shields. So, this can be a very useful planet attack weapon, too.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 01 June 2001 12:09
[Ed: reply in thread]
   All good ideas, thanks guys. There's only one little problem. My enemy uses a mixed fleet with one type of ship armed with PPB's and another type armed with Shard Cannons. I can design a counter for each of those designs that whip them good, but then that design is a complete sitting duck for the other enemy design. If I try to design a ship that can stand up to both of them it gets clobbered by both of them. And since there is no way to control which ships engage which enemy ships in strategic combat (pbem game) building two designs that can beat one of his but is mauled by the other doesn't seem very appealing.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 14:15
[Ed: reply in thread]
   quote:
   "one type of ship armed with PPB's and another type armed with Shard Cannons"

   Then just go for missile ships, and hammer him from range 20 with your seeker spores.  Stay out of range of his weapons, and load up on missiles rather than defenses.
   Blow them away before he gets in range.
   As a long-term goal, get those phased shields, and you'll be able to get in close to use your beam weapons again.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 01 June 2001 14:43
[Ed: reply in thread]
   His ships are packed so full of PDC's missiles would be no good. Like throwing snowballs into hell, they'll just melt away.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
First Lieutenant
posted 01 June 2001 15:21
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Make some big ships with shields, shield regenerators and armor only. If you can get phased shields you will have it made. You can put a lot of shields and armor on a BB. Make smaller ships with your weapons.
The computer usually targets the largest ships first. Let the enemy fleet pound at your "target" ships while you fire back in relative freedom.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 16:10
[Ed: reply in thread]
   That's very intresting. He has both armor skipping and shield skipping weapons. Here we have an example of a problem caused by too many 'special' abilities being too easy to acquire.   Maybe you need to visit the other thread talking about how races with special abilities need to have a disadvantage when researching other 'standard' technologies?
   But setting aside the game design implications, this sounds like a situation where you need to radically change tactics. There are other considerations than special weapon abilities at the strategic level. Are mines available in this game? Especially when placed at warp points they can be very effective. Might be a good idea to spend some research on those. I'd suggest a switch to fighter tactics, but if he's got enough PDC to make missile attacks useless he'll be quite devastating against fighters, too. Do you have stealth armor or cloaking yet? Build some cloaked ships and try to slip into his systems and raid his colonies, damaging his economic base. Think "submarine warfare" for guidelines on how to design cloaked task forces. He can't build these killer ships if he doesn't have the resources to pay for them. On the defense front, you've got to stop letting him dictate the time and place of battle. You've got to think and use old fashioned strategy to out-maneuver him. Concentration of forces can make a technologically inferior enemy superior locally. Find his fleets with your cloaked ships before they can reach your borders and drop mines in their path. Find his ships before they mass into fleets and destroy them piecemeal.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 18:07
[Ed: reply in thread]
   You really need to get phased shields.  Once you get phased shields, you won't be slaughtered.
You could try to design a ramming ship in the meantime...
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 02 June 2001 04:16
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Fighters are awesome in certain circumstances, but up against a fleet of 40+ heavily shielded ships with lots of PDC, they will get pounded. Of course you don't need me to tell you that.
   No tactic or tech is going to be right in every situation. It's basically a great big game of rock/paper/scissors.
   I agree with SJ you need to close the gap in shield technology. Perhaps you should play a defensive battle for a time. Mine the crap out of your planets. Make him pay for every inch of ground, but keep the bulk of your ships out of harms way. Small fleets roaming around picking of straglers.
   Get some ships in his rear either by stealth or outflanking. Then go after his smaller less defended colonies. Make him spend ships defending his colonies and going after your raiders and that's less he can send after you. Don't try attacking his big colonies. They will be too heavily defended, and will tend to have ships in orbit as well.
   Wiping out a couple of small colonies in a system can have a devestating effect. The remaining colonies will start to get angry which causes him to lose production. This way you can eliminate the larger colonies without actually attacking them, which would be futile.
   I agree that allowing him to set the time and place for battle is getting you nowhere. Make him react to you for a while. That will take some pressure off and allow you to build up your fleets.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 02 June 2001 04:58
[Ed: reply in thread]
   There is always the diplomacy option, if you have contact with any other empires. Is there anyone you could form an alliance with? A 'second front' can sure be helpful in a war with a superior foe. Trading technologies effectively doubles up both of your research abilities.
   As far as other research areas, have you got an bio-weapons? Especially if this is something you don't usually use, it could be a surprise and he might not have medical technology. All you need to do is get ONE hit on a planet, too. Not destroy it. If you can get at least level 3 plague bombs and catch him flat footed, you could do a LOT of damage.
<<
>>
Saxon
Private First Class
posted 12 June 2001 16:30
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   The idea of not having to pay upkeep for my ships is very attractive.  The problem is that I can not figure out how to get the figure to zero.
   I took the 25% maintenance bonus, then jacked up the maintenance trait up to 150%, but I still pay, at least a bit.  Can someone fill me in on the little detail I am missing?
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 12 June 2001 16:46
   The most you can reduce your maintenance characteristic in an unmodded game is by 20%, down to 5% maintenance. The last 5% must be done by choosing the Engineer culture, as pointed out.
You reduce maintenance by increasing your maintenance toward 120%. Weird huh go up to go down!
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 12 June 2001 18:11
   It's the merchants culture with 5%, engineers just have 2% *sigh* . I sometimes mod the cultures if I don't trade (e.g. with bloodthirsties)
<<


* OPINION
  Everyone has opinions about the game. Here are a few of mine.
1. The Characteristics I find most useful are, in no particular order, Intelligence, Construction and Maintenance. The ones I find least useful are Ground Combat and Environmental Resistance.
2. The Advanced Characteristics I find most useful are, again in no particular order, Propulsion Expert, Advance Storage Techniques and Hardy Industrialists. The ones I haven't found as useful are Mechanoids, Ancient Race and Emotionless.
3. The Special Racial Trait I like the best is Organic with Crystal second and Temporal last. I have not tried the others enough to comment on them.
4. The one thing I have always wanted to do but never found the time to is build a sphereworld and give it to a neutral, just to see what happens.
5. The coolest looking standard Race picture is the Fazrah.
6. The Race with the most difficult ship set to see on the screen is the Abbidon; they can almost always slip an escort by me.
7. The toughest computer opponent I have faced is the Rage by Alpha Kodiak, great job!
8. The most powerful ship I ever built was a cloaked planet destroyer with a quantum reactor and a repair bay. Boom, boom, boom where did my empire go he asked?
9. My most embarrassing moment was after 5 turns of careful combat I had finally reduced the population of a planet so I could invade it. Of course when I went to land the troops I realized they back resting on the last planet they captured.
10. My pet peeve about the game is it doesn't remember where it was on a list. I hate having to keep scrolling down a list.
11. The best thing about SE4. Just about everything. After more than 25 years of playing board and computer games I may have purchased my last game, it's that good. My wallet and I thank you MM!
<<
>>
James Sterrett
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 20:35
   First thing you should build is a space Yard - a starbase that has the minimum required parts plus one Space construction Yard.
   Now you have two ship construction facilities, though the one on your planet is faster.
   Design a dedicated recon ship - smallest size, no weapons or armor, three
supply crates; this is a cheapo ship to run and explore the map.
   Design a colony ship; be sure to add an extra cargo crate to it so you can haul more colonists.
   Design a missile boat: pack a CSM (Capital Ship missile) launcher onto an otherwise unremarkable small ship.  Used correctly, this ship can demolish opponents in the early game (run away and pepper the enemy with missiles).
   I tend to play in large galaxies, so I have time to expand before I'm in contact, so I build colony ships like mad, along with a few recce ships and missile boats.
   Research Construction, then Mines.  Build a mine/sat layer ship:  a cargo vessel with one mine layer and one sat layer.  Now you can mine your planets and warp points!  Large warheads (warhead tech 3) is a cheaper path to better mines than doing the mine research to get bigger mines.
   Crank your CSM tech to 2 or 3 to make your missile boats good.  For some reason, CSM 1 missiles don't seem to kill planetary weapons platforms, but CSM 2+ ones do.
   Then work on the Military Science, Chem, Physics, and Psych trees to get:
   - Point Defence
   - Armor
   - Resource conversion
   - Applied Poli Sci (for pacification centers)
   - Shields
   - Phased Polaron Beams
   Also crank up your ship tech for bigger hulls.
   Alongside this, do Applied Research, then Applied Intelligence; alternate
between [them;] these are long-term projects.
   Expand like a rabbit; build mines to protect your worlds and systems.
<<
>>
dmm
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 April 2001 21:52
...
My 2 cents:
1) Learn the game on turn-based, with low tech and low research cost and no AI bonus, and use tactical combat.  It's easier.
1a)Also, make your race friendly and peaceful.  The AI will be more accomodating, and it turns out that peaceful races don't mind battles much, as long as you win.
2) Don't make treaties with anyone stronger than you.  They'll abuse you -- colonize planets in your home system, etc.
3) Unless they're a LOT stronger than you, in which case you should grovel to play for time.
4) When learning the game, use emergency build to your advantage.  Once you get good, you can eschew this sleazy tactic.
5) As in all wars (game, real, economic, political, social, or otherwise): Concentrate your fire power.  Try to fight battles with the odds highly in your favor.  Let the enemy destroy himself against your fixed defenses before engaging him in open battle.
6) Colonize larger worlds and breathable worlds preferentially, but don't spread yourself too thin in doing so.  Don't go more than one system away at first.  In the early game, junky worlds in your home system are more useful than paradises 5 turns away.  (The 5 turns you spent moving a colony ship to Eden would have been enough time to build a shipyard on nearby Inferno Moon.)
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Captain
posted 18 April 2001 22:27
   Grab a second tech levels in missiles, then get point defence (under military science).
   Now you can go for beam weapons.  I suggest DepletedUraniumCannons (cheap & effective), and later, Phased Polaron Beams (under physics 2)(expensive, but very powerful, & penetrates normal shields)
   Point defence is very important, since missiles are so popular early on.  PPBs are probably the #2 most efficient weapon in the game.
   For race design, I suggest taking +20 or +25  defensiveness.  If the enemy can't hit you, you don't get hurt.  With Point Defence, they can't hit you with missiles OR beams .
If you do take god-like defenciveness, use Shield regenerators when you get to S.R. 3 or 4.  Beware the SR5, since it is NOT as good as the SR4 in the standard datafiles .
   With shield regenerators, & the elite racial dodging ability, any shield hits you do take will heal up before they enemy can hurt you again .
<<
>>
Trachmyr
Sergeant
posted 18 April 2001 22:33
   As far as Tech goes, I would suggest spend your initial "bounus" (which you should set to high) points on chemistry and military science (as well as level 1 in planetary weapons), immediatly research armor and point-defense weapons.  Try to get lvl. 3 in point-defese, planetary weapons, armor and level 2 in missiles...  also level 2 or 3 in ship construction.  The first empire you meet, I would suggest going to war with as soon as you have signifigant forces in their system(s) (especially if they live on a diff. type of planet or breathe a diffrent atmosphere)...   Blast all of their small planets to ashes with missiles/planetary napalm (use point-defense guns to shoot incoming missiles and satelittes).  Attack their homeworld in tactical but DON'T engage unless your sure you'll win! (just hit next turn over and over).  You're now blockading them, demand their surrender (if they don't surrender you might have to hunt down some of their ships or take out sats in orbit of their homeworld)....  Once they surrender you;ll have a huge pop. to play with (hopfully one that breathes a diff. atmosphere), and a bunch of tech. (maybe colonization tech!).
   Try to do this in the first 50-100 turns.
<<
>>
raynor
Major
posted 18 April 2001 23:08
   Start a game on a large map so you'll have some expansion room before you encounter the first AI. Then try these:
1. Expand as quickly as possible. Because colony ships are so cheap, I use them instead of warships as scouts. You want to colonize everything in sight. You should always have at least one colony ship under construction and another one in space headed someplace.
2. If you encounter a system with an AI colony in it, don't put a colony there, and don't send your ships through this system. Pretend the warp point leading into that system is a brick wall.
3. Make treaties with everyone you meet but don't let them have a Military Alliance unless you don't mind them colonizing planets inside your system.
4. Research Construction, Mines, Warhead I-III.
5. Put a mine field at every warp point leading into your system.
   At any level of difficulty, mines are absolutely deadly to the AI. After encountering a mine field for the first time, the human player hopefully would be smart enough to sweep it before sending any ships through. But the AI isn't coded to do that.
   For the ultimate in protection, you can research Astro Physics and then Stellar Manipulation until you can build the component on your ships that closes wormholes. Unless the game lasts really, really long, the AI isn't going to open a wormhole into system where you've closed off the wormhole.
<<
>>
Str8_Gain
Private First Class
posted 18 April 2001 23:54
   With regards to colonization techs, one thing neutrals are good for is trading colonization techs with.  If I start with gas, and the neutral I find has rock or ice, I'll offer a trade of colonization techs plus a treaty like Trade Alliance to sweeten the deal.  You get a new trade partner, new colonization tech, and you don't have to worry about neutrals becoming expansionist using the tech you just gave them.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 19 April 2001 16:04
   Especially in a large galaxy, it can be a good idea to build a couple of long-range scouts (unarmed, tiny hull with extra supply storage).  Cheap, and ISTR that you can achieve roughly twice the range of a colony ship -- which is good, because the colony ship doesn't need to make a return trip.  If you have neighbors, you want to know pretty quickly... and if you don't, that's useful information as well.
   Oh, and unlike what the manual sez, I'd suggest building some intelligence centers *before* you meet somebody so you can get counter-intel up and running ASAP.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 19 April 2001 16:43
   If you are having trouble surviving a standard start game try setting the starting planets to good and number to 3. This will give you a higher base to start from.
<<
>>
mac5732
Corporal
posted 19 April 2001 18:59
   In very beginning, research Mines. Even 10 mines over your worlds will destroy AI, also put some on your worm-holes. Missles to level 2, level 3 is preferable & Point Defense. Then your beam weapon Tech. When you get to level 2 or 3 in missles, put 1-2 small Weapons Platforms on your planets. Upgrade them as you go.  I also like to build extra storage facilities on poor or mediocore planets as in the beginning you will produce more resources then you need.  This saves them for a rainy day, however some players don't.  Matter of preference. Expand as rapidly as possible but don't over extend. Also your research will depend on what traits you have. I.E. organic race - organic tech, etc. With the AI go for trade, then trade and Research treaties. This gives you extra income & research points. Send general message and a gift to AI to sweeten them up for treaties. I usually give them 1000 resources. Up to you.
   In beginning of the game I set Number of units over 5000. Your mines, fighters, & other units count towards this and 1-2000 just isn't enough. I also use lots of fighters, cheaper and can be effective on defense. Glaze enemy planets when found or show  up in your system if at war. Don't colonize system that has AI colonies, at least not in the beginning.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 12 June 2001 02:52
[Ed: start of new thread]
  Anyone figured out exactly what effect it [Environmental Resistance] has yet?
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 12 June 2001 03:17
   Basically it modifies Planetary Conditions.  IE, if you had a high enough Environmental Resistance, a world shown as Deadly would be Optimal or Good for you.  Thus a 150% Env.Resist. + 9% Reproduction race are a lot like rabbits.
<<
>>
Droplede
Private First Class
posted 12 June 2001 03:20
   Yup. Drake did a test a while back and posted his results in a thread titled "General question" that started on March 13.  Since then, I've tried it out and successfully duplicated his results. Here's the complete text of Drake's post:
   From previous testing I've done, Env. Resist. has only shown to have an effect on growth rate, independant of anything else.
   Every 5 points in it raises growth by 1%. I tested this for Unpleasant and up, so if someone wants to double check this for worse conditions, be my guest.
   Unfortunately, this appears to be a case where it'd make sense for it to affect how well your population handled poor conditions, people assumed that's what it did, and the misinformation spread...
   FYI, I basically had several growth tables laid out with the percentage increase charted for variations in condition, Env. Resist. values, and reproduction values. In every case across the board, the 5% to 1% ratio held true. The border is between 0/1 and 5/6, so you can reduce your starting % to 96% with no ill effect. I'd suggest making it 81% and using the points in reproduction to compensate - it's cheaper until you hit the breakpoint for repro.
<<


* Basic Strategy

>>
evader
Private First Class
posted 15 May 2001 00:47
   What is everyones basic stratagy?
   I'll start to give you and idea for answers
   I don't destroy my opponents things, I take things of his that I want.
<<
>>
jimbob55
Corporal
posted 15 May 2001 01:01
   To start with i make friends with everyone who'll accept a treaty.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
First Lieutenant
posted 15 May 2001 01:08
   Depends on who I'm playing.
   Against the AI it's no treaties, research until I have shields V, a Beam Weapon V, LC and PD V. Then I try to take them on one at a time.
   Against Humans I try to get as many treaties as possible and get the AI at war with my opponents through bribes, threats, begging, whatever. Them I take on the weakened Human.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 15 May 2001 04:56
   Against AI:
   Kill all stray ships, keep WP patrols of fighters to pick off the occaisonal stupid fleet, capture planets with troops, then use the captured planets to build more ships and troops (general rule: save the fortified planets for last, in homeworld system, take nearest AI homeworld and fortify, split fleet and take another homeworld, protect each before moving on).
   Against Human:
   Mine warps to home system like crazy, get a big @$$ fleet and destroy as much as possible, and hope the other guy is not the first one to build a WP opener with a big @$$ fleet to go with it.
   That basic enough?
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 15 May 2001 15:00
   In my fairly long solo games in huge universes, my empire usually goes through several phases.  In the last game, these included --
1 - Colonization of original system.  Limited exploration of nearby systems. Research is mostly basic stuff like better ship hulls.
2 - Once mineral income is assured, rapid   expansion. Research may go towards better research.  I mostly limited colonization to breathables with the major exception of ruins.
3 - Preparations for large-scale defense.   Fighters are stockpiled, mines produced and deployed at warp points and critical  planets.  Intelligence facilities hopefully start going online.  Research now includes a strong mid-game military emphasis.
4 - Preparations for offensive war.  The   first warships of significance are  launched.  These may be range-limited if solar cells haven't been researched yet.
5 - Preemptive strikes on neighbors.  Hey,  they're going to call me Mega-Evil soon and declare war anyway -- I should remember to raise the 500k threshold sometime.   Might as well give them something to talk   about.  Objective is merely to push them back far enough to establish buffer zones, and in the process to gather information about what assets they have.  Unusually weak neighbors  may be annihilated during this phase.  By now, I'm may be colonizing non-breathables simply because remaining known breathables are too far.
6 - Once buffer zone is established, massive efficiency drive begins.  Component one is researching resource manipulation and construction of a Resource Converter III on the homeworld.  Component two is researching Stellar Manipulation III for the Monoliths.  Component three is researching the entire Computer tech area.  Component four is researching the entire Planet Utilization area.  Component five is researching Applied Psychology for the Urban Pacs.  War is still primarily defensive; anything near my borders must be neutralized, but there's no need for conquest yet.
7 - (a LONG phase)  Every system with enough space gets an Urban Pac and all three System Computers.  Every colony gets an atmosphere converter if it needs one, pref. also one climate facility and one or two value improvement plants.  All m/o/r facilities are replaced with monoliths.  A clipboard becomes necessary to track which systems have undergone conversions/additions.
   This phase tends to overlap with the next few due to sheer length.
8 - Once production is going well, research turns to high-tech warfare.  Engines, shields, PPBs, sensors, cloaking, quantum reactors, all the fun toys that haven't been researched or stolen yet, are now.
9 - Late-game ships are launched.  They can be hideously expensive because the Monolith IIIs and RCs give me an obscene production base.  They may also be trained to +20% with good probability.   Minesweepers become extremely important as remaining AIs have probably put up significant defenses, and these ships ARE hideously expensive...
10 - War turns completely offensive.  "If they won't join you, beat them."  Massacres on the scale of billions ensues time after time.  AIs eventually surrender.
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 15 May 2001 15:07
   Everyone has a different strategy based on what they like. In beginning against AI, I like to get all the research & trade treaties as possible, This increases yours as well and boosts your income and research capabilities. I build colony ships and colonize as many planets within range as possible and research mines in beginning and use them as defense over my planets and wormholes, later I supplement them with ftrs.
   Research up to effective weapons, in beginning - missles, later on good beam weapons, armor & shields. You can use large groups of ftrs to protect your systems and send out attack fleets to capture or pulverize your neighbors.  Remember, in this game you expand or die. Against Human, like prior mentnioned, mine your planets and wormholes & build good ships & ftrs.
Depends on what you want to do in beginning, be defensive or offensive at first.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Second Lieutenant
posted 15 May 2001 20:29
   My strategy: CAPTURE!!
   Seriously though, until the enemy gets self-destruct devices a good ship with a few boarding troop components will rock.  Capture colonizers, get all the colony tech without research.  Same as the non-racial tech.  Just blast down the shields, don't destroy too much in the inside of the ship and take it over.
   Note1: your shields will drop when boarding an enemy.
   Note2: Crew quarters will have a base defense vs. boarding troops (don't know the right number) 
   Strategy 2:  Mine everything in sight, esp wormholes/homeworlds/planets.  Enemy will use up alot of ships to get to u (watch out for the Rage though, they sweep alot!)
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 16 May 2001 22:27
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by Deathstalker:
   "Note2: Crew quarters will have a base defense vs. boarding troops (don't know the right number)"
   16 per Crew Quarters.  BP I is 20, so as a general rule, have one level of boarding party for every crew quarter on the target ship.  If there is a SSD or Security Station, either kill those then board, or just kill the whole ship (or, if you're really desperate, build several ES/FG with BP I and shield depleters.  AI ships will target your bigger ships first, you just concentrate on taking out the shields, then board with the small ships, and BOOM!)
<<
>>
GruelThePurple
Private First Class
posted 15 May 2001 20:39
   While I try to use the basic strategy of Explore, Expand & Conquor, Stabilize & Defend, repeat; things normally work a little differently.
   I explore as much as possible, while trying to strike up Partnerships with Neutrals (extends your range a heck of a lot, gives you a staging area and resources, as well as a buffer) and keeping others at a distance.
   I heavly mine key warp points and build up resource capacity as quickly as possible.  Research tends to be spread out depending on my needs at the time, but I will try to keep infrastructure and combat needs in balance.
   Once I have a good industrial base, the combatants start being built, as well as I try to espionage the heck out of one target at a time.  The more damage I can do with my spies, the less my warships have to do.
   Once combat is joined, I try to destroy as much as possible to force them into surrender.  Capturing valuable worlds is a must for forward bases and industrial expansion.
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 16 May 2001 03:01
   Basic strategy: You should always be building a colony ship and have a colony ship onits way to colonize a system.
   At the beginning of the game, you can easily use colony ships as scouts. Compared to other space games, colony ships are ridiculously cheap. If one gets attacked and killed, it is a small loss. But if it gets through, you have a colony that much more quickly.
   Colonize every planet in sight. But don't colonize planets in systems with AI colonies until you have a treaty with them. If you don't have a treaty with them and colonize the system, it will make them mad, and they might not ask for a treaty. Once you have a treaty, it will still make them mad. But who cares, you have a treaty with them.
   Don't accept military alliances with races that colonize the same planet types until you have first built colonies on all those planets.
   At the beginning of the game, build mostly fighters and/or mines. Since they don't cost any maintenance, they don't slow your expansion. I like to build units--fighters--at every colony that has already finished building its max number of facilities.
   Use transports to move fighters across wormholes and assemble a lot of fighters on the three or so wormholes leading into your empire.
   Did I mention expand, expand, expand and always have a colony ship on its way to a new colony?
<<
>>
LCC
Private First Class
posted 16 May 2001 09:19
   You can make peace with any race if you have 150% of his score and give a gift of 4000 minerals 3000 radioactives 3000 organics with a trade treaty as soon as you meet while the relation is moderate. The treaty lasts even when the race turns murderous. Later in the game when you are no longer 150% and the AI is in the top five he will cancel the treaty. THEN you build a ship to guard your planet and blow up his ships and colonies in the same system. I find it far better to have about 39 colonies spread throughout the quadrant with peace with all AI until I reach score 500k. Then stay below 500k, scrap facilities replacing them with storage until you have the tech researched for maximum speed maximum shields maximum weapons quantum reactor minesweeping dreadnoughts, about turn 120. Typically I have stockpiled 5 million minerals, 1.5 million organics and radioactives and research 225k per turn with 30k intelligence. Do NOT build level 2,3 facilities or ANY computers as this usually *immediately* results in war. The war lasts from turn 130 till about turn 150 and is very time consuming compared to the first 130 turns which take only about 20 hours, including half that time for the initial planning stage. An hour per turn moving 39 dreadnoughts and colonizing 150 planets plus managing the surrendered empires is typical. It is NOT necessary to blow up planets and is usually not necessary to invade with troops. Just blow up ships and blockade all mineral planets to get a surrender and use demanding tone on politics.
   Of course the real trick is to be an Ancient Race so that you know exactly where the 39 biggest and best planets of your type are located, and to get that 150% of the first few races you meet....
<<
>>
LCC
Private First Class
posted 16 May 2001 17:57
[Ed: A post by this author in the thread immediately prior to this one outlined his research strategy.  This has been posted to the "Research Strategies" sub-topic.]
   As a baseline for my strategy I post the score/ resources/ research/ intelligence at five turn intervals for the past two games in 255 system quadrants. Keep in mind that half my 39 colonies are at least eight star systems away from my home system.... Last game was slower research ramp up until I *reached* the allocated worlds. On the other hand the nearer strategic worlds were good resource planets which gave me a bigger stockpile than usual. I also did more intelligence because a couple of pests were spying on me. Every game is different but the target is the same - start 39 dreadnoughts on turn 120. The route to the target varies depending on an initial plan based on the Ancient Race information about the quadrant. Notice that I start scrapping as I approach score 500k. That is ok if the facility is at least 7 turns old because it already paid back on the investment. Another major varient is how many races declare war on you as your score falls below 150% of theirs due to your stall at 500k. Each battle cruiser built costs you a scrap of five to six facilities, so just keep throwing up replacement mines until the first mine sweeper arrives. THEN build a battle cruiser. Anything smaller is a waste of resources and ineffective. Maintain trade treaties as long as possible to get a boost in your research/resources above what your score allows. Sure they get far more from you than you get from them, but that also hurts them big time when YOU declare war. For some it is immediate bankruptcy.

Turn game before last                   last game
35    97.3   70.6  16.5  0      89.5  66.6   3.9  0
40   122.6   73.6  29.2  0     128.4  79.0  14.4  0
45   153.0   79.5  35.5  0     155.9  85.9  28.4  0
50   177.0   85.8  44.0  0     164.5  81.9  39.6  0
55   205.7   86.9  56.2  0     191.8  85.0  53.4  0
60   239.9 105.6  68.5   0     234.2 101.6  70.0  0
65   261.0 125.2  81.0   0     290.5 148.2  72.5  0
70   281.9 134.0  91.0   0     339.6 200.2  84.4  0
75   335.7 157.4 125.7   0     383.5 227.2 108.6  0
80   363.0 161.3 159.3   0     445.5 244.1 158.1  5.0
85   413.8 175.2 199.2   0.6   480.0 244.1 196.6  5.0
90   474.8 211.2 232.3   3.0   498.0 235.5 228.4  8.1
95   494.9 218.8 240.2   6.3   499.3 221.7 230.4 14.4
100  490.4 218.8 239.0   9.4   497.6 215.2 230.4 19.4
105  497.0 218.8 244.6   9.4   499.0 206.1 230.4 22.8
110  499.2 219.1 242.7   9.4   498.6 185.1 230.4 30.3
115  487.6 207.2 241.7   9.4   499.5 173.2 231.2 34.8
120  499.2 208.7 221.5   9.4   gave it up, had idea about maps
125  499.3 208.7 220.5   9.4   still 36 systems 39 colonies poulation 19.0 billion
128  499.5 208.8 219.5   9.4   declare war on all, breaking treaties
129  893.9 222.3 220.3   9.4   39 dreadnoughts built, demand all surrender every turn
The jump in resources is due to blowing up a blockading moon. I could have done it sooner but it was money in the bank...
130  1.0m  303.7 238.5  10.3   3 surrenders - puny but atmospheres needed
131  1.1m  319.8 244.5  11.1   1 surrender
135  1.3m  424.4 260.3  19.7   1 surrender 60 systems 155 colonies
139  1.6m  624.8 285.3  32.8   1 surrender 89 systems 250 colonies
140  1.9m  813.0 349.4  38.4   2 surrenders 111 systems 355 colonies
143  2.5m  1.2m  394.6  50.1   1 surrender - a big one (blockades) 133 systems 461 colonies
146  3.0m  1.6m  458.6  57.2   1 surrender - a big one (blockades) 148 systems 604 colonies population 80.7 billion
147 last three surrender - combination of old blockades and jump in score.
   This game went a little quicker than usual because I was able to get dreadnoughts to the two biggest quickly to blockade their mineral worlds.
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 17 May 2001 02:01
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by LCC:
   "As a baseline for my strategy I post the score/ resources/ research/ intelligence at five turn intervals for the past two games in 255 system quadrants.
...
   147 last three surrender - combination of old blockades and jump in score.
This game went a little quicker than usual because I was able to get dreadnoughts to the two biggest quickly to blockade their mineral worlds."
   I believe SunDevil's AI mod corrects this rather significant problem with the AI. This strategy makes use of what is called Domino Surrender. For more information, do a search on 'Domino' or take a look at this sample topic:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/001473.html
<<


THE FIRST FIFTY TURNS:
Here's a series of suggestions for getting off to the best start in those first 50 turns.  Some original threads on this matter have been cut apart to group "related" postings together into subtopics to ease the job of locating items of interest.  Apologies to the original authors, especially "PeteB" who started a thread trying to get a Strategy Guide going and whose own work suggested these subtopic groupings.


* FACILITIES:
From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 20. How do I scrap facilities on a planet?
A. Use the Scrap Facility order (not the Scrap \ Analyze \ Mothball order).
Q 65. How does the "Resource Converter" work?, I keep trying but nothing seems to happen?
A. The Resource Converter allows you to convert resources from one type to another. On the planet that has the facility, you will have an order icon appear which says Convert Resources.
Q 74. It's clear that e.g. A second robotoid Factory on a planet does no good, but would a Mineral scanner, Time Shrine, etc. "stack"?
A. Yes and no. System wide abilities are not cumulative, even if they are coming from different facility types. However, if you have planet wide abilities and system wide abilities overlapping, then they will accumulate. So in this example, yes, the values would "stack".
Q 75. Would building, say, four Value Improvement plants III, result in a visible improvement of at least one point every turn, or a massive improvement all at once?
A. Yes, the improvement will be seen each turn as a total of all 4 facilities working together.
Q 86. Can I scrap an Atmosphere Converter facility after the atmosphere is converted?
A. Yes.
Q 93. I noticed that building a Space Yard Facility II or III will increase the build rate for both ships AND NON-SHIP ITEMS. Is this a bug or a feature?
A. This is a feature. Once a spaceyard facility is built on a planet it will be used for all new constructions. It doesn't matter if its a ship in space, or units on the ground.

>>
PeteB
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 15:43
... [Ed: = Parts editted out for space]
-Facilities:
   1. Resource facilities should be built in about the following ratios (depending on race): 
10 : 1 : 2 of mineral, organic, radioactive.  Concentrate your resource harvesters on planets with high percentages for that resource. Later (with robotoid factories and such) it becomes important to have concentrated resource processing.
   2. Resource Storage facilities should be built after the initial game start, once you've "topped off" your resources.  These should be built to about 1/10th or more the number of actual harvesting facilities, but on low-resource planets. These facilities will come in handy when you switch several shipyards to "emergency build" to counter a threat. Resources disappear very quickly with 7-8 (or 20-25) fast building shipyards. They will be restocked, however, when those SY slow down.
   3. Ignore the remote miner components. Ships with them are costing more in maintenance than they mine, satellites, while they have no maintenance, still need to be transported to the asteroids or uninhabited planets, and that is time consuming and nets little (you need to pay maint. of the transport ship!). Save your mouseclicks.
...
<<
>>
raynor
Sergeant
posted 09 February 2001 22:54
[Ed: reply to first in thread]
-Facilities:
   Re: 1.  The 10 : 1 : 2 resource ratio is okay until you start building ships with Stellar Manipulation Components. Those things seem to really use up the radioactives.
<<
>>
taterbill
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 19:02
[Ed: reply to first in thread]
-Facilities:
   "3. Ignore the remote miner components."
   I totally disagree.  Yes, if you put one little remote miner (minerals) component on a frigate and send it to an asteroid, you probably will spend more in maintenance than you can mine.  But if you are short of organics or radioactives, remote mining, even at the lower levels, can be a life saver.
   But once you have discovered larger ship hulls, put three or more remote miner components on a ship and send it to a location with 100%+ minerals, and you will more than recoup maintenance.
   And choose your spots.  The best place to remote mine is at a planet with multiple moons, all of which are strong in the desired resource.  The percentages are summed for remote mining.  Remote mine a planet with two moons, all of which are 100%+ in some resource, and you will be wallowing in resources.
...
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 09 August 2001 17:31
[Start of new thread]
   SITUATION: Say you are in a simultaneous game and you have storage space for 50,000 of each resource. You are making 20,000 minerals (NET gain, after deducting expenses) a turn. Maintenance and build queues cost you 40,000 minerals a turn. Assume that you currently have 50,000 minerals in the bank (ie storage fully filled).
   QUESTION: If you use the resource converter and convert 20,000 minerals to the other two types of resources, would you go bankrupt next turn (the classic cash flow problem)? Does the game give you the resources first THEN deduct maintenance/queue (bad), the other way around (bad), or deduct the costs from the sum of mineral in stock + income (good)?
<<
>>
Daeromont
Private First Class
posted 09 August 2001 18:57
[reply to previous]
   As I'm a new player, I don't have your answers, but instead would like to expand the question to this scenario since it is somewhat related:
   An enemy race surrendered to my forces, granting me all their resources...which was far more than my ability to store.  I lost them all the next turn, however, I was wondering... if I had tried to trade them off to other computer players, would it have worked?  I'm not sure at what point the program calculates storage vs. allows trade.  Thanks!
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 09 August 2001 19:56
[reply to previous two messages]
CW,
   In your example, the order to convert resources would happen first, dropping you to 30K, then your resources coming in would be generated, then any maintenance is deducted, then resources spent for construction. If I understand your figures (you said you were generating 20K more than you are spending right?) you should be back to 50K in storage at the beginning of your next turn.

Daeromont, 
   I believe in your case you would lose the resources. Any resources at the end of your turn above the storage limit are lost. If you offer resources to another race, the transaction does not occur until they accept, which will be during the next turn. So the resources would come out of your storage amount next turn instead of the surplus this turn.
<<
>>
shonae
Private First Class
posted 25 August 2001 16:47
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I was wondering about the Solar Generator Facility...Now according to the description it says it generates 300 of each resource per star.  Does this mean that in a Binary system it generates 600 of each resource?
   If so it doesn't seem as effective as a Monolith Facility which can generate more resources than a Solar Generator can.  Is there any point to building Solar Generators or are they only useful in Finite Resources games?
   The next question I have, is if you have the Psychic racial trait and you build the psychic training facilities, is there any point in building the normal training facilities?
   The final question is, that once you've built the Robotoid Factory as well as a System Robotoid Factory for the resource bonuses, is it worth while building the individual resource facilities?
   i.e.  System Mineral Scanner, System Eco - Farms, and System Radioactives Collider.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 25 August 2001 18:03
[Ed: replu to previous]
   1.  Yep, and in a trinary it generates 900 each.
   2.  In a Finite Resource game, Solar Generators take away planet value.  I learned that the hard way.
   3.  Yep.  If you have the Psychic facilities in system, and you have a 'Training World' with the Normal facilities, the ships will increase training by 6% per turn, since the facility abilities are different.  One is increase training for sector, the other is increase training for system.
   4.  No, the Robotoid Factory already has the abilities of the individual facilities, and only one per planet is allowed.  The individual ones are still useful, if you have something like an all-mineral/organic/radioactive producing colony, since they are cheaper (build faster).
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 25 August 2001 18:04
...
   Solar Generators can be used best on planets with low value.
   In a single-star system, planets with an average value less than 42% get more out of a Solar Generator.
   In a binary system, planets with an average value less than 85% get more from an SG
   In a trinary system, planets with an average value less than 128% get more from an SG than the monolith.

   quote:  "The next question I have, is if you have the Psychic racial trait and you build the psychic training facilities, is there any point in building the normal training facilities?"

   Not really.  The training probably stacks, but will only save you 3 turns in training time, at the cost of two facility slots.

   quote:  "The final question is, that once you've built the Robotoid Factory as well as a System Robotoid Factory for the resource bonuses, is it worth while building the individual resource facilities?
 i.e. System Mineral Scanner, System Eco - Farms, and System Radioactives Collider."

   ...
   Remember, that unless you have at least 4 extractors being affected by a level 3 booster facility, it is not worth it.
<<
>>
shonae
Private First Class
posted 26 August 2001 00:11
   I found out in my games that Robotoid Factory and System Robotoid Factory do stack up, others that do stack up are:
* Citizen Databank Complex, System Citizen Databank
* Central Computer Complex, System Computer Complex
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 26 August 2001 00:34
   That's cause they are system vs planet abilities.
   Facilities with the same ability may not stack, but those with different abilities always do.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 31 August 2001 14:43
[Ed: Start of new thread]
If you have a system robotic factory in a system, and you try to put a robotic factory/radioactive collider/mineral scanner/Hybrid Eco Farm on a planet insider that system, will you get any more bonus?
<<
>>
rdouglass
Captain
posted 31 August 2001 15:51
   They used to stack, then a patch made them not stack, yet recently someone posted that they stack again, - I'm not sure...  My experience with 1.41 is that they don't stack - that is System-wide and planetary modifiers....
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Sergeant
posted 31 August 2001 23:40
   Yep only one type of system wide or planet facility.
   I use robot ones all the way.
   The only difference I can see is in the cost and time of making them.
   But robotic frees up two more slots in the system.
   Try playing with 3 advanced tech traits.  Then you really have to decide what you want to build.  Especially with the population effect falicilities.(too many i's)
<<


* COLONIES:
[Ed: From the MM site Q&A web page]
Q 23. I colonized a planet, but it says that it has zero population. How come?
A. Colonization has changed a bit from SE3. There are two things you need to colonize a planet, a colonizing component and population. When you build a colonizing ship, it has a colonization module on it. But before you send it off to colonize a planet, you need to load it up with population first. If the colony ship doesn't have any population on it, then you can still colonize the planet, but it will have zero population.
   When you have a newly built colony ship, the best way to send it off is to give it the Colonize order. This order will automatically load population first, then send the ship to the target planet, then colonize that planet. If you use the MoveTo order on your colony ship, it will move towards its destination, without loading population first.
Q 24. I colonized a planet, but its build time says "Never". How come?
A. Same reason as number 23.
Q 25. What can you do with Alien and ancient ruins?
A. When you colonize a planet with ruins, there is a chance that you will discover new technology, or possibly even unique technology.
Q 28. I captured via crew insurection a enemy coloney ship with enemy colonists on it. If I create a coloney will it be mine and if so will it be my racial traits or theirs? 
A. No matter what colony ship you use, if you colonize the planet, its yours. All of your traits will apply.
Q 29. Can you have more then one race on a planet? 
A. Yes. In fact, one of the best reasons to capture enemy planets is that you get to use the population that's on it. Different populations breathe different atmospheres, so an alien race may be better suited to colonizing certain planets then your people are.
Q 44. How do change the Colony Type after the planet has been colonized?
A. Go into the Colonies Window. The second to last button allows you to change the Colony Type for a colony.

>>
PeteB
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 15:43
[Ed: part of an original thread trying to get a Strategy Guide going]
...
-Colonies
   1. Colonize compatible atmospheres as much as possible. When you hit a barrier though (such as several empty systems or systems with a black hole, other civ, etc), use that period to colonize non-compatible worlds. Do not even look at the resource percentages before colonizing.
   2. Place colonies where there is a good resupply spot, especially when a planet lies squarely on the path between two important warp points, even if the atmosphere is incompatible. This will save time and effort down the road when moving ships around, so that they stay supplied.
   3. Look for "ancient ruins" and other specials that give technology. This may seem obvious, but it is worth going a long way to colonize such a world.
   4. Later, after you have captured other races, you will replace the incompatible races with compatible races on those planets colonized with the incorrect breathers. Do not sweat colonizing these places, but don't bother until you have the capacity.
   5. Colony ships are tactical!  Send a few colony ships along with (well, just behind) your exploration ships and advancing fleets. You will need a forward resupply base desperately before you know it.
   6. Do look at resource percentages after colonizing and use as your basis for what will be built. For low resource planets, research facilities in large numbers will eventually be needed. I found intelligence facilities to be needed only later in the game.
   7. All large planets must have shipyards! This is key to your ability to respond to attacks with overpowering force. Where there are shipyards, build a resupply base also. Small planets are less likely to need a shipyard, but be sure they are built in numbers just behind the point of expansion.
   8. I have yet to see my own defense satellites and weapon platforms on planets put to good use. In the event of a stray light cruiser or two, fighters are better than defense platforms or satellites.
   9. Move those people around! You have a homeworld with the population maxed out to begin with. You cannot profit from growth on that planet unless you move the people off to other worlds. Colony ships start the process, but build a small transport or four to move the people from home to outer worlds. This will also make it easier to build colony ships on outer worllds and take the pop from
them.
...
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 17:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
-Colonies
   Add 7B.  Consider using Emergency Build to build several Starbase Shipyards.  This allows you to
maintain several queues at the same point in space so you can gather up a fleet faster.  While orbital shipyards produce much slower and do not get population or happiness modifiers, the fact that you can have several queues at one point is very useful.  I will typically use emergency builds to build 5 of these over my home world.  Then when my homeworld is on Slow for 10 turns, I scrap its shipyard for the minerals and build something like a Mineral Faciltiy.  Your homeworlds percentages are to valuable to waste a Facility on having a shipyard. Do not keep shipyards on planets that you want to maximize resource production.
   Also, if you are worried about the maintenance cost of these orbital shipyards, remember you can mothball them when you don't need them.  However, the queue is in statis while mothballed as of 1.19 so you cannot use up the slow turns while mothballed.
...
   Add 8B. Satellites and Weapon Platforms are extremely valuable in a Strategic Movement/PBEM game with aggressive human players.  A defenseless planet can be wiped out by one Uranium Cannon Escort.  Units do not have maintainence costs (at lest currently, many are lobbying for them to change this).  Weapon Platforms are extremely tuff because they have a special Large Mount at 200kt that ships do not benefit from.  Also weapon platforms cannot be specifically targeted, I think there is a change that any planetary hit goes on the platform instead of population.
   Satelittes are only good with Strategic combat because they clump together on one side of a planet.  However, they can shoot missiles and do not require supplies.  missile ships (common in the early game) cannot target Satelittes, so they will need Direct fire or point defenese against these).
...
<<
>>
taterbill
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 19:02
[Ed: reply to first in thread]
...
-Colonies
   "8. I have yet to see my own defense satellites and weapon platforms on planets put to good use."
   In general, I agree with this.  The one problem with this is that the computer often builds missile cruisers that can't fire at your fighters.  In theory, that is good, but that means the only target they can engage is your planet.  If even one slips past your fighters, your planet can be wiped out.  Your fighters are left in orbit guarding a dead planet.
   To prevent this, I design a small WP that has nothing but point defense weapons and some armor or shields. You can build three in one turn on emergency build, or three in two turns by turning on e-build, selecting one turn's worth, then turning e-build back off.
   The only place I tend to use satellites is to guard my end of a waypoint.  I use many different satellite designs, as that ensures that they don't all get clumped together.  I deploy them in a waypoint sector, and incoming ships exit the waypoint surrounded by my satellites.  Especially deadly if some mines are sprinkled in as well.
...
<<
>>
DarkStar
Private First Class
posted 01 June 2001 19:50
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   When you start in your homeworld sector, do you put colonies on every planet, or try to find the best ones? In MOO it was more important to get as many planets as you could is this the case in SE4?
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 20:10
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Expansion in Space Empires IV is a little bit different than in MOO because the planets are in solar systems separated by wormholes. If you ask whether or not you should colonize every planet in every solar system before moving on to the next solar system, well, then obviously that would be a bad idea. Instead, you should constantly expand outward to new solar systems.
   Strange though it may seem, your first new colony in an outlying solar system may not be the best planet since you'll need to build at least a Resupply Depot and Spaceport on that planet and may not want to waste facility space for those on a planet with really high minerals.
   When you enter into a military alliance with another empire, this allows them to resupply at your Resupply Depots. This almost certainly guarantees that they will try to establish colonies inside your empire. So... once you have stopped expanding, you'll be sending colony ships to build colonizes on mineral rich and large or huge worlds. At the same time, you would be wise to build colonies on even moons that border another empire with whom you plan to enter into a military alliace.
   BTW... colony ships in Space Empires IV are practically free compared to MOO/MOO2. Some players don't send out armed escorts and frigates to do their scouting. Instead, they send out colony ships. In MOO, you might not want to build a colony on a planet close to the enemy because of the risk of attack. Until you had built a certain industrial infrastructure on the planet, it wouldn't be able to build up defenses fast enough to defend itself. But in SEIV, a new colony can build its own defensive emplacements quite rapidly compared to a new colony in MOO.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 20:21
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I generally colonize planets in the order of:
1) Strategic location
2) Value
3) Part of a claimed/colonized system
   Strategic locations include those planets:
-in a chokepoint system
-in a new border system (expansion & claim)
-having multiple moons (for shipbuilding)
-being near a wormhole (for defending against intruders)
-etc
<<
>>
Atrocities
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 01 June 2001 22:52
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Dark Star, what I like to do is get the as many colonies as possible within the shortest amount of time.  I target any planet that will yeild 2 or more slots for construction.  I then save 1 slot in every NON compatible atomsphere world for an atomsphere converter later.  That way, once I get the production up and running, population grows, and when the time comes, I convert the atomsphers, and then scrap the converters, and my population is already in place, and I rocket from 6th place to 1st.
<<
>>
LCC
Corporal
posted 01 June 2001 23:41
[Ed: reply in thread]
   As an Ancient Race, I can see all the map. I pick the 39 most strategic locations on the map before I start a game. Generally they are 3-4 warp points apart so that any planet in any system is within range 50 of colonizing by my seed colonies. I build up the facilities and population on my seed colonies, then blitz attack/ expand about turn 120 when I have all the critical ship tech. The limit on seed colonies is about 40-45, after that the AI complain about your planting too many planets and go to war, losing trade treaties. This is not the Mega Evil Empire limit, that comes later.
   If you are not an Ancient race, I do not know what to suggest. BE ONE.
<<
>>
Happy_Dau
Private First Class
posted 02 June 2001 03:26
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I usually build my 'Core Empire' (approx. 9 systems)first and defend all chokepoint w/ mines, sats or bases, allowing no other players to enter my space. Not easy sometimes.
When fortified I either research the other colony techs (or conquer them) and colonize all remaining planets in my Core Empire (I usually use Gas Giants but the many moons w/ spaceyards sounds good too   ), or I build Stealth colony ships and build up some colonies 'behind enemy lines'. This makes it really fun to crush the enemy from 2 sides. Latter is really easy w/ Devnull Mod.
   While tearing the enemy apart the 'Colony Empire' slowly merges w/ the 'Core Empire'.
   Might not be very effective and take up alot of ressources but it challenges some more (oops empire C just killed my colonies...). I also role-play alot, that's the most important reason.
   After all, it might not be the best tactic versus AI but it rocks versus humans (well, at least one time).
<<
>>
jkmoss
Private First Class
posted 03 June 2001 00:32
[Ed: start of new thread]
   I sent a transport/colony ship with 704M colonists to a huge world, but when the colony was established, there were only 500M colonists on it...is this a bug or a feature?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 03 June 2001 01:04
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Well, a colony without population acts as domed, so what probably happens is:
-colony is created empty.
-cargo is transferred lump-sum.
-colony is no longer empty, and domes dissapear, but the colony ship is gone and the 207M people are lost.
   I would suggest that you use the extra space beyond 500M people on the colony ship to carry a weapon platform or mines for the new colony to deploy as soon as it is created, since they will go into the planetary cargo space, and not be lost.
<<
>>
dominion
Private First Class
posted 03 June 2001 01:10
[Ed: reply in thread]
   There is a cap in the initial population size for colonization (e.g., 100 million initial colonizing but 500 million capacity max for a breathable tiny planet).
Tiny - 100
Small - 200
Medium - 300
Large - 400
Huge - 500
   You shouldn't supply more than that # of people on the ship.  Put some mines/fighters/satellites in the extra cargo space.
[Ed: the following line is from later in the same thread:]
   It's from trial and error. Don't think it's in the documentation.
<<


* SHIPS, SATELLITES, ETC:
   Each fighter/mine/satellite layer component can only launch one unit per combat turn.  Higher tech levels simply increase the cargo capacity of the component (i.e. the tonnage of units it carries as part of the component), not the number of units laid.  To launch more per turn, you have to have more launcher components.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 19. How the ___ do I retrofit a ship?
A. Use the Scrap \ Analyze \ Mothball order.
32. I have not been able to find population quarters to put on transports or colony ships as in se3. There are no population quarters in SE4. You just use cargo containers to transport population.
33. I have not found a button or command to "load population" . Where is it?	You transfer any kind of cargo (population or units) by using the Cargo Transfer order. You can also use the Load Cargo order, but this is intended for use when you want to give your ships orders that will take place in the future. Cargo Transfer is immediate from where the ship is now. Load\Drop Cargo is used when you want your ship to transfer cargo at a different location in the future.
Q 48. What happens if you mix mine layer/satellite layer/fighter bays with normal cargo bays? Will the cargo "shift" to the specialized bay as you launch/deploy? Or will you only be able to launch/deploy a small part of your cargo?
A. Yes, you can mix cargo bays with fighter bays / mine launchers / satellite bay. Don't think of the cargo as shifting from one bay to general cargo space. All of the space is general cargo space. The bay only dictates how many you can launch per turn. So for example, if you have one fighter bay, and 20 cargo bays, you can store a lot of fighters. But you can only launch 1 fighter per combat turn.
Q 64. Does internal arrangement of systems in a ship design matter?
A. The order of the components in your ship does not matter. All damage is done to shield first, then armor component, then randomly to internal components.
Q 68. To resupply ships I have to get them to a planet with a resupply-facility. Is it possible to make a space-station have the effect to resupply ships?
A. Resupply facilities can only be built on planets. You cannot resupply from another ship. (However, resupply pods and quantum reactors will help with your resupply problems. In addition, fleets share their supplies among all of the ships present).
Q 83. How much supplies does a ship use for each action (moving, attacking, etc.)?	Movement is based on the "Supplies Used" of the engine (the total). The total supplies used for your engines is how many supplies you will use per move. When a weapon fires, it uses the "Supplies Used" listed for the weapon.
Q 84. What does "supplies used" mean for a ship weapon?
A. This is the amount of supplies that are used each time the weapon fires.
Q 85. What good are shield-damaging weapons? Don't most weapons damage shields anyway?
A. Shield Damaging weapons to a LOT of damage, but only to shields. They are an excellent way to strip a ship of its shields before hitting it with your other weapons. Yes, most weapons do shield damage.
Q 95. Am I correct in assuming that Satellites, Mines, Fighters, Troops, and Weapons Platforms don't have a maintenance cost, and that Mines, Troops, and Weapons Platforms don't need to be resupplied? A. Yes and yes.

>>
PeteB
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 15:43
...
-Ships, Satellites, etc.
   1. Build ships to the latest tech (of course). I found that missiles are the most useful and powerful early in the game (and even later, after introduction of Point Defense, to a lesser extent). Phased-Polaron beams become the beam weapon of choice until technology catches up with them. Mix these two types of weapons.
   2. Ships can be upgraded, but are useless when being repaired, so upgrade in batches over many turns, and be prepared to have some ships out of action for a time. Delay upgrades until significant tech improvements are made, but beware!  Too expensive an upgrade is not possible.
   3. I found old, obsolete escorts and frigates to be perfect candidates for "sensor escort" upgrade: the latest scanner technology, and point defense. They are plentiful (many built at the beginning of the game!) and last to be targeted by the AI (which shoots the most powerful first). This saves space in capital ships (they can cut some PD and sensor spaces) and makes use of otherwise scrappable ships. Just make sure you always include one-two in each battle fleet.
   4. Build troop ships! You will need them to capture enemy worlds intact (although I hear they surrender a lot, sometimes that takes time). Build the ship in a system with lots of colonies, and build the troops at the other colonies, then you run around picking up the troops. Similar building strategy for carriers and fighters.
   5. Colony ships should have some cargo components. Put as many as possible (not much) and up your new colony's size and productivity.
...
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 17:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
-Ships, Satellites, etc.
   Re: 1. Build ships to the latest tech (of course).
   Be careful to examine cost effectiveness.  Some weapons go up faster in cost than they do in proportion for damage. Range does matter much if your advantage (range differential) does not exceed the enemies combat movement rate.  A typical beam ship moves three per round, so a range advantage of 3 or less does not buy you much!
...
   Add 4B. Consider ship capturing (population transports) as an alternative to invading planets.  Sometimes -20 or -50 on ground combat gives you the points you need for something more important.  Troops take a bit of research.
...
   Add 5B. Colonly ships should move as fast as possible.  Getting there one turn earlier has a big benefit in resources down the line.  Max out the engines and use whats left for more cargo (1 spot, I think).  Remember, you will use up this ship.
<<
>>
jimbob55
Private First Class
posted 14 February 2001 10:49
[Ed: posted in a separate thread on "Autolaunch"]
   If you want to be sure that the sats and fighters are launched rather than staying in cargo ... Build a freighter with launch bays for the number of sats / fighters you expect to be built per turn.
   Load at least 1 sat / fighters into it and send it away from the planet and then (once it is too far from the planet to reach it in the present turn) tell it to load sats / fighters from the planet and remote launch over the planet. Click repeat orders (red circular arrow button) and it SHOULD load and launch everything on the planet.
   Sometimes this doesn't work when you are loading from another freighter..so beware.
Having the freighter parked in orbit all the time means any excess cargo is loaded onto it anyway, so you could just build large cargo freighters to take the excess.
   If you want to store resources that would otherwise be wasted, make 1 planet your storage location. It builds a shipyard base, when that is built the base builds another shipyard base. You keep using the newly built shipyard bases to build more shipyards until you start going into resource deficit. At that point mothball the bases produced... Put the shipyards into a fleet and the mothballed bases into another fleet to cut down on clutter. As your tech improves, you can build larger shipyard bases with additional expensive components to store more minerals.
Best to research resource manipulation and build a recycling facility at this planet at some point before you cash in your bases ...
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 31 May 2001 20:13
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I know there was a post awhile back on launching sats from a planet where they would not all be grouped together. Can't find it, so if anyone could explain again, I would appriciate it.  tks
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 31 May 2001 20:38
   This was changed several patches ago. It was a problem with Mines, but it was a FEATURE with satellites. In fixing the problem for mines he wiped out the feature for satellites. We keep asking for the multiple groups for satellites. No luck so far. Keep asking.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 17 June 2001 16:42
   How about launching from moons? Do you end up with a stack for each planet?
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 17 June 2001 16:48
   Nope, one stack/sector no matter where you launch from.
<<
>>
LCC
Corporal
posted 01 June 2001 06:42
   Before the change I launched up to 100 satellites one at a time to provide a buffer zone between my planet and attacking ships. But now I use mines because 90% of the time the AI ignores the sats until the planet has been glassed. It made satellites worthless, except possibly lots and LOTS of missiles targeted manually in groups in tactical combat. If you are near full on planet storage and mines are being swept too fast, build/launch sats. Otherwise build weapon platforms, or ships/bases if you can afford the maintenance.
...
<<
>>
Q
First Lieutenant
posted 01 June 2001 09:59
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by LCC:
   "But now I use mines because 90% of the time the AI ignores the sats until the planet has been glassed."

   Which is not stupid at all! I would usually do the same.
   I agree that sats and IMO weapon platforms too are underpowered in the basic game settings. But it is very easy to change this: make weapon mounts for sats and weapon platforms similar to the mount for bases. The increased ranges of the weapons will shift the balance considerably. I choose an increase of 1/2/3 additional range for small/medium/large sats and weapon platforms but you could go even higher.
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 01 June 2001 19:09
   tks for your reply.  I do use mines over planets and wormholes, but never used Sats much except for mining and scanning. Playing 1.30 and in current game ran into AI that had 21 sats loaded with Hellbores and only 5-6 pd's. Never saw this before. Usually the Ai only had pd's and or scanners. This made me take 2nd look at sats as far as heavier weapons concerned. I remembered reading awhile ago someone mentioned how to launch sats without grouping altogether, I thought it might have only been in tactical, but couldn't find the post. Anyone else run into Ai using hellbores or heaview weapons in standard game no mods on sats?
<<
>>
Steven-n-Donna
Private First Class
posted 16 June 2001 21:12
   I've found large sat's good for no maintance mining rigs.  You can only fit one on each satellite, but it's absolutely free.
   They're great for large asteroid belt systems.
   In higher tech level games, they are great if you get your combat turn first on warp points.  Put some big a@@ wave motion guns onboard and tear them up before they have a chance to move.
   If your fighting an enemy that uses torpedoes and fighters a lot, then large sat's with a load of point defense on board will screen a large number of them from your planet and or other fighting sat's and ships.
   A lot of big guns can't hit a sat like the wave motion gun, this puts the offensive party at a slight disadvantage, and if they're close enough to use the big guns on your planet, chances are you can get them.
   I only wish that instead of the way the Sat's are stacked, they would be spread out in an orbit around the planet.  that way you could actually defend the planet from all sides effectively.
   I don't think you should beable to shoot "over" a planet to the other side.  It dosn't make sense for an empire to clump all their satellites together and send them around the planet together.
   Their best feature I think is that they don't take any cargo space once their launched from a planet.  That way you can have planetary defense stations as well.
<<
>>
out_law
Private First Class
posted 18 June 2001 02:19
   I find one of the best use is a spy sats you hide them away in a system and find what ship are heading your way. Why use sat for defence when you got fighter  - just an idea.
<<
>>
LGM
Private First Class
posted 19 June 2001 17:51
   I like CSM on a Satellite at planets in Simultaneous games early on. True, the attack might come from the other side of the planet, but the attacker cannot be sure, so he has to consider the Satellites in planning his attack. Use the left over 20 KT for PDs or some other 20 KT beam type weapon so they will not be as vulnerable to Fighters later on.
   Satelittes are great at Warp Points, but you have to build a ship to deploy them
   If you are using Emergency builds early on (build colonizers quickly or ship yard bases), you can build  Satellites during the slow turns as extra defense.
   If you are on a large or huge world, W. Platforms perform better than Satellites.  On smaller worlds you need the cargo space to make units(Troops, Satellites, Mines and Fighters), so Satelittes are a better static defense.
   Once I have Mines or Fighters, I prefer building those for defense.
<<
>>
justjake73
Private First Class
posted 19 June 2001 18:03
   If you are going to place satellites at a warp point, have a combo of engine damagers, wep damagers, and PD weps.  They will get through with enough ships, BUT they will be "softened up!"
<<
>>
zenbudo
Corporal
posted 19 June 2001 19:14
   I was just happy when I discovered the Religious Talisman and pretty much don't have to worry about 'to hit' modifiers on Sats anymore. Throw in a few Shield Depleters with beam weapons and anyone coming through that warp point is in trouble!
   I've found lately, however, that some AI put multiple shield generators on their sats...let me tell you, having an entire dreadnought only able to take out one or two sats a turn is ANNOYING. heh heh
   I currently play a modded Devnullmod, and mines have become useless. Any fleet can pretty much bulldoze a minefield nowadays. *sigh*
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 19 June 2001 20:44
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Are you currently using only PDC on them?  I have found that with a PPB and Talisman equipped Battle Cruiser (and regular shields on the sat's of course), I can take out 10-12 sats per combat turn.
   I'm not using any 'packaged' mod's - only a few to change production / system setup / etc and not battle situations...
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 03 August 2001 16:43
[Start of a new thread]
   I had a strategic combat where one of my colonies was attacked. The colony had defense satellites and fighters in its cargo space but not in the orbit. Now the fighters were launched automatically as expected at the beginning of the combat but not the satellites. Did anybody see the same? IMO this is a bug but I would like the confirmation/opinion of others before I mail it to MM.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
First Lieutenant
posted 03 August 2001 17:23
[reply to previous]
   Yep.  Seen it (can't recall if I have seen the opposite), also IIRC sat layer ships will not launch sats in combat, nor will mine layers launch mines.(good delaying tactic, gives the AI more to shoot at and if the layer dies, the mines that are not destroyed stay in the sector launched).
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 08 August 2001 11:52
   Just got a reply from Aaaron to my mail: It is intentional, that the satellites are not launched automatically, because they may be spy satellites, which you would like not to be exposed to the combat.
It is good to know that, so be sure that you launch all your combat satellites at the end of your turn, if you play with strategic combat.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
9: Does anybody ever put Auxiliary Control (secondary bridge) on their ships? Seems pointless to me, even if you have only one bridge and it gets destroyed, your ship will continue to move and fight...

10: When you discover Propulsion 7, you also get the Ripper Beams weapon. It is cheap, but does very little damage and only at a range of 1 or 2. In what cases would you ever need this weapon? It has no special abilities, just does normal damage...
   Another component that seems to give very little "bang for the buck" is a shield renewer. Does anybody use those?

11: If you put two Repair Bay III's on a ship, can you repair 16 or still just 8 components per turn?
...
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 05:28
...
   10. Ripper beams lead to the Wave Motion Gun. That's about their only purpose.
   Some folks really like the shield recharger components. If you fight pretty even battles in terms of numbers of ships and technology, maybe they are okay. I don't use them since I just play against the computer and always have superior numbers. Maybe in PBEM/PBW they are very effective.
   11. Right. You can put as many Repair Bay III's as will fit on a ship, and all of the Repair Bay III's will repair components each turn.
...
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
   9: There's another current thread about this. Some ppl use it, some don't. The advantage is that although your ship will still be able to fight without a bridge, it's movment will be halved. AuxCon lts you keep full movement.
   10: Ripper Beam: Don't know. I think the advantage is the damage compared to the tonnage - 200 ktons of ripper beams will do more damage than 200 tons of (for example) PPBs
   Shield regenerators: These are great. Say you have 300 shield points at the start of combat, but no shield regenerators: that's all you get. Once those 300 are gone your ship is shieldless until the next fight. With regenerators, you can go in, lose all 300 shield points in the first combat turn, then back off and a few comabt turns later you'll be back to 300 points, ready to go in and continue fighting. Very handy against boarding parties, which are blocked by any rmaining shield points.
   11: I think (not sure) you can repair 16 components but they would have to be on 8 on one ship and 8 on another - any one ship can only be worked on by one repair bay/ ship yard at a time. Someone might correct me on this though.
...
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 20 June 2001 14:13
   Originally posted by dogscoff:
   "11: I think (not sure) you can repair 16 components but they would have to be on 8 on one ship and 8 on another - any one ship can only be worked on by one repair bay/ ship yard at a time. Someone might correct me on this though."

   In that example, you could repair 16 components on one ship, or 1 component on 16 different ships.
   The total repair points for the sector are added up and applied to each ship in turn.
   The first ship will be determined based on your repair priority, but then work will continue on that ship until it is fully repaired (even if it takes more than one turn).

   10:  Ripper beams are the most efficient weapons in the game.  200kT of rippers will do more damage than 200kT of any other weapon (shield depleters excepted, but they can't damage a ship).  Elite tactics include using a tractor beam to pull ships in, slaughter them with the extreme damage potential of your RBs, then use a repulsor to shove away whatever's left before it can fire back

   Note that the Shield Regenerator 5 is a bug.  It should be only 20kT in size (it's a copy-paste error from SE3).
   But, anyways, if your ship is expected to survive more than 7 battle turns in combat, adding shield regenerators is more effective than extra shields!.
   Basically, your PSG V gives 375 hitpoints.
   Two shield regenerators (at the same space used) provide 50 hitpoints per turn.
   At seven turns, you have regenerated 350 more hitpoints.
   So these are excellent for very large ships, or hit-and-run ships, or boarding party ships (which lose their shields when they capture).  Also, a race with a very good defense modifier will tend to survive in combat long enough for it to be worthwhile.
   With the additional benefit of blocking boarding parties, they are quite useful.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 14:22
   Note that the rippers are the most efficient but not necessarily the most effective. It is easy to overlook the rippers though, due to the short range.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 20 June 2001 14:41
   True, but the tractor beam tactic was created to make them effective.  Add in a large shield depleter just before the rippers, and you can eat Dreadnaughts for breakfast.
<<
>>
Tarm
Private First Class
posted 05 October 2001 15:35
   Any way to have satellites auto launched when they are produced?
   If there isn't it would be nice to have in a new patch, its a pain to have to launch them manually if you like me always are producing them in border systems.
   Specially for planets that only have space for one turn productions.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Corporal
posted 05 October 2001 15:41
   I agree--mines too.
   When I asked this question many moons ago, someone pointed out that you could have a satellite launching ship with repeat orders that picked up the sats and launched them.
   Yep, that will work but it is way to much cost and trouble. Much better would be an autolaunch capability.
   Unless it is already there somehow?
<<
>>
Aub
Private First Class
posted 05 October 2001 18:31
   I know that bothered me too for a while - I was always forgetting to launch satellites. Then, I discovered that the Satellite/Mine minister does a great job here!
   Simply turn the Sat/Mine minister on, and then put all new planets under minister control. The satellites will be launched for you. Since other miniters are not on, the AI will not interfere with other things like facilities and construction.
   (So far I have not found any problems with turning the minister control on for planets. There ARE however bugs associated with doing that for fleets. E.g. the "attack" order stops working in sim. games if you turn any ministers on for a fleet.)
<<
>>
Shyrka
Private First Class
posted 05 October 2001 21:27
[Ed: reply ot previous]
   This idea is good, but I think it has a problem. Turning minister on for the planets makes all active ministers "work" in the planet. This can include ministers that you do not want to be active in that planet, such as the "Facility construction" minister.
   You only want to launch the units automatically, just as the "Launch units remotely" order for the ships.
   I had this problem too. I constructed a space station with a space yard component and several sat launch bays. I put it to build sats in repeat build mode. When the log notified me that the station couldn't finish the sats because there was no cargo space available, then I "went" to the station and launched the sats manually. I tried activating the launch minister, but it doesn't work. The sats weren't launched.
   I think that it's necessary some kind of order for auto launch sats/fghtrs/mines when present. It would be very useful, and a quite elegant solution for this problem
<<
>>
Aub
Private First Class
posted 05 October 2001 21:48
[Ed: reply to previous]
   You have to turn the minister on AND put the planet/station under minister control. There is a setting that allows you to have ALL new planets to be put under minister control automatically. But I usually turn the minister on the moment I start building satellites. Saves me from launching them every turn. So far, it worked every time.
<<
>>
Shyrka
Private First Class
posted 20 October 2001 18:39
   Originally posted by Q:
   "Shyrka did you check if the "maximum units in space limit" was reached?"

   Yes, i checked it. But i have news
   After some experiments, i discovered some things that are interesting for me (Perhaps all are well-known, but i'm just a begginer) :P
   1) The mines/sats minister works fine on planets, but ONLY with sats. He doesn't launch the mines (That's logic, since they cannot be recovered)
   2) The minister takes control only over those vessels marked as "Mine Layer" type. If you build a ship with mine layers but mark it as "Defense ship" for example (As i used to do) the minister don't works.
   3) The minister controlled vehicles only lays mines at the warp points, not at planets. (I'm not 100% sure, as my experiments were in other direction)
   4) If you buid a base in a Warp point with Space yard and mine layers, and you mark it as "Mine Layer" type, you can put it to build mines in "repeat build" mode. As soon at the mines are constructed, it will start laying mines in space (If you activated the minister). But after a few turns, the base will receive orders from the minister to move to other warp point to lanch mines. Obviously, the base cannot move since it hasn't engines, so it becomes useless. You can delete that orders, but in the next turn the base will receive them again. You have to turn off the minister for the base and return to the old system: launch mines manually when the cargo bays of the base are full.
   So i have conclusions:
   1) A minister should NEVER send "move" orders to a base, since they cannot move. I'ts a bug? What do you think?
   2) The "Auto launch mines" and "Auto launch sats" (Or "Auto launch units") order is a must-have in Space Empires, IMO.
   3) Perhaps should be separate ministers for mines and for satellites.
   4) What about configuring the behaviour of the ministers at a lower level? I mean, for example, giving the sats/mines Minister instructions for lay mines first in planets, then in warp points, give priority to most populated/value/more facilities planets, etc. It is interesting? What do you think? And what about the other ministers?
   5) The type of the ships is very important for the game. Much more than the "Colony type".
<<


* WARP POINTS
>>
PeteB
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 15:43
...
-Warp Points
   1. Defend your side of important warp points! This is the place for satellites, fighters, and starbases (built by yard ships). Enemy craft appear in the middle of the area, intermixed with the defenders, so there are usually no long-range missile volleys, but short, brutal close range fights. Pack satellites or bases with the biggest beam weapon you have and lie in wait. This is better than
defending world by world.
   2. Put a scout on the far side of a warp point. If you can see the force coming you can bring your own forces to bear that much earlier.
<<
>>
Dracus
Sergeant
posted 11 April 2001 17:23
   I do not use sats around my planets. I like to put about 30 on each of my outer Warp Points (WPs) with about 20 small mines. Make the sats a combination of cannons and missles. This gives me a buffer to unkown sectors. as i expand, I move the sats out to the next set of WP's As soon as a ship hits the mines or sats, I know to move ships into that sector.
   You can also plant a couple of sats in systems that have no planets to monitor movement.  
<<
>>
Dubious
Private First Class
posted 12 April 2001 03:11
[Ed: reply to previous]
Thanks Dracus.  "Rippling" the sats as your border expands.  That's a nice one.  For the inexperienced like myself, could you expand a bit on the use of a sat in an "empty" system to monitor movement?  Are you talking about using sensors (which I thought could only go on ships)?
...
<<
>>
Dracus
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 April 2001 05:23
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
Since you can see any movement in a system that you have planets/ships (unless they are cloaked),
you either have to keep a ship on patrol in the empty systems (where you can't colonize) or you can just place a sat over in a corner. (Less likely the AI will take it out then.) This sat can be unarmed.  Now on your map, it will show that you occupy that system and everytime some other race enters it, a trangle will appear.  I do this to all empty sytems within and around my borders. Prevents anyone from sneaking in on me.
   Also, maybe sat protect any Warp Points (WPs) that come from blackhole systems. Others like to use these once they get shields.  I personally don't use sats to protect planets because they can't move and can't be placed in a defense orbit.  Long range guns can take them out quickly.  But you will find that most of the time, the WP battles will place both your sats and the enemy ships near the point.  You get first shot and you can take out a small fleet before they even get to fire.  Send in ships to clean up the others.
   An exception to this are nebula and black hole systems:
Blackhole systems will pull anything in so you can not monitor them. So blocking the connecting systems WPs takes care of any movement across a blackhole system.  
   Nebula systems hide everything. So to counter this I put a sat/mine defense on the WPs.  Anything in or out that is not friendly hits my forces, and now I know where they plan to attack from.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 12 April 2001 15:29
[Ed: reply to thread]
   Actually, you CAN put sensors on a satellite.  I do it all the time (and so does the AI).  I don't build many of them, since the advanced sensors take up so much room, but it's a cheap way to monitor systems.
   Personally, though, I prefer to put bases in asteroid/nebula systems; generally with a shipyard and a sensor, so I can build ships if I need to.  I've also created a base with a shipyard, sensor, and combo of satellite, fighter and mine storage, so I can build units in the remote systems.  Add a mine/satellite laying ship and you have a pretty potent defence force (since fighters can travel in-system on their own, you don't need a carrier).
<<


[Ed: The following are from various different threads on the first 50 turns]
>>
Daynarr
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 21:18
   Here are some military research tips for starting empire:
   1. Go as fast as you can to the DUC level 5 (DUC - Depleted Uranium Cannon).  That thing is cheap to research and gives you some fair firepower while you research better things.
   2. Research Chemistry and then Armor to level 3. This is much cheaper to research then the Shields, and only Shield IV and Shield V have better protection per tonnage.
   3. When you decide on research NEVER divide points evenly. When you don't use it, all the research points are used on 1st tech in queue. If number of research points exceeds the required amount for that tech, then all the extra points are used on following tech. This is a point where dividing research fails (extra points are lost there). Also make sure that you have enough techs in queue to use all your research points.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Private First Class
posted 20 December 2000 16:06
   I agree with most things, but in addition I spend early research points on Stellar Harnessing.  It gives you extra range by getting Solar Collectors and later extra move points by getting Solar Sails.
   However, I personally DO divide research points evenly.  My reason: I do a lot of upgrading of my ships and don't want to upgrade just 1 or 2 components.  This way, I can upgrade 3,4, or 5 components at a time.  I also want to be researching many areas at once.  I do not experience the "lost research points" discussed earlier in the thread - I think that has to do with the fact that I "repeat" the research areas.
<<
>>
Scott Clinton
Second Lieutenant
posted 19 December 2000 21:48
   Something not mentioned yet (AFAIK) [Ed: = As Far As I Know] is that if your race has a special technology (organic, crystal, etc.) then I would strongly suggest you invest in researching that early and often.
   Your race paid a lot of points for that tech. and these techs (all of them) can be pretty powerful (esp. in the early game).
<<
>>
Psitticine
First Lieutenant
posted 19 December 2000 23:15
   Propulsion can make an excellent early research area.  I like to take it up to level 4 and get the move advantage over my opponents.  Combine faster ships with long-range weaponry, and you've got a killer combo!
   Also, remember that those 1 facility "dot worlds" in your starting system can be used for space yards.  I tend to go ahead and settle one or two and use them to build up a military while my homeworld creates colony ships.  I do it that way because the new colony won't have the population capacity to successfully "seed" new colonies and it is a needless delay to route them from another yard into the homeworld.  Also, colonies will be more useful early on than large fleets.
   Those small worlds'll also be breeding more population, which you can always skim off to build up those juicier worlds as you find them.
<<
>>
apache
Private First Class
posted 31 December 2000 07:53
   Well, I only recently got the game, so I am not hard and fast on my early game strategies.  Obviously, colonizer production is a major part of it.  One strategy is to just flat out make colonizers with my homeworld and then set up shipyards and start building scouts with my new colonies.  Sometimes I like to start off by building a few base spaceyards first, then put the homeworld into full colonizer production, while the bases make scouts, transports, and more colonizers.  But because those bases are so expensive and slow, sometimes I just set the homeworld to produce a couple scouts, then put it into rush production for colonizers. Either way, I always have to use scouts.  For the very early game, if there are just no decent planets in my home system, I will use a colonizer or two to find decent planets.  But they do not do long range scouting, that belongs to my dedicated scouts.  Usually, I use an escort or frigate hull with the basics, 4 engines, and everything else filled up with supplies and a single DUC if its a frigate (its amazing how useful a level 2 or 3 DUC is against a neutral race, even in the middle of the game).  Though they are not as fast as they could be, the fewer engines gives them 33% more range before they run out of supplies.  My colony ships are pretty standard, though.  The basics, 5 engines, and a cargo container.  Of course, once I develop light cruisers, I immediately make a new colony ship design for longer range and higher cargo capacity. I know it probably would not work well on smaller maps, but I play with 254 system maps and don't even bother making a military for quite a long time.  When I see an alien race, then I start up limited military production, but I usually don't bother with a military at all until I have a significant number of colonies and systems. The one thing I always do is to make nearly all of my early colonies research colonies.  But, this has its problems because without resource colonies early enough, I tend to start running out of resources pretty quick.
<<
>>
evan42
Private First Class
posted 31 December 2000 11:32
   The very first thing I build will always be a bare-bone ship yard base. It's take 2 turns to complete.
   Then I will build 1 colonizer on HW [Ed: = Home World], and it takes 2 turns. And on the space yard, 1 scout ARMED with missiles. That will take 4 turns. Sure, It'll have shorter range, but I can use it to get rid of some AI [Ed: = Artifical Intelligence = computer opponents] start-up colonies. (Not as useful if played in a large map with fewer AIs.)
   Also, before the completion of the scout, I would concentrate research in missiles and ship hulls. Since the scout can be "upgraded" during the production, so I will try to put at least 2 L2 missiles on a frigate, maybe L3 depends on the game setting.
   Then 2 turns later, the colony ship built on HW will go colonize any colonizable planets in the home system. (If none, I would use it as a scout.)  And the HW will then build a transport. The scout will take another 2 turns to be built on the space yard. The idea for the transport is to move some population off the HW ASAP [Ed: = As Soon As Possible], so more can be grown. Ideally, if another breathable planet is found in the home system, I will move 1000M pop to the new planet, that will give the new planet a 20% production bonus.
   Anyway, 2 turns later, both the armed scout and transport will be built. The scout will go do some "scouting". And the transport will go do some "transporting".
   Then if there are more than one colonizable planets found in the home system, I would build more colony ships, but usually I would use the HW to build another scout (2 turns) to head for the other warp point. And the space yard will repeat building colony ships.
   Depends on the number of warp points present in the home and nearby systems, a third scout might be built. Otherwise, I will repeat build colony ships also on the HW.
   When running out of planets to colonize or bumping into hostile aliens, I would start building a couple larger armed ships. But, since the scouts themselves are armed, they might be enough early on.
   Because of the shorter range for the armed scouts, they can only explore 2-3 systems before turning back. So when colonizing other systems, the 1st structure to be built will always be a resupply depot. I don't consider having a shorter range as a serious disadvantage, because you normally don't want to colonize planets too far away from you anyway. Those armed scouts will also
ensure you have more empty systems to colonize later by taking out AI's start-ups.
<<
>>
WhiteHojo
Private First Class
posted 02 January 2001 21:15
   Just a little something extra I have found to be useful.  Use the same general ideas from Evan, build a couple of scouts and then go w/colony ships.  But the twist I add is, I start as a Gas Giant race.  This gives you access to the bigger planets (usually 1 to 3 per system) so even those planets w/o your atmosphere will give 5 facility slots for Huge.  Also, most AI races I encounter tend to be rock or ice types.  1st thing you do upon encountering them is to 1) ask for a trade treaty & 2) if the treaty is accepted on the next turn ask for a gift of their rock/ice colonization tech.  I have never been turned down once the trade treaty has been given.  I have however, had 'em cancel the treaty 1 turn after giving it - very weird.  Do this and you soon open up all planet types to colonization MUCH earlier than you would if you tried to research the 2 other colony techs.  Gives you a solid lead early in the game.
<<
>>
Sessile
Private First Class
posted 04 January 2001 00:49
   I've delved into some more game modes and have decided on an alternate early strategy as a game-winner.  Applied Research is cool, but cooler still is to bomb another civ back to the stone age, who uses a different planet type (picking Gas for your race almost ensures this) and thus being able to colonize twice as many planets for free, after they surrender.  Repeat for the third type of planet, and you're almost a lock to win the game, since the AI just doesn't have a game plan, really.  Frigates with 1 CSM and supply maxed allow you to do this within the first twenty turns, if a civ is within 2 systems.
   I'm turning into a hella bloodthirsty player, it just works better.
<<
>>
evan42
Private First Class
posted 04 January 2001 08:56
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   Ah... been there, done that.
   A better approach IMO [Ed: = In My Opinion] is to wait a few turns longer until you have researched Troops.  You get the population and everything intact. After you have captured all their worlds except HW, try to attack their HW, but do not bomb the planet.  Just try to blockade. As soon as you have done that, ask them to surrender.  And they will.  Now you have just doubled the size of your empire!
   When they surrendered, they will give you all of their techs, including colonization of a different type of planets (if they are different).
   Oh, try not to destroy too many of their ships (armed or unarmed), if you think you need them after they surrender. But if their ships tried to attack you, then disable them, but not destroy them.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Sergeant
posted 04 January 2001 22:57
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   As an addition to this if they are indifferent to you or better if you blockade their homeworld and have a high enough score (less than is needed for surrender) you can get them to give you the planet as tribute. This doesn't work for many planets because they get angry with you for asking them to do this but you can get one or two this way. This can help you and hurt them and
allow you to have a better chance to get them to surrender.
   Note don't do this too often if ever if you want a more challenging game because very soon you will be very far in the lead with this strategy.
<<
>>
Psitticine
First Lieutenant
posted 22 December 2000 03:28
    Hmm, I've usually encountered another empire by turn 50.  What I do next depends on my playing style for that game.
   If I'm in the mood to dive right into war, I start by crankin' up the old ship yards and building warships.  I also use the planets without yards to build satellites.  In games without troops (and I don't tend to research them this early) I find garrisoning enemy worlds with a handful of satellites lets my navy move on instead of being locked down as guards.
   I'll switch my research to a more war-orientated program.  I'll go for bigger hulls, if I haven't been already, and continue pushing for Projectile Weapons V and a bit of missile tech.  When I feel I've got a better than 50-50 chance, I pounce!
   If, OTOH [Ed: = On The Other Hand], I decide to make friends and use that trade income to build up my new colonies, I'll be as friendly as possible and continue researching things that'll help build as powerful an industrial/research base as possible.  I go for Research Tech level II as soon as it is possible to get it without a lifetime commitment and also go through Industry to get those computers.
   I haven't had time to explore the new patch (1.19) yet but I hope the AI won't be as quick to make friends right at first.  I'd like to have to make some decisions like if I should be giving gifts and what-not to work the more recalcitrant over to my side or if their stubborness is a good reason to go ahead to war.
<<


* EXPLORATION:
From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 96. What does the Explore command do? 
A. The explore command will send your currently selected ship to the nearest unexplored system.

>>
PeteB
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 15:43
[Ed: part of an original thread trying to get a Strategy Guide going]
...
-Exploration
   1. Build your largest available ship (up to Battlecruiser) with full engines and lots of supply components, and maybe a weapon or two, and the best sensor available. These are your scouts and explorers. Send them as far as fast as possible. Follow with colony ships.
   2. Make peace with aliens as soon as possible. If you make a treaty, though (aside from non-intercourse), realize that their colony ships might just start colonizing your systems around the edges.
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 17:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
-Exploration
   Re: 2.  Make peace with aliens as soon as possible.
   Note:  treaties are costly for Nuetral and Bloodthirsty races.  However, Nuetral recovers happiness 250% faster.
...
<<
>>
taterbill
Private First Class
posted 09 February 2001 19:02
[Ed: reply to first in thread]
...
-Exploration
   "1. Build your largest available ship (up to Battlecruiser) with full engines and lots of supply  components, and maybe a weapon or two, and the best sensor available."
   Once solar panels are available, use them and forget the supply components. Then your scouts can keep going forever.  (Or at least until they meet some race that blows them up. Or they get damaged in an unstable worm hole and fall into a black hole. Or whatever.)
...
<<
>>
Nyx
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 17:17
   I have never yet built an exploration ship. I build exclusively colony ships and I explore with them. I don't build anything else until I get destroyer hulls. The AI loves to attack my worlds, which I enjoy because the first thing I build on each is a Small Weapon Platform with Capital Ship Missiles. That ends up costing the AI a ton of early production. I tend to get a massive early lead on even other humans with this technique. I vary this, depending on how many colonizable worlds are in my starting system, by sometimes building a base shipyard or two early on. If I've got several good worlds I can get three shipyards (one on my homeworld, and two in space) cranking out colony ships. I like to put my homeworld on emergency build and that gets me a colony ship per turn for the first year. It's an insurmountable lead against the AI and slow humans. It's risky against humans who are aggressive early on. Especially if they know I'm going to do it.
   In research, I go for Point Defense Weapons, Armor (unless I'm playing with Crystal or Organic Tech), and Boarding Parties.  If I have a special technology, I'll pick it up early on, often in the first couple turns.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Sergeant
posted 29 December 2000 20:53
   Well for me exploration ships are a must to find the best colonizable worlds.  The colony ships are slow and have a much shorter range so they can't find good planets as easily expecially if you are worried that they will run out of supplies after the first 2 or 3 moves. I also build many colonizer ships but by the time they are built they can go directly to a colonizable world because I already know where they are. I usually build the colonizer ships at my homeworld and build exploration ships after the first couple of ships on those first few non-breathable worlds that you need to colonize at the begining of the game. In the early game there are not many turns that I am not building colonization ships on my homeworlds but I usually end up with many exploration ships anyway. Especially if I meet another race early.
<<
>>
Nyx
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 22:44
[Ed: Reply to previous message.]
   That's not even remotely true. Colony ships move only one square per turn slower than a warship: 5 instead of 6. That's barely noticeable. And since they don't need to turn around and refuel (they're on a 1-way trip) they can go just under twice as far as a warship on an exploration mission (That extra engine holds 500 more supplies). Escorts/frigates can go through two warp points before they need to turn around (three if you give them extra supply pods instead of weapons or your refueling station is very close to a warp point).
   Colony ships get three or four before they are reduced to moving one space per turn. Except in an ancient galaxy, I'd always rather explore with colonies over escorts.
<<
>>
Psitticine
First Lieutenant
posted 29 December 2000 22:23
   I also rely heavily on exploration ships in the early game.  If there is a plum world in my starting system, then I'll build a colony ship for it, but otherwise, my first building project is usually an explorer.  Then I'll start cranking out colony ships to fill the homesystem and to be ready to take advantage of any breathable or special-tech worlds my explorers find.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Sergeant
posted 30 December 2000 05:01
   My exploration ships always have supply storage: thats why they are exploration ships. There is no room for that in Colonizers unless you drop the cargo unit which isn't a good idea. My frigates have 2 supply storages and my destroyers have 2 to 6. The first technology I research is cargo so by the time I build my first ship I have supply storage II at least. That gives them a much bigger range, almost as far as a colonizer can go one way 4500 supplies for 2 storage level II vs 2500 on a colonizer. I can go many systems away with my destroyers usually by the 2nd year at least (in my current game I got destroyers with supply storage III designed in 1.2 years low resources 3 planets to start) they have 9000 supplies with supply storage III. Yes the colonizers only have to go one way but they can be a waste of resources if they are going at 1 movement so I make sure they have a destination before they start on that one way trip.
<<
>>
Kagetora
Private First Class
posted 30 December 2000 05:20
   I do ship construction first and get frigates for exploration. With extra supplies they have 5500. They are also on a one way trip as one of 3 things happen to them. They run into another race and get destroyed. Which is also a very good reason not to use colony ships. Secondly they stop at a good planet and wait for a colony ship to show up making sure the planet stays empty. The
planet then builds a supply and the scout continues on. Lastly the ship goes as far as it can go until it runs out of fuel. The colony ships themselves don't mean alot but the population does. It matters little to increase your colonization and to kill the production on your home planet by sucking off too much population. Colonies that you can't defend aren't much use either; just
gets you into early wars.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 09 February 2001 19:43
[Ed: posted in a different thread]
   More on scouts:
   Scouts definitely could use solar collectors to greatly extend their range, and thus utility; in addition, solar sails will be helpful in making them go faster and faster.  Both of these two useful techs are found in the Stellar Harnessing tech area, which is available upon researching Astrophysics I.
   Other components worthy of being on a scout include a long-range scanner and a non-combat sensor, and cloaking.
   By non-combat sensor, I mean *not* the Combat Sensor that's available via Sensors I-III.  Instead, there are five types of sensing:
   Active ECM.  Most objects have Level 1 Active ECM by default.  Tachyon Sensors, found rather expensively via the Sensors tech area, provide three more levels.
   Passive ECM.  Again, Level 1 by default for most objects.  Hyper-Optics give this, and are found in the Advanced Military Science tech area.
   Gravitic.  This is not present by default, and is granted only by Gravitic Sensors in the Gravitic Technology tech area.
   Temporal.  Temporal sensors are restricted to Temporal Technology, and therefore to that particular racial trait.
   Psychic:  Psychic sensors are just as restricted as Temporal, only to the Psychic racial trait.
   A scout ship with a Level 3 sensor device of any type will generally be able to detect everything in a system.  Against a human opponent in a huge galaxy, if all players tend to delay and build up for a while before war it is very possible that large war fleets could be skulking about cloaked...
   And one application of having numerous scouts is that of an intelligence spotter.  Namely, anti-ship and anti-colony intelligence operations can be directed at specific targets *if* you can see them.  For instance, if you station a spotter in a 'no man's land' system -- perhaps one with only an asteroid belt, say, so nobody has a colony base for resupply -- you can use Crew Insurrection to snare passing ships.  Not only is this a fast way of gaining new technology, since these ships can be returned to a shipyard and analyzed, but it can cripple a small attack fleet by turning its best ships against their brethren.
<<


* RESEARCH STRATEGIES:
What's most important to research first?  

It depends upon both your goals, and your immediate situation.  If you're not ready when someone declares war on you, knowing what will get you the most bang for your research points can be life and death information.  But it seems everyone has a favorite starting pattern.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 38. How do you allocate research points between projects ? Can I manually set the research points percentage allocated to each project as in SE3 ?
A. You can't. In SE4, you can either split your research points between all of your outstanding projects, or apply the points to each one in turn.
Q 94. Why is there a "Split Points" button in the Research Window? What's the advantage of working on multiple projects at once?
A. Some people like to make steady progress on multiple projects at a time, instead of just one after the other.

>>
Atrocities
First Lieutenant
posted 08 March 2001 06:20
[Ed: posted in response to a thread with the title of the question above]
   Planets utilization IMHO. [Ed: = In My Humble Opinion]
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Sergeant
posted 08 March 2001 12:14
   There is definately no perfect research order. The key to the game is colonies so anything that helps you get more or better colonies is the way to go.
   I always get Shields/Phased-Polaron Beams/Point Defense first, even if I have to put them on an Escort. After that my order depends on the type of game I am playing.
   If I'm in a large quadrant or have few opponents and I think I have a lot of time before I meet new races I go for the infrastructure, Atmospheric Converter being the goal. I personally do not capture other races and use them to colonize. I only use my own race and planet type and never research another colony type. If you plan to use all types of colonies I think a second colony type would be good early if you have the time.
   If I think it is likely I'll meet some unfriendly neighbors soon then weapons, mines, ship size, etc become important.
   I like to get to 100,000 research points as fast as possible so I build a lot of research facilities early on. 100,000 points lets me research almost anything in a few turns. This helps when you meet something unexpected.
   There are so many ways to play the game that I think you will never run out of styles of play. Almost any research path can win or provide a good challange.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Sergeant
posted 08 March 2001 13:19
[Ed: reply to previous]
   My style:
    1. Any racial technologies (including weapons).
    2. Shields
    3. ShipYards
    4. PPB's (I used to ignore them - now they're the best!) [Ed: = Phased-Polaron Beams]
    5. PD's [Ed: Point Defense]
    6. Stellar Harnessing
    7. Intel [Ed: Intelligence Operations]
    8. Ship Construction
    9. Stellar Manipulation
   10. Weapons Platforms
   11. Missles (WP with missles are great planet defenders).
   Those are my early projects.  I generally repeat build those untill I get many of them max'ed out.  Later projects depend on the game situations and my mood at the time...
   I generally DO NOT research colony tech, propulsion, resupply, storage, beam weapons, mines, fighters or troops.  I tend to steal many of those thru Intel ops.
<<
>>
Sessile
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 02:04
   I generally pump research points into the Applied Research field, until I get the second level of research facilities.  Tech is such an important advantage in the middlegame that it's worth the initial loss of advantage.  The first tech you choose to research receives whatever bonus you picked initially, and choosing AR first makes a big difference in your research curve.  The question is, can you hold out against the rest of the creepies till then?  Well, CSM escorts can be cranked out pretty quickly, and you should also colonize like mad-- whoever has the biggest facility base in the middlegame will have the overwhelming advantage, since that player will be able to out-produce and research the others.  If you have the initial jump in research, you can skew more of the facilities to production, which in turn allows you bigger fleets.
<<
>>
Lord Felix
Private First Class
posted 07 March 2001 18:29
...
   After 10 games, I've come to prefer:
Cargo (yes, cargo!), Physics, Physics2, THEN get stuff for decent light cruisers, THEN start ranging across the tech tree to build up industry and special skills.
...
<<
>>
Jason2
Corporal
posted 07 March 2001 20:40
...
   I tend to always research:  Missiles, Depleted Uranium Cannons, Armor, Shields, Propulsion, Point Defense - with the 100,000 start this means I have a basic warship at my immediate command while I prepare.  I then research ships up to Light Cruiser and then focus on DUC and PD, and then Armor and Shields.  Then I do whatever is current for the ongoing game
<<
>>
raynor
Captain
posted 07 March 2001 20:09
   I like the PPB also. But the very first thing I research is Construction and then Fighters. Rather than build storage facilities, I use the spare resources to build fighters at all my planets that have finished building facilities.
   I think fighters are great, cheap defense. Then, you load 90 of them onto a light carrier and go attack the other players.
<<
>>
raynor
Captain
posted 08 March 2001 06:55
   One surefire defensive measure against the AI is to research Construction, Mines and Warheads up to level III. If you block your wormholes with 50 or so small mines with warhead III's, you'll be quite safe until you can research Stellar Manipulation and completely close your wormholes altogether.
<<
>>
Spoo
Corporal
posted 08 March 2001 06:58
   I always try to max out the DUC tree first.  Then shields to level 5.
   I also try to make sure my current hull size is no more than on level behind the AI.
   On a side note, I turn off "divide points evenly" in the research menu, and let a colonization tech be my second project so it can soak up any excess points on the turn my primary project completes.
<<
>>
Tenryu
Sergeant
posted 08 March 2001 10:27
...
   At the start I usually research in the following order. It seems to provide a solid base for a build up and sufficent defensive technology to survive and expand.
   missles>2, duc>2, ships>2, propulsion>2, duc>3, ships>3, {if no pd at start, then milsci>1 and pd>1}, propulsion>3, physics>1, shields>1, shields>2, construction>1, fighters>1, smaller weaps>1, smaller weaps>2, ships>4.
   I vary some depending on what is going on, how soon I am getting whomped on, instead of fighters, sometimes i go for mines and the warheads. This seems to get me going ok. 1.27 was way nastier than previous versions.
...
<<
>>
LemmyM
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 11:11
   I usually go for physics and then phased energy weapons, ship construction and shields
   The phased energy weapons are one of the more expensive weapons but they are still powerfull later on in the game, i haven't researched anything stronger yet ( (damage/size)/fire rate, that's what i use to define strong ), troops are also good, that you can capture their planets and if they breath a different atmosphere you can also colonize more planets.  Military science/ship capture is also very useful, especially if you capture a different colony ship type, or a larger ship and analyze them at your shipyards.
<<
>>
Resident Alien
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 02:17
...
    Here's an example of a research sequence for discussion.  This was in a Large Map (175 system) Low Tech start, one planet, Psychic Technology.
   Ship (Frigate), Proj Wep, Physics, Psychic Studies, Industry, Proj Wep, Ship (Destroyer), Psychic Study, Proj Wep, Computers, Psychic Weapons, Ship (Light Cruiser), Construction, Mines, Mil Sci, Psychic Tech, Psychic Wep, Astophysics, Stellar Harn, Shields, Point Defense, Sensor, Combat Support
[by 2405.4]
...
   Had lots of fun with Psychic weapons later on in this game.  With Alliance Subverter you can steal the enemy fleets as you attack them.  Your fleet gets bigger, they get smaller and you use their ships against them.  Nice.  And you can send the interesting ones back to get analyzed to steal the tech as well.
<<
>>
Arc.Smiloid
Private First Class
posted 31 December 2000 06:55
   The race I play is: Scientist Culture, +20% research, +20% mining, +20% construction, -10% maintenence costs.  No atmosphere, Rock/Ice.
   Myself, I immediately build 4 base space yards.
   I research: Ship construction, Energy Stream Weapons, Armor, and Propulsion.  Set to Repeat, no division of Research Points.
   Each space yard builds a scout frigate, then goes into repeat colonyship construction.  My main colony builds the four space yards, then builds 2-3 transports, then repeat colonyship production.
   My colonyships only have 5 engines, no cargo for additional population.  Adding the cargo would increase the number of turns nessecary to build a colonyship from one of my base space yards, so I left it out.
   After this point, things adapt to my situation.  I play like a high-tech warmonger.
<<
>>
Testosteronos
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 13:32
   First of all I research propulsion, in order to get the contra terrene engine - 1 mov point plus can be deceisive in battles!(in the early stage of a game)
   Missiles is a must....very good range - good damage and PD up to level III or IV.... after that, well, different situations need different solutions!
<<
>>
Windborne
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 23:12
   I find construction the most useful to research quick, it gives you access to a lot of other options, like troops which the computer is an utter moron in countering, and fighters which are one of your best defense against enemy fleets, plus a good defense for the ship your landing your troops in. lol [Ed: = Laugh Out Loud]
<<
>>
Atrocities
Captain
posted 12 April 2001 09:38
[Ed: posted in it's own thread]
   Operation Slick Weasel
   Operation Slick Weasel is a sneaky bastard maneuver that will allow you to gain technology for a fraction of the cost of researching for yourself.  In addition, it will cost you next to nothing, and allow you to gain valuable technology within 5 to 10 turns.  This is how OSW works.
1. Set up the AI bonus to LOW.
2. You must establish a PARTNERSHIP with the target race.
3. You must then design the most worthless low-cost POS [Ed: = Piece Of Sh*t] ship you can.
4. You must mass-produce these POS.
5. You must then offer to trade 5 or more POS for a single TOP of the line AI ship.
6. If the AI accepts, and it usually does, send the ship to one of your shipyards.
7. Analyze it.
8. WELLA! [Ed: = French "Voila"]  You just gained tech.
   Be sure to research something like Planetary Utilization and Applied Intel while spending your time negotiating with the AI.
   When I tested out OSW, first known as Operation Sneaky Bastard -or- OSB, I only researched applied Intel, energy weapons and Temporal Technology.  By turn 60, I had two Partnerships, one with the Ferengi, and the other with the Narn.  I traded them each 10 ships for one each of theirs.  It took me 6 turns to get each ship to a shipyard.  It only took me 10 turns to make the POS ships to trade with.  Total, 16 turns to gain Quantum Reactor, Quantum Engines, Wavemotion gun, Ship class through Battleship, shield V, Computer combat, and armor.
   All in all, OSW and OSB worked well.  Best of luck to you.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 April 2001 16:59
   Yeah, I do this all the time.  There are some things I just NEVER research 'cause of this.  For instance, I NEVER research other colonizing techs - it's too easy to trade ships and I'd much rather use the half mil R-points towards weapons and Intell....
<<
>>
LCC
Private First Class
posted 16 May 2001 13:20
   Research Strategy :
   1) Psychology 1 then Applied Political Science 1-2-3 for Urban Pacification Center III by turn 19. All systems get a UPC III to keep the population at +20% Jubiliant. This just about bankrupts you in organics when you build the first 6 systems, so it is REALLY helpful to build 2-3 farms as soon as possible in the game, if necessary by scrapping mines on the homeworld. I generally find it necessary to stop ship construction for ten turns after about 6-8 ships are built unless I get a second farm early...
   2) Construction 1 Mines 1 Explosive Warheads 2-3 by turn 40. For SMALL mines with either 1 or 2 warheads. You use the single warhead mines when the AI starts sending minesweepers, and reserve the expensive double warhead mines for when a fleet of warships arrives. Medium and large mines make no sense since a sweeper does not account for the size of the mines it sweeps. I keep a stockpile of 100 double warhead small mines at every breathable planet and replace them with single warhead mines when sweepers come around. I do not launch mines until an enemy ship comes near, and then only just as many as I need 5 at a time. As a stopgap before I can build mines I build a couple of small weapon platforms with missiles I on them.
   3) Cargo 2-3 by turn 46, so I can build resource storage III of each type and stop throwing away my surplus. Until then I build a storage I as soon as I get within 2 turns of full instead of a facility. Later on when I have settled low productivity worlds I build new storage and scrap the old ones on high productivity worlds to build production facilities.
   4) Applied Research 2-3 by turn 67 so I can build research center III, which the AI does not mind. Optionally Applied Intelligence 1 by turn 49 if I have a espionage problem.
   5) Space Yards 2-3 by turn 72. You need a Space Yard II to build a research III per turn.
   6) By this time I am doing 85-90k research per turn (of 225k target) PLUS what I get from trade about 20k (later 75k). So it is time to work on ships. There are several lines which run concurrently after the initiating tech is researched. I research several in sequence and do not split my tech points evenly. Just keep the 12 item queue full.
   z) Missiles 2-3-4-5 turn 89 Just in case I need to build an emergency weapons platform. I do NOT use missiles for anything else. I Never use worthless satellites. The AI ignores the satellite and blows your planet up first....
   a) Military Science 1 Point Defense 1-2-3-4-5 for PD V turn 79
   b) Physics 1 Shields 1-2-3-4-5 turn 82 -6-7-8-9-10 turn 106 I usually take a breather at 5 and finish off to 10 later when the other critical components are researched.
   c) Physics 2 Phased Energy Weapons 1-2-3-4-5 turn 80 for Phased Polaron Beam V.
   d) Astrophysics 1 Stellar Harnessing 1-2-3-4-5-6 for Solar Sail III. turn 90
   e) Chemistry 1 Armor 1-2-3-4-5-6 for Stealth Armor III. turn 91
   f) Ship Construction 2-3 by turn 47 for destroyers to shift population. 4-5-6 by 81 for battle cruisers to defend planets where war is declared. 7-8 for Dreadnoughts by turn 120.
   g) Propulsion 2-3-*4*(82) -5-6-*7* (101) -8-9-*10*-11-12 (112) The * indicates another added extra move. The last two levels are optional since they only reduce expense, but that can be important if you have lots of ships.
   h) Sensors 1-2-3 for Combat Sensors III. turn 85
   i) Combat Support 1-2-3 for ECM III. turn 88
   j) Industry 1 Computers 1-2-3 for Master Computer III by 93
   k) Resupply 2-3-4-5 by 99 for endless supply Quantum Reactors - essential for power hungry dreadnoughts.
   l) Mines 2-3-4-5 by 115 for Mine Sweeper V. I put four on each dreadnought to take care of most warp points. If two dreadnoughts cannot break through, I refit one with ten sweepers instead of four. That usually does the trick. If not refit the second dreadnought too...
   m) Repair 1-2-3 120 for repairing your fleets and self repairing your stellar manipulation ships. A note on repair. If you use tactical mode and a shoot-retreat strategy you can beat 20 beam battle cruisers with a single dreadnought because they combat move 3 while your dreadnought moves 5 (assuming they lack solar sails). Stay just out of weapons range AFTER they move. Missile/torpedo ships are tricky and the reverse strategy - close as quickly as possible, target half your weapons on one to cripple it and the other half on a second. Do this until all are crippled then finish them all off. You only have to survive that first heavy salvo, which is what shield regenerators are for. This of course assumes you have phased polaron beams and they do NOT have phased shields. If the opposition is too heavy, have your mine layer drop 24 mines and dare them to attack. If your ship is above one of your own worlds, no problem just launch mines same result.
   7) Troops 1 by 91 Troop Weapons 1-2-3 by 94 Smaller Weapons 1-2-3 by 93. Troops 2-3 by 120. These are the last techs I need for war, when done I start all my worlds building dreadnoughts and start on the techs below. I have a stockpile of 5-8 million minerals, 1-5-2.5 million organics and radioactives and am about to run a 250k deficit in minerals when the fleet builds. With colonization and conquered planets it gets worse to about 450-550k deficit in minerals but usually does not fall below a 7 turn supply.....
   8) Computers 4-5-6 for System level computers III.
   9) Minerals, Organics, Radioactives Extraction 2-3. You do NOT need more since the system computers do all the work and scanners etc do NOT stack with robotoids.
   10) Applied Intelligence 2-3 Skip 4 you do not need it.
   You do not need these any sooner if at all if you are only playing the AI, but they may be essential playing against humans. I do not mention the two colony types you lack since you should have them by AI surrenders within a couple turns of blitz war breakout about 125-130.
   11) Stellar Manipulation 1-2-3 for Monolith Facilities. I use monoliths where the planet total resource exceeds 180-200 but none of the resources is 100+. Below that either make a tech world, intelligence center, or resource storage because the monoliths will never pay off. If you use my plan for 7000 planet quadrants, then anything less than 100 and a total of 280 or less should be tech/int/storage since 2/3 of the planets exceed 350.
   12) Planetary Engineering 1 Planet Utilization 1-2-3 for Climate Control III increases population growth rate after 30 turns. 4-5-6 for Value Improvement plant III very slow payback but no upper limit on resource rate. 7-8-9 for Atmosphere Converter III, which I use only on nones if I did not include a race which breathes none. In any case you need it for moons which should have the same atmosphere/race as the planet they orbit to improve population growth rate and shift population when near full.
   13) Stellar Manipulation to end, picking up asteroid conversion, warp point manipulation, nebulae, black hole, and star manipulation, ringworlds and sphere worlds. All of these are very expensive in organics/radioactives which are in short supply but you can save a heap by building just a few of each type with self repair. A trick I use is to build a level one asteroid converter then refit it for level three, which cuts the build time significantly.
   I do not use fighters, they die too easily. A single one of my dreadnoughts can kill 70 large fighters (in groups of five) while retreating and regenerate its shields before the escorts can catch up. Fighters are a waste of resources just like satellites, though some people seem to like them due to the bugs, which will eventually be fixed.
   I do not provide specific ship designs since it depends on your tech level, but you can always refit to upgrade. My dreadnoughts usually split shield space 50/50 between shields and shield regenerators, and have 7 point defense using heavy mount beams plus as I mentioned 4 mine sweep V. I never use missiles/torpedos on ships. Everything except colony ships gets a quantum reactor. Everything gets a solar sail III. The colony ship drops 2 engines and moves 1 faster, keeping 1 cargo bay III. Above range 50 I have something colonize with just any population then replace the population using a speed 12 population transport battle cruiser, which moves 1200 pop. You CAN put a colony module on a light cruiser and move speed 12 with 154 cargo but if anything at all is in range it makes more sense to cut maintenance cost on the distance lag by colonizing locally.
   When an AI surrenders, one of the first things you do (after UPC III) is build a population transport battle cruiser to settle the proper atmosphere on worlds in your home space. This increases the production of those worlds by at least a factor of five... Similarly you move your own population into the newly liberated zones and of course colonize like crazy everything of any value. To do THAT you need shipyards, which makes colonization of moons about as important as mineral planets. The payback comes in even faster colonization as soon as the yard is built. Unfortunately, this also increases the rate at which you deplete your resource stockpile, mentioned above. You have about 20-30 turns to reach breakeven, win, or go bankrupt. The battle cruiser transports move along a string of systems dropping off population as fast as possible. Smaller local transports shift population within a system and to nearby systems.
   I used to mine warp points, particularly for black holes and nebulae but have not found it necessary lately. If the alternative is posting a ship, mine the point. Most of your allocation of mines is used in planetary orbits.
   If it is necessary to invade with troops, use an invasion battle cruiser which moves 6 in combat versus 5 for a dreadnought. Have a decoy ship move in range to get missiles launched, then run in with the troop ship. Be sure to blow satellites and stations BEFORE you drop troops otherwise they will fire on the planet. I drop 150 large troops, which puts paid to most planets immediately. A system near the border runs replacements in as fast as they are needed, and the high troops in system brings happiness up to Jubiliant pronto. The first thing you build is of course an urban pacification center III even if that stupid message comes up about it being redundant. It is NOT redundant because its rate is MUCH higher than the alternatives.
   Using the standard files you become an evil empire at score 500k. You split this score into production of 125k minerals 30k organics and radioactives, 225k research, 30k intelligence, 30k ships, and 25k for research levels (0.2 per learned tech). The remaining 5k is contingency. I exceed in all categories and replace by storage as my tech , intelligence, and ship quotas fill up. Backup and scrap if you have over 500k at start of turn. This is of course cheating, but the alternative is a tedious evaluation of production coming out every turn to see if you are going to pass the limit and trigger war too soon.
   I use an Ancient Race to know all the quadrant from the start and colonize to be within range 3 of every system in the quadrant if possible. I settle only 39 (of 100) worlds so this stretches me rather thin at 255 systems. On the other hand a few good planets are usually in easy reach of every colony world, and after the first round of ships a world can build a second ship to guard itself while its dreadnought guards a same system minerals planet. Unlike the old world the new one does not have a stockpile of 100 mines... The new world has to build a space yard III anyway so the first thing it does after building is a few turns of mines, letting its guard ship move on to yet another planet. Within 20 turns of blitz start I am generally colonizing 40-50 worlds per turn while one world per system builds system robotoid factories.
   Population is generally not a problem since I include all atmosphere types and my own race selects +20% population growth. That fast growth rate pays off in higher productivity if you shift population around with your transports early in the game. My homeworld splits its population 39 ways taking into account the population on ships. By the time the blitz starts I am up to 300-500k on every base world. In the blitz colonization more than 100 per world usually makes no sense until you can put 100 on every world. Generally the game is over by then...
   See my post "really big games".
   All this strategy applies to a standard 100 to 255 system map. I do not yet have a strategy for a 7000 planet map, but expect that I can colonize 390 worlds instead of 39 with the AI change I mentioned. That leaves me about 1000 more of the proper atmosphere to colonize after the super blitz of 390 dreadnoughts rather than 39. Yet it is still an average of less than two worlds per system in the initial colonization phase. Since the evil empire increases by a factor of ten the new quota is 1 million research, 2.5 million minerals, 500k each for organics and radioactives, 250k for intelligence, and 250k for ships etc which allows about 40 battle cruisers. Yet on the blitz turn the deficit will be 3k x 390 + 6.6k x 390 = 3744k minus 2500k about 1250k minerals per turn. So I will need to store about 32 million minerals or 800 x 40k which is 45 worlds (or 3 minerals per world) for minerals storage alone. A similar scale up of organics and radioactives storage is necessary... I just did the map yesterday so I have not yet tested this strategy. The research quota may be excessive...
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 08 October 2001 21:01
   If I have, say 100k of research a turn, and I've just discovered a new weapon type, say High-energy discharge weapons, can I get it to research more than one level a turn?
   If I put it in as the only research project, and click "repeat", will it successfully research level 1 (20k), level 2 (32k), level 3(45k) and start level 4 in just 1 turn? Or will it just finish level 1 and waste the other 80k of research points?
   (My numbers might not match the actual research costs, but you get the idea)
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 08 October 2001 22:48
[Ed: reply to previous]
   No, that isn't how it works. Basically when a project is finished it will be moved to the bottom of the queue. Unless the level just completed is the last one after which it will vanish from the queue.
   Think of it as a way to let research run for awhile w/o interference.
<<
>>
Hotfoot
Corporal
posted 08 October 2001 22:59
   You can only ever research one level of a technology at once, as I understand it.  You can, however, have up to twelve different technologies researching at the same time.  So instead of just researching that big bad gun you just got, research that big bad gun and perhaps a new level of ship construction, or shields, or sensors, or armor, or another weapon, or whatever.
   And you can maximize the use of your research points by de-selecting the "spread points evenly" option, which has a tendancy to waste points on lower-level techs.  Then just line up the Queue in the order you want things to be researched, and viola, "perfect" research!
   Plus, since you weapon costs so little in comparison to your total research points, you should be able to crank out a bigger, faster, more accurate, harder to hit, tougher ship (Ship Construction, propulsion, sensors, combat support, shields/armor) with which to mount your new gun, and in the same time it would take you to research it all alone.
<<


* WEAPON RESEARCH COMPARISONS:
>>
Sinapus
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 March 2001 22:42
   Depleted Uranium Cannons are pretty good early in the game and make a nice secondary weapon later on. Or if you want something to shoot at the enemy in between reloads on your heavier weapons it is decent.
<<
>>
raynor
Captain
posted 07 March 2001 21:19
   You are the third of fourth person who has talked about researched the Depleted Uranium Cannon. I've never researched them. Are they pretty potent for their research cost?
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 07 March 2001 22:47
   Depleted Uranium Cannon packs most punch for the buck. It is the cheapest tech in the game and level 5 has damage 40 40 40 40 40. It's something all right.
   You have to go much further in APB and other weapons research to beat that DUC, so it is a must for beginning of the game.
<<
>>
raynor
Captain
posted 08 March 2001 13:35
   "The phased energy weapons are one of the more expensive weapons."
   Take a look at these numbers [UNDER 1.27]:
Here are the numbers for the Anti-Proton Beam:
Physics 1: 50000
Energy Stream Weapons 1: 5000
Energy Stream Weapons 2: 10000
Energy Stream Weapons 3: 22500
Energy Stream Weapons 4: 40000
Energy Stream Weapons 5: 62500
Energy Stream Weapons 6: 90000
Energy Stream Weapons 7: 122500
Energy Stream Weapons 8: 160000
Energy Stream Weapons 9: 202500
Energy Stream Weapons 10: 250000
Energy Stream Weapons 11: 302500
Energy Stream Weapons 12: 360000

Here are the numbers for the Phased Energy Beam:
Physics 1: 50000
Physics 2: 100000
Phased-Energy Weapons 1: 5000
Phased-Energy Weapons 2: 10000
Phased-Energy Weapons 3: 22500
Phased-Energy Weapons 4: 40000
Phased-Energy Weapons 5: 62500

After spending 155,000 points you have the PPB I which does this much damage at ranges 1-20:
30 25 25 25 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

After spending around 180,00 points on the APB, you have the APB V which does this much damage: 
35 30 30 25 25 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   So, the APB does a little more damage up close. But already the PPB has longer range *AND* it punches through normal shields.
   But to max out to PPB V you only need to spend another 135,000 points whereas you have to spend over 200,000 just to go up 2 more levels in Beam Weapons to get the APB VII. BTW, here are the damage numbers at this level:
PPB: 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APB: 40 40 35 35 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   At this point, the PPB is clearly superior in every way. It does 50% more damage up close, has the same range and also punches through normal shields.
   By the time you fully research the APB XII, you have spent fully TEN times as much on the APB XII than on the PPB and have these numbers:
PPB: 60 55 55 55 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
APB: 60 55 55 50 50 45 45 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   So, for spending ten times as much, all you are getting is a weapon that gets two extra spaces of range. Otherwise, the PPB is still a better weapons just comparing damage to damage. Oh, and by the way, it punches through normal shields.
   Oh, and by the way, ALL the stronger weapons found later in the game fire every two or three turns instead of every turn like the PPB. If you can survive the first hit of a weapon like the Wave Motion Gun or the Graviton Hellbore, then you can close and utterly destroy many ships with these higher tech weapons while they wait to fire again.
   In an earlier discussion on this, Baron Munchausen set me straight on the value of the Null Space Projector.  Piercing shields and armor, even at a fire rate of once every three turns, this weapon is utterly destructive against a baseship or starbase loaded up with tons of shields and armor. The first hit typically wipes out most of their weapons. Still though, the AI never has either of these types of ships when I'm mopping up the galaxy.  So I've never needed them.
<<
>>
Codo
Corporal
posted 08 March 2001 14:07
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Well, APB's in v1.30 damage at ranges 1-20 are:
20 15 15  0  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 20 15 15  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 25 20 20  0  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 25 25 20 20  0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 30 30 25 25 20  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 35 35 30 25 25  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 40 35 35 30 30  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 40 40 35 35 30 30  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 45 45 40 40 35 35  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 50 50 45 45 40 40 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 55 55 50 50 45 45 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 60 60 55 55 50 50 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
<<
>>
Dr Strangelove
Private First Class
posted 10 June 2001 04:22
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   It appears to me that there is no missle or torpedo worth obtaining beyond the class 5 capital missle.  There are faster missles and there are missles with a slightly higher fire rate, but they're all weaker than the capital missle.  I don't understand why MM put them in the game.  Can someone enlighten me?
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 10 June 2001 04:30
...
   Plasma missles have speed and distance over the Cap's....
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 10 June 2001 04:43
   Some also have faster reload times.
<<
>>
Aristoi
Private First Class
posted 10 June 2001 06:46
   The distance advantage alone is usually enough in my mind.  Especially in tactical combat, where the AI can be expected to fly directly at you (and therefore your missiles).
   If you're playing humans, though, beware the dreaded Point Defense Ship.  Nothing ruins a beautiful missile salvo like one of those.
<<
>>
capnq
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 June 2001 16:19
...
   A faster missile is harder to run away from, and sometimes can get through point defenses by not giving an extra chance to fire on it. (This can be critical for large salvos.)
   The faster fire rate missiles can do more cumulative damage over time (3 reload 2s vs. 2 reload 3s per 6 turns).
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 20 June 2001 20:39
   Summary of reasons to use torpedoes:
A) They fire every two turns
B) They cannot be shot down by PointDefence
C) Their damage occurs right away, preventing the enemy from firing an extra volley (or two) while you wait for the missile to arrive.
D) They do 56% more damage: 1.25 vs 0.8 (damage per turn per Kt space)
E) Torpedoes can be put on Large/Heavy/Massive mounts, improving their damage factor even more (Massive mount is up to about double the missile's damage per turn per kT)
F) In most mods,torpedoes have a 30% or so to-hit-chance bonus, since a torpedo can seek a little.
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 22:36
[Ed: reply to previous]
   IMO, torpedoes may be superior to missiles, but point A makes them inferior to other Direct Fire weapons (unless your opponents have a large defense bonus)...
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 20 June 2001 23:31
   Okeydokey.  Here are the damage ratings for various weapons, at max tech.
APB XII: 2.1 - 1.5, normal
CSM V: 0.8, seeker
MB: 1.75, normal
AMT V: 0.625, normal
QT V: 1.25, normal
PM V: 1.0 - 0.27, seeker
PDC V: 3.25, pointdefence, +70%
PPB V: 2.0 - 1.67, phased
RB IV: 2.5, normal
IB III: 0.9, normal, +10%
WMG III: 0.67, normal, +30%
TPC V: 0.375 - 0.188, Weapons only
ID V: 1.3, engines only
IPM V: 0.625, engines only, seeker
PN V: 15.0, planets only
NB V: 5.0, planet population only
GHB V: 1.21 - 0.33, normal
SD V: 7.5, shields only
DUC V: 1.33, normal
PC V: 1.33 - 1.0, normal, organic
HPB V: 1.67 - 1.0, normal, organic
ED III: 1.5 - 0.5, normal, organic
LR III: 2.0 - 0.5, normal, organic
SP V: 1.0, seeker, organic
AG V: 0.56, normal, organic
EAG V: 1.25, normal, organic
SC X: 1.17, skip armor, crystalline
HEM III: 0.917, normal, crystalline
TDB V: 1.0 (4.0), quad2shields, temporal
TS III: 0.33, skips all, temporal
TKP V: 1.75, normal, psychic
CW III: 6.0, warhead
MSD: 10.0, one shot, RuinsTech
MID: 5.0, one shot, RuinsTech
NSP: 0.4, skips all
CT V: 0.45, ships armor, seeker
SA V: 9.0, shields only, temporal
TC III: 1.2, normal, temporal, +10%
MSG III: 0.68, normal, psychic, +20%
   Acronyms expanded in order:
   Anti-proton Beam, Capital Ship Missile, Meson Blaster, Antimatter Torpedo, Quantum Torpedo, Plasma Missile, PointDefence Cannon, Phased Polaron Beam, Ripper Beam, Incinerator Beam, Wave Motion Gun, Tachyon Projection Cannon, Ionic Disperser, Ionic pulse missile, Planetary Napalm, Neutron bomb, Graviton Hellbore, Shield Depleter, Depleted Uranium Cannon, Plasma charge, Hyperplasma bolt, Electric Discharge, Lightning gun, Seeking Parasite, Acid Globule, Enveloping Acid Globule, Shard Cannon, High Energy Magnifier, Time Distortion Burst, Temporal shifter, Telekinetic projector, Cobalt Warhead, Massive Shield depleter/Ionic disperser, Null-spaceProjector, Crystalline torpedo,Shield Accelerator ,Tachyon Cannon ,MentalSingularityGenerator
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 21 June 2001 01:33
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Thanks. What formula did you use for these values?
   And you missed the +30% on Wave Motion Guns.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 21 June 2001 13:05
   Originally posted by Jubala:
   "And you missed the +30% on Wave Motion Guns"

   I think the IB has a +15%, but I can't check right now.
   It was getting really late, so I couldn't finish adding the tohit bonuses.  I'll get to them in 9 hours or so.
   Edit: IB has only 10% bonus.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 21 June 2001 16:58
   Back to the torpedoes vs. missiles question: are we talking about the anti-matter/quantum torpedoes, or the Plasma Torps you get at the top of the seeker tech tree (after missiles)?  I agree about the AM/Q Torps being completely different from missiles.  However, the plasma torps are fairly similar to missiles (seeking weapon, long range); the major differences are that Plasma Torps have better speed, better damage resistance, and better damage at short ranges.  The damage drops below missile damage at mid- to long-range, but I think the Plasma Torps also have better range than missiles (or at least the higher-level Plasma Torps have better range than missiles).
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 21 June 2001 18:37
   Yes, in my original question I meant Plasma Torps, I never even got to the point of researching Quantum Torps. Are those good?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 21 June 2001 19:34
   CSM V: 0.8 damage
   PM V: 1.0 - 0.27 damage
   From close up, you get more damage.  With the extra speed, you face fewer turns of PDcannons.  Both factors help you get more bang for your buck, but if you want an extreme-range artillery effect, go with CSMs.
<<
>>
Noble713
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 June 2001 22:19
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "10: Ripper Beams...am still not really convinced, maybe they get better at levels 3 or 4...but a level 1 or 2 is useless compared to other weapons I had at that stage. (I loved the level 5 phased weapons!)"

   I've tried to use them in both SE3 and 4 by loading up destroyers and such with them, trying to make some kind of fast attack ship, and it's never worked. I think someone mentioned the following ship design/tactic in another thread:
Baseship hull
make sure the weapons are put in the following order:
Massive Mount Tractor Beam
Massive Mount Ripper Beams (a bunch)
Massive Mount Repulsor Beam (at least 1, maybe 2 or 3)
   The plan is for the tractor beam to grap a ship from across the tactical map, pull it in to close range, gut it with the ripper beams, and then push it back across the screen again. You're opponenent ends up with a wrecked ship that isn't in position to even fire back or ram something.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 22 June 2001 14:05
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "Yes, in my original question I meant Plasma Torps, I never even got to the point of researching Quantum Torps. Are those good?"

   From suicide_junkie's post(s):
   "damage rating (damage per turn per Kt space)
   Anti-Matter Torp V: 0.625, normal
   Quantum Torp V: 1.25, normal"

   Which means the Anti-Matter Torps are fairly weak, but the Quantum Torps are among the better heavy weapons.  IIRC, the Quantum Torps have pretty good range as well; don't recall the ranges on the Anti-matter torps.
   Speaking of range, the main reason to use Hellbores is that they're one of the few range 8 direct-fire weapons.  The damage at range 8 is kinda small, but at least you can do damage that far out.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 22 June 2001 19:23
   Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
   "Which means the Anti-Matter Torps are fairly weak, but the Quantum Torps are among the better heavy weapons. IIRC, the Quantum Torps have pretty good range as well; don't recall the ranges on the Anti-matter torps."

   AFAIK, quantum torps are merely an extension of AM torps with more powerful warheads.  As you research torpedo tech, AM torps turn into quantums.
   Levels 1 - 5 give you torpedoes with increasing range and a slowly rising damage, then levels 6 - 10 give your torpedoes increasing damage only.
   It's just like the electric discharge vs the lightning gun.  Exact same thing, just a different name halfway through.
   Thus, you can't really compare them like two different weapons.  I only included them as seperate entries because they have a different name.

   Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
   "Speaking of range, the main reason to use Hellbores is that they're one of the few range 8 direct-fire weapons. The damage at range 8 is kinda small, but at least you can do damage that far out."

   Aside from the Shield Regenerator V, the WMG is the only other error from SE3.
   Since the battle grid was enlarged, all of the weapon's ranges increased as well, except for the WMG in SE3, the WMG had the same range as the longest-range missiles, and more than any other beam weapon.  IMO, the WMG should not be extended to range 20, but some increase is definitely needed.  I set my mod weapons to 11,12,13 range for the three tech levels of WMG.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 25 June 2001 16:06
   It's been a while since I bothered with the AM/Quantum Torps, mainly because the AM Torps are fairly weak, and I don't want to bother researching long enough to get to the Quantum Torps.  I discussed them as separate weapons because I couldn't remember if they're in the same weapons family, thus allowing you to upgrade an AM torp to a Q torp.  Or if they're like the High-Energy Weapon series, which (IIRC) doesn't allow upgrading from Ripper Beams to Incinerator Beams to WMGs.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 01 September 2001 04:18
[Ed: Start of new thread asserting "PPB is the best weapon in the game"]
   Hi all,
   After playing for a few months now, it seems to me that the PPB (Phased Polaron beam) is the best weapon by far in this game, but that it unfortunately unbalances the game. (this applies mostly to PBW multiplayer)
   Missiles are useless (as discussed in other threads) because PD is too cheap and strong.
   Same for fighters.
   DUC's: I start with them but don't bother to research em to level 5, I go straight for Physics 2 and PPB's. I can usually avoid any wars until I have the PPB. It devastates any opponent who went with shields instead of armor, and it takes a long time before you get worthwile levels of phased shields (3 and up).
   Even in the late game (turn 80 upwards) I stick with PPB. I find they outgun graviton beams, rippers, and even WMG's.
   I base this on direct-fire attack ships, the bulk of my fleets. Other weapons might be useful in very specialised circumstances (e.g. a battle station with rippers, or a boarding ship with shield depleters). But in order to do most damage, consistently, in large battles, stick with PPB's.
   Numbers: don't just look at damage per kiloton ratio's, but look at damage per kiloton per combat turn. A wave-motion gun III (tough to research) has a better damage/kiloton (size) ration than a PPB, but only fires once every three turns. In three turns an enemy ship with PPB's will have done more damage than it's counterpart with WMG's. (ignore chance to hit ratios etc since that depends on sensors etc, not on weapon type). Range? sure a WMG has more range, but does that matter in large fleet battles in strategic combat? Even if you use maximum weapons range, you usually can't shoot and then move away far enough for the enemy (with PPB) to be unable to catch up to you while you reload.
   Conclusion: this is not good. It's boring for me to stick to the same weapon throughout an entire game, having found after much experimentation that other ship designs are inferior. I tried missile ships, I tried battleships with the tractor/graviton/repulser combo, etc.
The only thing that comes close is a battleship loaded with Rippers and set to point-blank strategy. Other special weapons (like bio bombs) are nice ideas but only remotely useful in the first 20 turns or so, when you can quickly infect a planet using one to three ships. Later, it's either glass em or capture em.
   Am I missing something here?
   Your comments are welcome !
   Oh while I'm at it: why would anyone bother with dreadnoughts? Battleships give the same heavy mount and have one more speed. I find dreads just slow down my fleets.
   Now what I'd really like to know is how range to target affects your chance to hit, and if this is different for each weapon. Where can I find more info / stats on that?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 01 September 2001 04:46
   Sounds like you are in need of a MOD.
   Check out the Damage Factor List I created.  It specifies the Damage rating for each weapon in Standard SE4.  (Damage/Kt/turn), as well as pointing out accuracy bonuses & damage types.
   In P&N,
-there are Quad2Shield missiles, +15% upto +25% accuracy torpedoes, while beamweapons do more damage.
-PDCs are divided into "normal" strength PDCs (max range = 2) and half-damage PDLs (max range = 7)
-phased weapons are weaker than their normal counterparts, and available in three flavors(phased beams, torps & missiles).  The normal weapon tech must be researched along with "phased weapons" in order to get your PPBs.
-phased shields alternate with normal shields (Phased is marginally stronger, but one techlevel higher)
-and finally, armor is stronger than shields (but takes ages to repair after battle)
   All these should help reduce your dependence on any one type of weapon and/or defense.
   As for a dreadnaught?  Try this beast on for size!
   The thing can absorb 92% of incoming Null-Space weapons harmlessly, and with multiple backup systems, the remaining 8% will not destroy any critical systems.
   It is basically impervious to Shield disruptors and Tachyon cannons.
   The P&N v2 version of this ship will also have 40 engines (meaning ion beams will have little effect), plus Biocrystal armor instead of HMSGs, giving it invulnerability to normal mount guns, and extreme resistance to even Heavy mounts.
   I really like the "totally invisible to the naked eye of most species" part:  +108% defense
All this for the low, low price of $100,000 minerals
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 01 September 2001 04:49
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "After playing for a few months now, it seems to me that the PPB (Phased Polaron beam) is the best weapon by far in this game, but that it unfortunately unbalances the game. (this applies mostly to PBW multiplayer)"

   That they are. I neutered them a bit in Techmod..

   quote:  "Missiles are useless (as discussed in other threads) because PD is too cheap and strong.
Same for fighters."

   You need a really, REALLY large number to get through in any level of effectiveness, so yeah, you'd normally be better off with other weapons.

   quote:  "Even in the late game (turn 80 upwards) I stick with PPB. I find they outgun graviton beams, rippers, and even WMG's."
   That's partially because High Energy Discharge isn't worth the research points, and is weak overall. Still, PPB Vs are almost as good as APB 12s, which is..odd.

   quote:  "Numbers: don't just look at damage per kiloton ratio's, but look at damage per kiloton per combat turn. A wave-motion gun III (tough to research) has a better damage/kiloton (size) ration than a PPB, but only fires once every three turns. In three turns an enemy ship with PPB's will have done more damage than it's counterpart with WMG's. (ignore chance to hit ratios etc since that depends on sensors etc, not on weapon type)."
   Actually, chance to hit DOES factor in. Why? WMGs get a to-hit bonus, PPBs do not. Still not worth it though.

   quote:  "Conclusion: this is not good. It's boring for me to stick to the same weapon throughout an entire game, having found after much experimentation that other ship designs are inferior. I tried missile ships, I tried battleships with the tractor/graviton/repulser combo, etc."
   The only thing that comes close is a battleship loaded with Rippers and set to point-blank strategy. Other special weapons (like bio bombs) are nice ideas but only remotely useful in the first 20 turns or so, when you can quickly infect a planet using one to three ships. Later, it's either glass em or capture em.
   Do remember that bio bombs only need one hit, and most populations really dislike being plagued.

   quote:  "Oh while I'm at it: why would anyone bother with dreadnoughts? Battleships give the same heavy mount and have one more speed. I find dreads just slow down my fleets."

   Personally, I stop at Battlecruiser..

   quote:  "Now what I'd really like to know is how range to target affects your chance to hit, and if this is different for each weapon. Where can I find more info / stats on that?"

   Range is a flat 10% per square, I think. Easiest way to check is fire up tactical combat, control both sides, and check yout %s as you close (make sure to turn on display hit %s!)
   Techmod lowers the High Energy Discharge to the same place as PPBs, and makes it easier to get phased shields (though normal shields are more powerful). Wham, bam, instant less-useful PPBs. I also increased the research cost for PPBs.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 01 September 2001 05:49
   quote:  "Oh while I'm at it: why would anyone bother with dreadnoughts? Battleships give the same heavy mount and have one more speed. I find dreads just slow down my fleets."

   Remember that for every ship you will need a set of bridge/CQs/LSs or MC. You will also need combat sensors, ECMs, long range jammer, self destruct device/anti-boarding parties etc. So if you have a larger hull you can fit in more firepower and spend less space (in the fleet) on "supporting" equipment. I personally don't find the slightly slower speed of a dreadnought to have much of a negative effect in my games, but I do find baseships to be too slow and yak! -40% to defense! So I only use them for non-combat and specialised roles.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 01 September 2001 15:57
   I have never got bored with this game. So you have found a weapon that in a 1 on 1 ship battle would beat almost any other ship. How many times do you have 1 on 1 ship battles?
   Wars in real life, and in Se4, aren't won by technology alone. Tactics, initiative, economics, logistics. All those are what keeps things interesting. And those change from player to player and game to game.
   Personally I get more wrapped up in those things and often lose track of what weapons my ships have on them. Sometimes this hurts me and I end up losing a battle, or winning with heavier casualties than anticipated. But concentrating on building a strong economy, and aggresive tactics that keep your opponent reacting instead of acting, will make up for a lot of tech defecincies in the long run.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 01 September 2001 22:33
[Ed: reply to previous]
   ..which still doesn't change the fact that any weapon other than PPB is really just wasting time and research in most cases.
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 02 September 2001 03:45
   There was a time when I had never researched anything bigger then a battlecruiser...
   until the PBW game where I saw one of my neighbors fielding fleets of double digit numbers of baseships.
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 02 September 2001 06:10
   I know what you mean Capnq. And those baseships (from one race) were armed with APB XII and Phased Shields V. went around munching PPB fleets.
   Then there was that other race that had smaller ships without PPB that ate PPB fleets for breakfast.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 02 September 2001 06:38
   Rich, could you be more specific about that fleet of smaller ships? If they won battles it was presumably due to combat bonuses (small=harder to hit) and numbers?
Because in my experience the only thing that kills my PPB fleets is an enemy with a fleet that is twice as large and has significant (30+) combat bonuses, either racial or through ship/fleet exp.  With enough bonuses even a dozen LC's with DUC's can do serious damage, if they are impossible to hit...
   FYI, my fleets are usually 35 to 50 ships, with 35% being PPB Battleships (for the heavy mount), 35% PPB Battlecruisers (shorter build time) and 30% support ships (sweepers, repair and fuel ships) with a fleet speed of 10 (11 if I have propulsion experts).
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 02 September 2001 17:00
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Sure Dragonlord. Actually in that game PPBs never made any differance except in battles vs NPC,s. Phased Shield V's showed up very quick. The race I didn't give more details on was using Organic Tech which was maxed out so its weapons and armor helped a lot. Another race was using tons of Null Space weapons.
   The biggest drawback to PPB's is their range. This will hamper them even in huge 50+ ship fleets. If a game gets to the point when efficient long range weapons show up APB's, WMG's, etc. PPB's ,though still powerfull, can be taken out with the better weapons.
Even Null Space (Which are fairly easy to get) will come out ahead once Phased Shields show up.(Though that fight would be messy).
   I got out of the habit of using PPB's because they were so easy to abuse the NPC's with. This had a secondary effect. I got good at beating PPB's.
   There are a number of good AI's people have designed using PPB's. Try playing a game without using PPB's and add a number of good AI races (TDM Modpack has several) that do uses them (and some others for spice). It makes things really interesting (especially if you also don't use mines). After a while you start to see ways of beating PPB ships.
   I was curious. In SE3 the PPB's had an Achilles heel. Emmisive Armor could totally negate PPB's and APB's (except at point blank range). This would be hard to duplicate is SE4 because of weapon mounts.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 02 September 2001 18:12
[Ed: reply to previous]
   quote:  "If there were a total damage per-turn limit possible you could set the damage resistance of emissive armor higher without making ships totally invulnerable. Then emissive armor could be a really useful defense against the PPB."
   quote:  "I was curious. In SE3 the PPB's had an Achilles heel. Emmisive Armor could totally negate PPB's  and APB's (except at point blank range). This would be hard to duplicate is SE4 because of weapon mounts."

   In SE3, Emissive armor negated the first X points of damage per hit, and if the first piece of armor was destroyed, the next one negated another X points of damage.
   A stack of EA 5's in SE3 would have the following effect:
1 DMG: no damage, 1 pt ignored
2 DMG: no damage, 2 pts ignored
3 DMG: no damage, 3 pts ignored
4 DMG: 1 Armor Destroyed
5 DMG: 1 Armor destroyed, 4 pts ignored
7 DMG: 1 Armor destroyed, 6 pts ignored
8 DMG: 2 Armor destroyed, 6 pts ignored.
   Those were the days...
   It was like Crystalline armor, but didn't require shields, and only the components that were damaged stacked their bonuses.
   For a "damage-per-turn limit" use organic armor with unlimited regen.  It will "emiss" all the damage done to it (rounded down to the nearest segment) unless you destroy all of it.  You'd need to limit the amount on a ship while still having more than one component, but it could work.
   The "holes in the armor" effect was pretty cool too.  There was a chance that weapons fire could go through a hole left by a destroyed armor segment, and hit internals.
<<
>>
Rollo
Sergeant
posted 02 September 2001 11:17
   quote:  "With enough bonuses even a dozen LC's with DUC's can do serious damage, if they are impossible to hit..."

   Hmm, I wonder what you are referring to  .
   Anyway, IMHO the best weapon in the game is the DUC. I have seen empires crumble into dust (others as well as mine) before the PPB became a factor in the game. Of course the best weapon of choice largely depends on your enemy, but if everybody is using phased shields I think a combination of SD+DUC is superior to just PPB.
   Otherwise I fully agree with Dragonlord the PPB is the best mid- to end-game weapon choice and if not unbalancing, it is at least redundant. IMHO the PPB needs some tweaking. It should not increase in power so fast. The biggest advantage is that you only need 5 levels to get it to full power. Maybe 8 or 10 would be more appropriate. If you extend the tech field to 12, you could get even better PPB than the current PPB V.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 02 September 2001 14:08
   quote:  "Of course the best weapon of choice largely depends on your enemy"

   Bingo! Even PBB have weaknesses. If I knew you were relying on them exclusivley, I could beat you even in a one on one ship combat by making a ship designed to defeat it's weanesses. I would use phased shields, or no shields. I would use a weapon with more range than a PBB, like APB, or a Wave motion gun, and I would set my strategy to max range. You would be toast.
   No one weapon is the best in the game. Some are better then others in specific areas. Some are better overall, but not as good as others in specific areas.
   I've said it before. Space Empires is a great big complicated version of "rock paper scissors" man.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 02 September 2001 16:27
   I have to agree that the PPB can be devastating in most situations. Using it in a solo game against AI opponents feels like cheating.    Maybe Phased-energy weapons should be made a racial tech? If it costs some racial development points to be able to use then it will be less unbalancing. Other than this change, I think some improvements in armor technology might help to balance this. I would still really like to see Emissive armor changed to have a "total per turn" limit on the energy it can absorb. Right now, all emissive armor becomes useless when cruisers appear because the large mount doubles all weapon damage and out-classes emissive armor. Setting the limit higher and higher makes ships "invulverable" to more and more powerful weapons which has its own unbalancing effects. This "all or nothing" approach just doesn't make sense. If there were a total damage per-turn limit possible you could set the damage resistance of emissive armor higher without making ships totally invulnerable. Then emissive armor could be a really useful defense against the PPB. Crystalline and Organic armor make good counter-measures aready, btw.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 02 September 2001 18:06
   I have to disagree on the whole PPB thing, for me they are definitly NOT the best weapon in the game.  Major weakness is range, IMO the best weapon is the Ionic weapons, destroy a targets engines and he is toast, combine this with either WMG or Grav or Acid Globs (Mental Singularity also works, albit a bit slowly) and the ship is toast.  I am in a game right now where my neighbor has religious tech ships, Talisman with Engine destroyers and a few Acid Glob weapons, in sim battles his cruisers toast my BaseShips that have level 5 PPB (they also have 3000+ phased shields, Solar Sail and extra movement racial bonus.)...
   Not too fond of the engine destroying missiles but the beams IMO are the best weapon....In fact I think they are too overpowered, ROF maybe needs to be 2 instead of 1, and the Weapon destroying weapons are quite good as well, the major bonus of these is that they skip all shields and armor and just destroy their target, unlike Null-space that has inferior range, too high cost and just takes out random components.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 02 September 2001 19:29
   What bothers me about PPBs is this:
   APB research cost to max:
1,677,500
PPB to max:
290,000
   That's with the extra level of physics included.
   Making it worse is the cost of shields. At max normal shields, you have good effectiveness against the APB, but nothing against the PPB. To get maxed shield protection against the PPB, you have to go through multiple layers of weaker shields, or take armor. So a player that researchs PPB V and Shield V is going to be significantly better off research wise against a player that uses, say, APBs.
   Other weapons like Wave Motion Guns, you say? Well, to get WMGIIIs you need 4,212,500 research points! Then, just for the icing, if the PPB player can close to short range..he'll OUTDAMAGE you over time (so will the APB ship, for that matter). Ripper beams do decent damage, but are outranged- Ripper IVs do 50 damage out to range 3, PPBs 60-50 damage out to range 6. So 2 PPBs vs. 3 Rippers.. 120 damage vs 150 damage. That's at point-blank range.
   Missiles are easily countered by PD weaponry. Torpedos? Decent, but like the WMGs are outdamaged.
   Meson Blasters? 30 damage at max, so for 3 mesons vs 2 PPBs: 90vs120 damage at point blank, 90vs100 damage at max. Mesons will set you back 510,000 research points, as well.
   Null-space? Very cheap (187,000), decent damage, skips everything. Decent alternative, but the fire rate is still nothing to write home about, and not at all cheap to build. Plus for every 3 Null-space cannons, you can mount 5 PPB/APBs, which goes a long way to offsetting the null-space's advantages.
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 02 September 2001 20:14
   It's all in the ballance.  I always thought the temporal thing that did 4x to shields was cool.. it did a fair ammount of damage, and you didn't have to worry about buying shield depleters AND regular weapons, and then ordering them properly, and being screwed up when you change targets..
   PPBs are fine early on, but as soon as phased shields come into play, or if there are organic races out there, they don't help much.  So you will have to switch to another kind of weapon if you want to cause any hurting, which means reasearching another tree.  So you are paying the research cost of the PPBs PLUS that of whatever you are going to switch to.  As opposed to the guy that started out researching towards WMGs or fighters or something.
   You have 4 basic kinds of attacks as far as im concerned, thats not counting long range / short range and movement tactics.  You can go for the high damage early on, and blast with a slow recharging WMG or psychic singularity or something.  Or you can go for smaller dammage that pays off over time, compensating with numbers of ships or higher protection values.  Third, you can go for saturation attacks where you load up huge ammounts of missiles and fighters, and stand off at your max range and hope to overwhelm their PD.
   Lastly, you can blow up their sun and/or planet
   But i find a balance is best, having capital ships with heavy hitting weapons.  also having lighter ships or fighters that can move in and inflict damage every turn while the big guns recharge.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 02 September 2001 20:31
   The thing is, PPBs are so cheap- and almost as effective as APB XIIs- that you really don't need another direct fire weapon. Certainly no reason to research APBs or Meson Blasters..
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 02 September 2001 21:24

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
The thing is, PPBs are so cheap- and almost as effective as APB XIIs- that you really don't need another direct fire weapon. Certainly no reason to research APBs or Meson Blasters..

Phoenix-D
   In a war, "almost as effective" can be a VERY Bad thing.
   I agree that PBB's are too cheap to research. That makes them a formidable mid game weapon. But if you rely on PBB's and face an opponent with APB's or some other longer range weapon, you will get your lunch handed to you.
   Now a case could be made that you could eliminate your opponents with PBB v's before they get to APB XII's. That is certainly true against the AI. I am not so sure in a game with several human players.
   Even if you could, it's your aggresive style of play and superior tactics and strategy that would make the difference, more than your choice of weapon tech.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 05:42
   Wow, I am away for two days and see a whole bunch of replies. Phoenix, thanks for backing up my claim there :-)
   Alrighty, you all have presented some arguments as to why PPB is NOT the best weapon in the game. Let's see:
   * Range - not as relevant as you would think. Sure some other weapons have better range, and they'll get in the first shot. Then they just sit there for a turn or two to reload while the PPB ship closes in and kills them. Plus your initial shot probably misses because of the accuracy penalty of long range weapons.
   Fact remains that nothing beats the PPB as a direct fire weapons measured in damage/kiloton/turn. (see table that was reposted). Plus they are cheap to research.
   Plus remember that I am talking about Strategic combat, so no dancing in and out of range manually. And if your opponent has such a tech advantage that his *combat* speed is so much bigger than yours that he can shoot, move away, and be far enough for you not to be able to move within your PPB weapons range.... then you're toast anyway.
   * Phased shields? By the time I think an opponent might have them I just add some shield depleters to the mix. I'm not even going to bother with phased shields anymore. I can use all that research more wisely elsewhere. Note that the ONLY shield that gives you more protection/kiloton than a regular shield V is the phased shield V, which takes *ages* to research. I'd rather stick to a mix of normal shields and armor.
   * Engine killers? Tried em. Don't like em. The only way I can see that strategy working is if you send some 15 LC's equipped only with engine killers against a larger enemy fleet. You have to have enough ships to disable ALL engines on on all their combat ships, then have enough left to move out of their attack range, then go after the support ships. And then 3-4 turns later their repair ships (in fleet) have patched things up and the enemy fleet is moving again. I'd rather spend resources on more attack ships than on wave after wave of engine killers which just slow down the enemy a few turns.
   *WMG: see above. Not as good as PPB. Longer range (so what?) long reload time, expensive to research, and less damage per kiloton per turn than a PPB.
...
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 05:55
   I dont know, man.  In a low cost research game, you get those techs awful fast.  Especially if you focus on research as a race.  100 turns in, and you will be LOOKING for shit to research.  You will be thinking, phased shields? sure, don't see anything better.  Engine killers?  Beats the heck out of rad extraction 4.
   I think all those other techs will come into play, and the guys that specialize will wipe out the generalists sitting there with the tried and true PPBs.  Don't get me wrong.  They are definitely a necessity early-mid-game.  However, if you think you can avoid a fight until you get better stuff, and everyone has phased shield anyhow, by all means, bypass them.
   Besides, even if phased shields give less protection, they give a hell of alot better than ZERO if everyone is using phased weapons.  And before you tell me that they don't give as good as armor, keep in mind the repair cost of armor vs the regenerative ability of shields as long as the generator is alive.  Phased Shields I start looking real nice.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 08:40
   For me, nothing beats a Virus III plus a heavy mount Allegiance Subverter!
<<
>>
rdouglass
Captain
posted 04 September 2001 13:10
   IMO, it is more important to fire first than what weapons you have....  Things being relatively equivalent (ship size, tech levels - not necessarily weapon types), the empire firing first usually will win (unless of course the ship was poorly designed).  To me, this firing first seems to be a bigger factor in the outcome of strategic combat than the weapon types.
   Having said that, I think PPB's are best for early - mid games and WMG's in the mix for later games.
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 04 September 2001 13:13
   Dragonlord I used your design in the simulator against a very similar battle cruiser, where I just replaced the PPB by APB XII (6x heavy mount) and the stealth armor and 5x armor III by phased shield V (2x). In all my simulations so far your design was destroyed. Sorry but I think in the late game PPB are not any more the weapon of choice against other ships. It is however still very effective against fighters, because they do not have phased shields.
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 04 September 2001 13:30
   Dragonlord I think most of the people posting here are talking about strategic combat. Basing their experiences on PBW.
   I ran your designs vs the designs on the recent 'Close Combat Ships' topic. Your PPB ship lost every time to CW's 'Ripper Beam Ship' and Taqwus's 'Null Space Combo' designs. <To be fair it did beat many other posted design's  >
   So it isn't even the best at close combat.
   PPB's are also very vulnerable to special racial techs.
   I am still unconvinced PPB's are the ultimate weapon.
   On using strategic combat 'fleet tactics' can make a huge difference. I know this first hand. In a recent PBW game, I lost my first few engagements vs enemy fleets. As other fleets engaged I tried different formations/strategies. Eventually I found the right mix for my fleets and soon they were winning. Nothing else had changed, if anything the enemy fleets had the advantage due to their recent victories (experience). Fleet mixes were the same. Went from only destroying 1-2 ships to only losing 1-2 ships. These were battles with fleets 30-40 ships in size.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 13:41
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "* Range - not as relevant as you would think. Sure some other weapons have better range, and they'll get in the first shot. Then they just sit there for a turn or two to reload while the PPB ship closes in and kills them. Plus your initial shot probably misses because of the accuracy penalty of long range weapons."

   Sorry man, but you are way off here. Assuming equal ship sizes, speed, etc, weapon range is not only just as "relevant as I think", it's the ONLY thing that matters.

   quote:  "Fact remains that nothing beats the PPB as a direct fire weapons measured in damage/kiloton/turn. (see table that was reposted). Plus they are cheap to research."

   Now here I can't disagree with you one bit. In fact I am even more of a PBB fan for early/mid game since I found myself in a game recently with meson blaster III's facing ships with PBB V's. Doh! But if you stop researching weapons after reaching PBB V, you won't last long.

quote:  "Plus remember that I am talking about Strategic combat, so no dancing in and out of range manually. And if your opponent has such a tech advantage that his *combat* speed is so much bigger than yours that he can shoot, move away, and be far enough for you not to be able to move within your PPB weapons range.... then you're toast anyway."

   LOL. Dude, you must not have recognized my nick here. I am geoschmo, or as some people call me "Mr. PBW", at least my wife does.   Not saying I am good or anything. I've been beat more than my share. But all I play is strategic combat. I'm not even sure I remember how to fight in tactical. laf.

   quote:  "* Phased shields? By the time I think an opponent might have them I just add some shield depleters to the mix."

   But, why do that if PBB V's are the ONLY weapon worth researching?   You're arguing my point here guy. Puke does a better job defending phased shields than I could. I would just be repeating what he said.

   quote:  "*WMG: see above. Not as good as PPB. Longer range (so what?) long reload time, expensive to research, and less damage per kiloton per turn than a PPB."

   I agree. the long reload time on WMG makes them almost worthless.

quote:  "Geoschmo, I'd love to take you up on that challenge.
   OK here is a sample ship design (by heart, don't know if I used all space available in the hull)..."

   This isn't even hard. I don't even have to try this one. Your design is almost identical to one I tested prior to making my challenge.   As the other guy says, simply replace all the PBB with APB XII's, and your ship gets toasted almost every time. And if you throw in a religous tailsman, it gets beat 100% of the time.
   My challenge is unbeatable by PBB. There may be another weapon that can beat my challenge, but it isn't PBB. Sorry.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 14:10
   One thing to remember about range is you must have sensors/experiance for it to be an advantage. At range 10 any standard weapon has 0% to hit if no other modifiers come into play. Also as pointed out below, he who fires/hits first usually wins. I'd rather have a hip with a lot of PPB's than a few WMG once you start taking damage. All in all I think PPB's are the best direct fire weapon to base your fleet around but you definately need variety to win consistently.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 14:26
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Correct, but the same penalties apply to the PBB. All other things being equal, if one ship has greater range in weapons, they will win the majority of the time.
   I don't like WMG either personally. And I agree with you about PBB's up through the mid game. But they get passed up later on. And you will too if you stop researching weapons and stay with PBB V's for the rest of the game. Unless you can beat your enemies before they can get the better weapons.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 15:11
   The thing with the PPB's and range is that in order to fire you must get within their range, 6 I think, so all direct fire weapons will have a chance to hit. This is where the other modifiers come into play. It's rare by mid-game not to have sensors, ECM, experiance etc. Those are worth more than the weapon type, IMO. You need some direct fire weapon that fires every turn. I usually pick one early and develop it to the max then when I have all the other thing I deem necessary, ECM, shields, armor etc., I research another direct fire weapon. I think it is a waste to research two direct fire weapons at the same time. There's too many other areas that need to be researched.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 15:20
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I agree completely. You are better off picking a particular weapon and researching that as far as you can in most cases. And due to my testing in regards to this thread, and also my recent ingame experience, PBB's will no doubt be a priority for me in future games, if for no other reason than their relative cheapness in research.
   I was simply disagreeing with the belief stated earlier in this thread that once you had PBB, you didn't need anything else. That is simply not true based on the facts.
   One problem though with researching the PBB up to level five though, is that if your opponent is researching APB while you are researching PBB, you will have the advantage early on, but if you can't capitalize on that advantage, before he gets to the upper levels of APB, and starts beating your PBB ships, you will be WAY behind the curve. You will have to start over on the APB branch and have a long way to go to catch up.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 04 September 2001 15:13
   Nitam, be aware that WMGs have a +30% to hit bonus. So at the same range as the PPBs, they have a significantly better chance to hit.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 15:21
   WMG are my 'big gun' for planet defense, especially when using the WP range modifier mod. They can almost reach the edge of the board. With their built in to hit and a sensor they pound atacking fleets. I put them on some ships, to target planets and bases at range, but I don't build entire fleets of them. The WMG does have a long reload time. A sh*tload of LC's with direct fire weapons can take out a few DN's with WMG's. Plus the WMG can't target fighters or Sat's. That's why you need a mixed force. Anyone can design a ship to counter a specific ship. The trick is to design a fleet to counter another fleet.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 18:08
   Cool, I got another active thread going
   OK time for next replies:
   [Ed: reply to previous]
   All very true, and I haven't posted my fleets yet. I don't like weapon platforms myself anymore.., yes the large platforms with WMG's are good, if you have enough of them on your planet. But the research needed to get the large platforms, plus the build time for getting enough platforms built, is too expensive. I'd rather use all that to build more ships. Alas, but in my experience in the mid to late game the *only* viable planet defense is...ships. Many ships. Which is why I play merchant races, for the reduced maintenance. I tried the strategy of sending my fleet out to attack the enemy systems while my own close-to-core or core systems are defended with sats, fighters, and many WP's. Didn't work. If an enemy fleet (say 25 ships upwards) slips by into your system they'll destroy anything you have there.

   Originally posted by geoschmo:
   "I agree completely. You are better off picking a particular weapon and researching that as far as you can in most cases. And due to my testing in regards to this thread, and also my recent ingame experience, PBB's will no doubt be a priority for me in future games, if for no other reason than their relative cheapness in research.
   I was simply disagreeing with the belief stated earlier in this thread that once you had PBB, you didn't need anything else. That is simply not true based on the facts.
   One problem though with researching the PBB up to level five though, is that if your opponent is researching APB while you are researching PBB, you will have the advantage early on, but if you can't capitalize on that advantage, before he gets to the upper levels of APB, and starts beating your PBB ships, you will be WAY behind the curve. You will have to start over on the APB branch and have a long way to go to catch up."

   Ah, correction: I never meant that to say that after the PPB you can stop weapons research entirely, I'm just saying that you get them early and then keep em, none of the high tech weapons eclipse them. But I DO use other weapons..(besides PD): Against organic races I add some Null Space to the mix, and against a race who has been around long enough to have phased shields I add shield depleters.
   I'm not surprised that a ship with APB XII beats a PPB V ship, but I'll do all I can to destroy an empire before they get to APB XII, not that hard with the early lead the PPB gives me. (I assume you meant Large mount, not heavy) And I think my PPB ships do better in fleets, so let me post a fleet.
...
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 19:27
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I usually only build medium and small WP. Smalls have PD only or PB's only, one shield and one armor each. Medium are used for the WMG. 5-10 WP will hold almost any planet. I do play with a mod that increases the WP range so that helps a lot on the beam weapons. It makes taking the AI planets a little more dangerous, some times can't even close without losing ships.
   My PD ship are different than yours. I only put the minimum stuff on them and the rest PD, no shields armor sensors etc. I find the AI rarely targets them so they don't need to much protection.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 19:52
[Ed: reply ot previous]
   This is something I would really like to see. The ability to target specifc ships based on what components they have. I can't think of a better way to stop an enemy cold than to take out his minesweepers, or PD ships, or his supply ships. Fighters or escorts that ignore everything else and head straight for the carriers. That could really cause problems when faced with overwhelming odds.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 05 September 2001 04:30
   Originally posted by dumbluck [Ed: in reply to previous]:
   "Besides, even if u could target ships carrying specific components, I could fool the strategy by putting one PD cannon (for example) on every ship; which isn't a bad idea anyway, just in case the ai kills off my specialty ship.."

   Except that's not really fooling the strategy. If the idea is knock out all the PDC, the ships would target the ships with PDC until the PDC were destroyed and then move on to the next ship. Imagine a planet with missles on WP's, and fighters that are targeting just ships with PDC. If you can knock out all the PDC, even if your fighters get chewed up, the attacker would be wiped out trying to attack the planet with no PDC left to protect his fleet. Of course unless you had a weapon that targeted only PDC, which isnt' an option now either, putting PDC on every ship would make the strategy less effective. So I guess it's fooling it somewhat.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 18:12
   Oh by the way, I did not know that WMG's get a to-hit bonus. Where can I see that? Do other weapons get that too and how do I find out about it?
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 04 September 2001 18:51
[Ed: reply to previous, last part]
   Components.txt is where you want to look Dragonlord. Weapon Modifier entry for the weapon.
There are three weapons that have built in to hit bonuses.
PD +70
WMG +30
HEM +30 (crystal)
   It would be nice if they were listed when you look at the component. Some modders have done this.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 19:22
   quote:  "Ah, correction: I never meant that to say that after the PPB you can stop weapons research entirely, I'm just saying that you get them early and then keep em, none of the high tech weapons eclipse them."

   You will do well to keep researching, because eventually the PBB do get "eclipsed". If your fleets are just a bunch of PPB ships, with a few Null Space Weapons thrown in, they are still susceptible to the same problems you individual ship had. The lack of range is going to kill you against an otherwise equal enemy. Setting your strategy to "point blank" doesn't do anything if you get chewed up before you get within range to fire your weapons.

   quote:  "But I DO use other weapons..(besides PD): Against organic races I add some Null Space to the mix, and against a race who has been around long enough to have phased shields I add shield depleters."

   Here we start to see a peek at the real reason for your success. It's not your reliance on PPB at all. It's your ability to react to different situations and different enemies.   But neither of these are going to help you against an enemy with longer range weapons than PPB.

   quote:  "I'm not surprised that a ship with APB XII beats a PPB V ship, but I'll do all I can to destroy an empire before they get to APB XII, not that hard with the early lead the PPB gives me."

   Ah ha! PPB isn't a secret weapon after all. It's your aggressiveness, strategy, and execution that wins you all those games. (I knew it all along.)
   And here's the kicker. What if your enemy starts out with PPB as well? That neutralizes your early advantage. Then you are back to relying on your wits, instead of your fancy Phased Polaron Beams.
   My entire point in playing the devil's advocate in this thread has not been to say that PPB's aren't a great weapon, especially in the early to mid game. But when I hear terms like "bored" or "repetitive" in reference to SEIV, I gotta think you aren't playing the right people.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 20:19
   I myself like the enveloping acid weapons from the Organic weapons list.
   Now how does your apb or ppb ships do when they go up against a ship that has shield depleters followed by a ship that has temporal weapons ( the ones that increase the reload to 15 )?
   But natually all this changes based on what mod your playing.
   Are we just talking stock 1.41 ????
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 September 2001 03:51
   Tesco,
   Yes we are talking stock 1.41, which I think is the most common on PBW.
<<
>>
Commander G2
Private First Class
posted 06 September 2001 18:19
   PPBs are a crucial part of any race's arsenal that do not have unique racial weapons.  Cheap to research and requires very advanced shields to stop.  Armor III is my standard defense against PPBs and put on one Shield 5 just to hold off any fighters that might get through PDCs.
   I am in a game against an Organic race where PPBs are practically useless because he buts 3 or 4 armor on his ships.  I have to use Null Space weapons to get to him and they are very costly and reload very slowly.
   Because his ships use organic weapons, his ships build in about half the time/half the minerals.  Organic seekers are a pain to fight because he can launch so many, reload quickly, and they move quickly.  If anything is the bane of PPBs, I would say it is twice as many ships with organic seekers and organic armor.
<<
>>
spacefan
Private First Class
posted 09 September 2001 15:47
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I've never really played a psychic race before (mostly played w/propulsion expert) and I've heard a lot of talk on the boards about the merits of the alliegance subverter, so I decided to start a game with psychic.
   I've been playing it for a day or two and last night I finally got alliegance subverter 1, and I also ran into two enemies at the same time. So I retrofitted a few escorted and frigates with the subverter.
   I also had regular ships fighting. So anyway, I tried several times, in 4 seperate battles, to subvert, and I didn't succeed in a single one. This was with several different ships. Is this just because Subverter 1 is not very good? Or was I stupid enough to fight against a empire with master computers.
   Also, is the subverter more effective when shields are down? and what do those attack numbers for the subverter mean(40, 30, 20, etc)?
   If I can't get this blasted thing to work I'll probably lose this war because those shard cannons are blowing me away, and my accuracy is horrible.
<<
>>
spacefan
Private First Class
posted 09 September 2001 16:32
   Ok, my complaining is over. It wasn't master computers ,,, I just didn't get lucky. I just finished a battle where I took over a light cruiser armed with shield 4 (I don't have any shield tech), large mount shard cannon 3's and other techs.  Now the tough part is whether to use that ship for defense or to analyze it.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 09 September 2001 16:52
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I'd analyse it for the shields, unless I'm REALLY short on ships for defense.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 09 September 2001 16:48
   quote:  "If I can't get this blasted thing to work I'll probably lose this war because those shard cannons are blowing me away, and my accuracy is horrible."

   THAT is your problem. You have only ONE shot with your subverters so you better make them count, or have lots of them in your fleets. Something that you might like to know, subverters get you experience for your ships/fleets VERY slowly, so you should somehow compensate for it. Have you made sure that you have psychic ship/fleet training facilities in all of your systems?

   quote:  "Also, is the subverter more effective when shields are down?"

   No. I myself is a very dedicated user of subverters and most of the time (at least in my current humans vs AI game) the only weapons that fires before the fight ends are my subverters. I've captured entire dozen-ship fleets of dreadnoughts from the AI like that.

   quote:  "and what do those attack numbers for the subverter mean(40, 30, 20, etc)?"

   I found that a large mount is much more effective than a normal mount, but a heavy/massive mount has no significant improvement over the large mount.

   quote:  "Or was I stupid enough to fight against a empire with master computers."

   Why don't you know? Don't you check out your enemy's designs? If you are really fighting MC ships then try putting a computer virus package in front of every subverter. You can still "convert" MC ships if their MCs are down.
   Perhaps I should give a disclaimer here, I've never played against a human with psychic tech before, but I've been using it with huge success against the AI. So don't blame me if you lose your game!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 09 September 2001 16:52
   The "damage" of the subverter is the chance in %, that a HIT will subvert the crew.  Misses do nothing at all.
   If you can get an LC, a large mount will give you a guaranteed capture from pointblank, (if you hit).
   RE: light cruiser
   Most situations an analysis would be called for.
   If you have only frigate hulls, analyse it.
   Build escorts with Subverters and Attack Destroyers to protect the escorts and finish off enemy fleets.  You will get the occasional capture, analyse it ASAP.
   If you have destroyer tech or are a few turns from researching destroyer tech:
Save that LC!  Bring it home, and the instant you can build destroyers, analyse the ship for LC tech.  Then see below.
   If/when you have LC hulls:
   Retrofit that LC to a heavily Armored/Shielded assault craft with Large-mount subverters as its only weapons.  If you analysed the LC to get here, then design and build one or two.
   Send huge fleets of your normal-weapon defense frigates (or larger hulls) to protect the capture LC at all costs.
   When the enemy numbers are low, move the LC in and capture the last one or two ships with the subverter.
   You will lose a few frigates, but will be capturing LCs and other technology as fast as you can analyse.
<<
>>
spacefan
Private First Class
posted 09 September 2001 18:09
   The Phong have been sending one ship through the warp point at a time, so I've been taking everything at point blank range with my normal mount converters.
   And I have the light cruisers coming, I just got 4 levels of shield tech by analyzing some of those ships but now I've got pretty much everything they know (except the crystalline tech of course).
<<
>>
Slaughtermeyer
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 01:27
   Has anyone been able to get subverter ships to fire at point blank range in simultaneous games?  I've tried it a couple times by giving the ship point blank as primary orders and also putting it into a fleet with point blank orders but it still fired the subverters at long range.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 10 September 2001 02:39
   If your ships have enough speed to close to point blank in one turn from out-of-range, then they will fire at point blank.
   AIs always fire everything that has any chance to hit as soon as possible, and never save up long reload weapons for the right moment.
   If you made a range-reducing mount, then you could force the AI to close to point blank before firing the subverter.
<<
>>
Slaughtermeyer
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 02:57
   Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
   "AIs always fire everything that has any chance to hit as soon as possible, and never save up long reload weapons for the right moment."

   It sounds like point blank, optimal range, and maximum range have no relevance or difference whatsoever in simultaneous games.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 10 September 2001 03:51
   Oh, they do. Well, not for weapons like the Subverter or Rocket Pods, but for everything else.. because they will determine what the ship does AFTER it fires the shot.
   Do you REALLY want your CSM armed ships closing with a Ripper Beam armed planet for example? Point blank, they probably will. Max range? Not likely.
<<
>>
Slaughtermeyer
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 04:36
   Maybe before the shot is fired too? If a ship has for example point blank orders will it fire as soon as it moves into range even if it has movement left over or will it use all of its movement for that turn before firing to get as close as possible?  It's already logical that a ship with max. range would fire as soon as it moved into range even if it had movement points left which it could use to get closer, I assume that's the way simultaneous combat works for max. range.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 10 September 2001 14:24
   If the ship is already in weapons range, it will tend to fire, then move.
   If the ship is not in weapons range, it will use all of its movement, then fire.
   If some weapons are in range, and some aren't, then I think the ship will move, then fire, but I'm not sure.
   If ships are in a fleet, the leader will do the above, then the wingmen will move, then the wingmen fire.
<<
>>
capnq
Major
posted 10 September 2001 16:40
   quote:  "It sounds like point blank, optimal range, and maximum range have no relevance or difference whatsoever in simultaneous games."

   I've seen differences in simultaneous between maximum range and short range when used as secondary movement strategy.
<<


* REMOTE MINING:
These some difference of opinion on the value of remote mining.  Over the long haul the -1% depreciation per turn in ALL resource value to everything (planets and moons) within the sector (a square within a system) being mined will cost you in potential; but if you are short on resources, you may have no choice.  Don't ignore the fact that asteroids can be turned into planets with the correct technology when contemplating using them as well.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
21. How do you remote mine?  We have tried creating ships with them on and sent them to an asteroid, but have not been able to mine. Nor has there been any type of order available to carry out this order.
A. You just need a ship with a remote mining component on it. You move it to the same coordinates as an asteroid field. Now keep in mind, there is no order you need to give, the mining is automatic. The only way to know that your ships are remotely mining is to look in the Empire Status window and look under the item for Remote Mining. It should show resources being generated from remote mining. Also, you can only have one ship mining an asteroid field at a time.
Q 51. When remote mining in several places at once, how do I know how much point each ship is making?
A. You can see how much you are mining at a location by looking at the remote mining components you have on your ship. The component will tell you exactly how many resources you will mine each turn. Be sure to check the Empire Status window to see the total amount of resources that you are currently mining. Each ship's report will also list how much that ship is remotely mining.

>>
Spyder
Private First Class
posted 14 February 2001 13:37
   I tried to do build remote mining stations last night so that I could rely on them for my resources and put my planets to better use.
   I quickly noticed that the asteroid/planet degradation caused by the Robo Miners quickly made the Mining Stations unproductive ... costing more to maintain than what they were mining. Even the Farmers & Extractors weren't worth the Minerals they used for the Organics/Radioactives they acquired.
   I was using Small Space Stations with 4 robo miners. Anyone have any input or comments?
<<
>>
Drake
Sergeant
posted 14 February 2001 13:54
   Unless you have an very low maintenance, I think remote mining is a waste in this game. I think this could be improved greatly by changing how quickly the planet degrades, making it dependant on how many resources are being mined from it that turn.
   Even on a tiny planet, 5 Monolith IIIs and a robotoid facility III will generate more resources than a remote miner over the planet would, plus you don't have to mess around with building up the planet values again after you strip mine it.
   Just my take on it, maybe someone else has actually found a use for them. *shrug*
<<
>>
alasyr
Private First Class
posted 14 February 2001 14:24
   Well RM [Ed: Remote Mining] cannot beat monoliths on terraformed tinies (well if there is one tiny at location, that is at least, and even then not forever because of value degradation), but in the begining when you don't have the atmospheric improvement techs it might be a good way of using resource reach tinnies, especialy if there are more than one at same place. Starbase present there will mine them all. First you have to forget about using space station for it as it doesn't pay off. The 2nd and 3rd starbase (14 or 24 miners respectively) as RM have much better mineral output and therefore life span. I did some calculation on this before and if I remember correctly 14 miners on battlestation would still make some profit (a tiny thought) on a 30% resource value world.
<<
>>
raynor
Second Lieutenant
posted 14 February 2001 14:33
   In a previous post on this same subject, Drake said he'd calculated it out, and RM lost out becuase they don't get the population or race bonuses, he thought.
   Personally, I'm rather inclined to believe him.
<<
>>
Triumvir Emphy
Private First Class
posted 14 February 2001 14:39
   The only cost effective way is sats which you ferry around once you deplete asteriods. (That is a zero maintenance way, which is almost like cheating.)
<<
>>
Drake
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 March 2001 16:15
[Ed: reply in another related thread]
   Last I tested this, you only get the resources from ONE satellite in a group over a planet doing this.  You'll still decrease the % value of the planet by 1 each turn, which seems like a waste to me since you'll be getting very little out of it.  Just colonize the planet and value improve it instead.
<<
>>
Drake
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 March 2001 18:18
   Originally posted by janpet:
   "I never tried to mine planets, I was thinking of mining asteroids when I suggested using satellites. IMHO they make a useful addition, they are cheap to manufacture and there is no great loss if the opponents destroy them."
   I just think it's a hassle since you get so little out of it.  I tend not to research the individual resource tech trees anyway, going for monoliths instead, so my remote mining is even less effective.  As far as asteroids are concerned, I'd rather make a planet out of it than mine it, since I'm researching stellar manip early anyway.
<<
>>
alasyr
Private First Class
posted 14 February 2001 14:43
   Drake is right about max output. Once again made a mistake in reasoning that two RM tinies would outproduce maxed out colonizied ones.
<<
>>
Drake
Sergeant
posted 14 February 2001 17:17
   Well, here's a couple more random thoughts related to mining (but not necessarily each other).
   Sats may be mineral cost effective, but they aren't planet cost effective. You only get the benefit of one satellite (that's one UNIT, not one group), and the planet still goes down 1% each year. It doesn't cost you much in current resources, but it probably is bad if you plan on colonizing that planet later and building resource facilities on it.
   I'm just guessing, but I think RM is more viable under finite minerals. Then it will probably work like "Stars!" did, where your planetary decrease is based on the number of miner components working on the planet each turn. I'll look into this later, if someone else hasn't already.
   I might, MIGHT, (ok, I probably wouldn't, but someone else might), use RM if I was short on radioactives or organics and had a massive surplus of minerals. If you're in a bad shape that way though, you'd better start researching to get those resource converters...
   One positive to RM is that you don't need a SP in the system -you can sneak around and ruin someone else's future planets instead of yours, heh. In my case, every planet is my future planet, so that isn't as appealing. Muhahahahahahah.
   Generally I just find that I have enough stuff to worry about without messing around with RM. If you take a resource penalty, have low maintenance or don't need minerals specifically, or are in big trouble as far as colonizable planets go, maybe you can give RM a shot and have it work out for you. Otherwise, take a pass and work on building better ships so you can steal someone else's planets if you need more resources.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Sergeant
posted 15 February 2001 17:34
   I've had pretty good luck using RM on rich asteroid fields; load a Base Station with 14 miners/farmers/extractors and build it at a high-value asteroid sector. I have three of those operating at three different asteroid fields, and they're bringing in a net of 5k minerals and 1k of rads each turn (10 mineral miners, 4 rad extractors). I'm not worried about the organics this game. The bases have been operating for 10-20 turns already, and still making a profit. They paid for themselves after the first 3 turns (when I was getting 8k minerals per station per turn), since they cost about 22k minerals to build. Obviously, they take forever to build with a spaceyard ship, but it's a way to use asteroid fields. I just have to remember to keep checking on them every couple turns to make sure they're still profitable, and send a space yard ship over to scrap them when they are no longer profitable.
<<
>>
Tarkin
Private First Class
posted 09 March 2001 21:54
   I was curious if anyone has come out with a practical reduction in maintenance cost to make robo miners/ remote mining more cost effective. I am too new to this game to just make a random guess and would like the advice from this board's veterans on an appropriate reduction figure that will not throw the game off balance.
   I have researched past threads on this subject but have not seen any figures mentioned.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 09 March 2001 22:56
   The best approach in the default configuration of the game is to build bases full of remote miners over the planets you want to mine. Bases have 1/2 the maintenance cost of ships, so you can get a 'profit' much more easily with a base than a ship. Look for planets with moons, btw. ALL unoccupied planets in a sector are mined by the remote miners. So, of you have 3 planets with a total of 250 percent mineral value, you'll get 250 percent return from your miners.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 March 2001 21:16
[Ed: posted in a separate thread]
   One thing to remember about remote mining is only one ship can do it but you could have 10 remote miner components on it. That is the only way to make a profit doing remote mining and even then it is sometimes not worth the effort.
<<
>>
Jourin
Private First Class
posted 21 March 2001 23:10
   There is a mod with a prospector ship and a mining base available with tech "Deep Space Mining", that makes remote mining profitable.  Best idea I saw, so I use that idea, but would like it added to the official release.
<<
>>
Oggy ben Doggy
Private First Class
posted 21 March 2001 23:42
   If your ship only had Mineral miners, do all 3 types go down?
   that would be weird
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
First Lieutenant
posted 22 March 2001 14:47
   This has been debated at length before; and Drake is right, the decrease is 1% per turn, no matter how many (or how few) miners/farmers/extractors are being used per turn.  So that starbase could mine a 144% asteroid field for 144 turns.
   Well, OK, slightly less than that, since eventually maintenance will be higher than the resources mined; but with Mineral Miner III's, a Master Computer (slightly less expensive than all those life support and crew quarters for a starbase), and the 50% maint. reduction for bases, that comes to, um, 5000 minerals/125 orgs/725 rads maintenance cost; 24 miners extracting (800*value) each means that you make profit on any asteroid (or planet) with mineral value higher than 26%.  So, in reality, that Starbase loaded with mineral miners could mine for (144 - 26) or 118 turns.  Obviously, you'd want to scrap it at that time.  Which would return a little value also...
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 22:05
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I just discovered the payback on remote mining! It is wonderful! Build battle cruiser yard ships. Each yard ship goes over a planet of the wrong atmosphere and builds a starbase with master computer III and one remote miner III RM3. It takes 4 turns and when built immediately do a retrofit to same with 3 RM3 plus one repair bay. Retrofit again to same with 7 RM3. Retrofit again to same with 13 RM3 and now 13 to repair. Next turn you have 8 working and the repair bay added. Retrofit to same with 22 RM3. Retrofit to same with 23 RM3 and one minelayer III which has space for 6 small mines. There are 16 to repair and the last retrofit is done. Next turn the yard ship shifts to another planet and starts over. So it takes 4+3 = 7 turns per planet mined. Next turn your income is 800x23xtotal percentage of planet/ moons which is 184 per percent. Base maintenance is 5181 125 701. So breakeven is 29% total. Factor of five profit per turn versus maintenance is 169% requiring moons, but who is that greedy? The base costs at least 42k minerals, but I did not bother to check how much more multiple refits make it. The planet is depleted one percent per turn. Calculate L = total percent minus 29. Then total percentage earned until you drained it down to breakeven is  L*(L+1)/2.
   Examples % = 39 gains 55 * 184 = 10k definitely not worth it
% = 59 gains 465* 184 = 85k about a factor of two minus initial is 1x.
% = 79 gains 1275 * 184 = 234k a factor of 5-1 but it takes 50 turns
% = 99 gains 2485 * 184 = 457k a factor of 10-1 takes 70 turns
Draining a 99 down to 59 is 40 turns at (40*41/2+30*40 = 2020) * 184 = 371k Which is a factor of  9-1 payback in 40 turns.
   At 99% if you have the proper atmosphere on a large planet you can get yard + 19 * 1000 * 1.2 Jubiliant * .99 = 22572 per turn. At that rate it takes 14 turns to get the same minerals payback as the base gives in 40 turns. But it also takes 5 turns to build the yard and 19 more to reach full production. So call it 5+24 turns to get an equal payback. So if it will be 10 or more turns until you can plant a colony with the proper atmosphere, do the starbase. Now why would that be a factor ? Well it turns out that production from planets is part of your score. But production from remote mining is NOT!!!!!! To have an enormous minerals surplus while avoiding MEE you just need to learn minerals 3, battle cruisers, and bases 3. If you have the time you should also do yards 3, computers 3, repair 3, and mines 3, but the economics without them is almost the same.
   Let's just say that this has completely changed my plans as presented in "TDM-Modpack politics in really big game". All I need the sphereworlds for is to deny them to the enemy, grow population, and build intelligence centers and storage facilities.....
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 13 June 2001 23:36
   Big problem... When the miner's planet runs dry, you're outta luck.  You ecomomy goes straight down the tubes.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 14 June 2001 03:58
   It is not hard to find a scoring profit. Look for type 3 single star solar systems. Planet IV always has two moons. The base costs 25 score points x1000 +5181 maintenance says look for total greater than 164. To have it last 25 turns at a scoring and maintenance profit look for 164+75 = 239. Of the 13 such systems in my homespace on map6 there were six really good ones - Ute@246, Vote@303, Equal@343, Eural@278, Sop@306, and Ebb@283. Combined 1759 * 184 per turn minus 6 * 5181 is a minerals profit starting at 292570. In 25 turns it drops to 1309 * 184 - 6 * 5181 = 209770. Since the scoring for bases is 25 * 6 = 150 then I am still making a scoring profit on the set of 59k and would not need to scrap for another few turns. My profit over base maintenance for the least of them would continue for 246 - 3N = 29 makes N = 72 turns by which time the game will be OVER because it is already turn 47 and the soonest I can do this is about 55.
   As I said before it only makes sense if you need your score to remain below MEE while getting a boost in minerals, and do not do it if you expect to get the proper atmosphere race any time soon. In my case both are true.
<<
>>
Saxon
Private First Class
posted 14 June 2001 14:20
   A hopeful question, but one I am fairly sure the answer is no.
   If you have a facility (the Nature Shrine in the Religious Tech tree) that improves all statistics of the planets in the system, does that counter the loss of 1% per turn due to mining?  Or does it only improve the stats for planets which you have colonized?  This could be a way around the loss of planets due to over mining.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 14 June 2001 14:58
   Only colonized.
   If you stuck a colony on there and built 10 Value improvement plants, you could get any planet up to 255% value in only about 80 turns.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 14 June 2001 15:35
   Do RM ships work cloaked?  Hrm.
   One evil remote-mining thought that came to mind was that of a maintenance-free, crystalline race (yes, this might take many racial points...) sending out hordes of cheap remote-mining ships across the quadrant.  The objective would be to reduce the resources available to non-crystalline players, while crystalline players could use their solar generators.  If combined with generous use of planet-value-depleting intel operations, it might have an effect...
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 14 June 2001 20:18
   **YES** they work cloaked! So add a cloak and scanner jammer, take off the repair bay as a very last retrofit, and you can get 24 miners on board. Thanks for bringing that up!
If you can afford to keep the repair bay on, do so - it could come in handy.....
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 10 August 2001 20:54
[Ed: Start of a new thread after v1.41 was released]
   Robo-Miners have always been considered close to useless by the majority of people on this forum. I think we can now declare them officially obsolete!
   I noticed recently that one of the last patches changed robo-miners so that only one mining component of each type will generate resources per turn. The first question that this brings to mind is, "Who in the world thought Robo-miners were a big enough problem that they bothered to email Aaron and suggest that change?" The second question is "What good are they now at all?"
   Prior to that you could at least build a large vessel or space station with enough robo miners to overcome the resources you would be spending in maint for the ship. With only one per sector functional, that goes out the window.
   Now what is left?
Possibility #1: A race very low maintenance could build destroyers with robo-miner components that might generate more minerals than they cost in maint.
   Problem: I have not worked out the numbers, this may not even be true. Besides the fact that a race with very low maint probably won't need robo-miners to begin with.

Possibility #2: Satellite Miners. This was my preferred use for the robominer component all along. It has the advantage of generating resources without costing maint.
   Problem: You still have to research satellite 3 to get a unit big enough to hold a robo-miner comp. By the time I have research sat 3 (A very expensive tech to research) My empire has probably expanded to the point where I don't have resource problems anymore, or time to deal with moving them around to choice locations.

Possibility #3: Low tech resource converting. Use Robo-rad extractors or Robo-farmers. Costs minerals in maint, but you would have a net gain in the resource you are extracting.
   Problem: This is a possibility. It has not changed really. But it's not terribly efficient, and my experience has been that minerals are what I am in short supply on until later in the game. And by them my empire has expanded to the point where resources are not a problem.
   Of course I have several options to fix this, and they can be modded in very easily. But as far as the unmodded game goes, robo-miners are IMHO obsolete unless Aaron does one or more of the following...
   1. Reduce the size of the robo-miner component. This would allow their use on small sats, getting them into the game earlier, when you actually have resource problems.
   2. Reduce the cost to research sat 3. See suggestion 1.
   3. Give robo-resource components more resource generation ability. Get them above the break even point of maint.
   4. Give robo-resource components the "Modified Maintenance Cost" ability to reduce the maint cost of a ship that has them onboard. (This has potential for abuse though. Players may put them on their larger warships just to get the maint reduction.)
   Any comments?
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 10 August 2001 21:18
[Reply to previous]
   I'm not sure, but I can think of possibly two scenarios where they may be useful:  finite resource games and P&N mod games.
   However, I am in agreement - they are even less useful now...
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 10 August 2001 21:33
[Reply in thread]
   The only thing I use them for is to mess up planets that I will not be inhabiting. SO that others will not plant a colony there.
   Other then that, they are useless.
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 10 August 2001 21:37
quote originally posted by "geoschmo":
   "Possibility #3: Low tech resource converting. Use Robo-rad extractors or Robo-farmers. Costs minerals in maint, but you would have a net gain in the resource you are extracting.
   Problem: This is a possibility. It has not changed really. But it's not terribly efficient, and my experience has been that minerals are what I am in short supply on until later in the game. And by them my empire has expanded to the point where resources are not a problem."

   I've been using this in one of my PBW games, where my race has Organic Manipulation and routinely runs surpluses in minerals and deficits in organics.
   Another use is exploiting asteroids early in the game, long before you've researched the tech to build planets out of them.
   A much rarer purpose I've used them for before is "scorched earth" denial of resources. If I can't colonize a planet type, and I want to discourage the AI from plonking down a colony there, I can strip mine it to make it less appealing.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 10 August 2001 22:38
[Reply in thread]
   I've never seen this "one component" effect, but I'm still using Beta 1.40 rather than patch 1.41 -- I hope this is just a mistake on your part and not a real change. Currently I can get pretty good return on a Battlestation filled with Robominers. Especially if you place it over a planet with moons. It's definitely a good way to supplement your resources. If this has been cut back to just one component it'll be useless as you've said. Are you sure it's not one VEHICLE? Have you noticed this with satellites maybe? He's been trying to restrict it to one satellite in a group for some time now but couldn't quite get it to work right.
   I think the best use for these other than increasing their output so they can be useful to everyone would be to make them a racial tech for a "space native" race as we've discussed in these forums before. If it become possible to generate research and intel with components, and for population to grow in a "habitat" component, you could have races that are UNABLE to live on planets (they could be whiffs of gas that can't handle strong gravity, for example). They would have to use remote mining to get their resources and build huge stations to house their operations. Obviously, they should have a racial ability to build larger stations very early in the game and ultimately have special stations larger than anything else in the game. They should also have the ablity to remote mine better than any standard race.
   Even better, how about using the "vestigial" properties of asteroids? People have noticed how they still have facility capacity. What if these 'space native' races could colonize asteroids but not planets? You could have some interesting late game conflicts when Stellar Manipulations are held by several races and one major race wants to blast all the planets into asteroids so it can colonize them while the rest want to convert all asteroids into planet so THEY can colonize those...
<<
>>
Menschenfresser
Private First Class
posted 10 August 2001 22:59
[Reply in thread]
   ok. This ought to clear this up. I did a short test on an asteroid of medium size with the following stats:
143% mineral content
90% Organic content
127% radio content
   First mined with a Lt. Cruiser having the following components:
Bridge, Life, Crew
Max Engines
One of each of the three miners at level one.
   These are the results:
Mined 858 minerals, 540 organics, and 762 radioactives.
Maint. Cost on this ship was: 854 minerals, 29 organics, and 136 radioactives.
   Then put another Lt. Cruiser on the same asteroid w/ three mineral miners (level one)
Mined 2574 minerals with a maintanence of 1004 minerals.
Gain of 1570...
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 11 August 2001 03:56
[Reply in thread]
   Ok, I stand corrected on the multiple robo comps per ships thing. I can say for sure that more than one satellite per sector will not work. I tested that myself. I assumed it was a component limit and not a vehicle limit, but I was incorrect. Thanks for the info.
<<
>>
Menschenfresser
Private First Class
posted 11 August 2001 04:49
[Reply in thread]
   I took my own advice and decided to start a new game where I role-play an empire that does not want the planetary destructive effect of mining.  I started with 3 planets and have nearly gotten rid of all of my mineral miners...all of my minerals coming from the modded remote miners.
   Really I just wanted to let you all in on a little secret...resources collected by remote mining aren't counted towards one's score.  I am in last place because it says I have no mineral facilities, and only mine 200 minerals per turn.
   Any reason for this?
<<


* Riot Control
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 21 July 2001 04:49
   Well still riots plague my systems.  Is choosing neutral for your race type a really bad move?  It seems to be...  I'm only in two alliances.  Actually now one...
   I've tried Urban pacification centers.  I have one in each system up to level III.  They are supposed to affect the whole system correct?
   I've planted military ships over the rioting worlds.  Do they have to be a certain number, type or strength?
   Finally I landed troops on some worlds.  How many do you need?  I used about 35 troops per planet.
   All of this had very, very minimal effect.  How long does it take for these things to work???
   Also, if I am being intelled, will I know it?  Will there be a message stating someone has incited riots?  Or will the riots just happen as they have?
...
   I would say the most frustrating thing by far was these riots!  What effect will having another player colonizing part of a system with you have regarding riots?  What if he is an ally?  The two systems hardest hit by riots are ones where he and I have shared the systems.
<<
>>
Hadrian Aventine
Corporal
posted 21 July 2001 04:54
   Well, I've known the population to riot due to declaring wars or holding treaties with people of opposite thought.
   Check your political relations.  And, if required, use transports to air-lift he population out for a few turns.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 July 2001 05:03
   Neutrals are a pain. Check out the Happiness file, it's in your data directerory [Ed: in Game folder ".\Data\Happiness.txt"]. The ONLY thing that makes them happy is the passage of time and [Ed: no treaties or non-intercourse] treaties.
<<
>>
BeeDee10
Private First Class
posted 21 July 2001 05:17
   Not quite the only thing; having troops on your planet also helps. From the happiness file for neutral happiness type:
   New Treaty Non Intercourse       := -100
   New Treaty None                  := -100
   Our Troops on Planet             := -2
   (negative values increase happiness).
   This is the same happiness increase from troops as for the Peaceful happiness type which I usually use, and I find that a good squad of troops can do wonders.
<<
>>
Puke
Major
posted 21 July 2001 05:39
   Yeah, and that's a per troop per turn bonus, so if you have 20 light troops with nothing but a cockpit (I call em riot police) thats 40 points of happyness.  Every turn that they are there.  Over a year, thats 400 points.
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 21 July 2001 06:27
   To choose "neutral" as happiness type is just suicidal!  Your population gets even angry about new colonies.  Neutral is a bad description of this happiness type, xenophobic would be much more appropriate.
If you want to use this happiness type you should modify it.
<<
>>
Captin
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 20:33
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   Riot Control for Neutrals.
  Thx to everyone.  So here is the plan, I will report back when I see how it goes.
1.  I have 22 rioting planets.  Lets assume they are all at 100 for happiness
2.  Turn one - break Trade Treaty (-100, but limited to -20 for one turn).  All colonies at 80
3.  Turn two - Offer non-intercourse treaty (-100, but limited to -20 for one turn)  All colonies at 60.
4.  Turn three - now that I can get some production (angry), I will build 5 troops on each. (-10 per turn just in case)
5.  Turn four - Get troops or something else to planets that have additional problems such as enemy in system.
   INFORMATION GLEANED FROM THIS FORUM
   A.  Population happiness levels are:
75-100 riot
60-74 angry
45-59 unhappy
30-44 indifferent
15-29 happy
0-14 jubiliant
   B.  "from the .txt file for neutral
The only 'postive' modifiers for neutrals:
New Treaty Non Intercourse= -100
New Treaty None (Break Treaty)= -100
Our Troops on Planet= -2"
   C.  Limited to a 20% Change in one turn.
<<
>>
Captin
Private First Class
posted 11 September 2001 15:34
   Actually had 38 planets rioting.  Followed the steps listed and was down to 2 riots after 3 turns.  I did not attack anyone during these turns either.
   Still have some riots later in the game, from 2-11 planets.
<<


FIRST CONTACT:

   Many things affect the reaction of other Empires in your relations with them.  Some are based upon racial characteristics (controlled by the Politics and Anger files for each Race; the "default" races which don't have their own files use the "Default_AI_..." versions), and some are based upon your Empire holdings and status.  

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 57. I see in the sending messages that you can set the message type & tone & a certain message will appear in the lower message window. I also see that you can retype that message to anything you want to say. What I am asking is does the computer AI player understand anything that you tell him??? Can you type a more detailed message that the computer can understand??? What exactly can the computer understand & react to??? Does the computer player understand & react like a human player would???
A. No, the AI does not understand the text you type in for a message. It only really understands the message type, the tone of the message, and any parameters that go along with the message (such as a trade or gift). The text portion of the message is really only used for human players.

>>
DirkHowitzer
Corporal
posted 13 January 2001 21:33
   When do you guys generally start building your military? Do you wait for first contact or a certain tech level?
<<
>>
Emperor Zodd
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 January 2001 21:53
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   I wait till first contact. And even then I try to get a treaty right away so I can still expand and not fight a war until I have consolidated my empire. Then I build my fleet and start a war with who ever is in my path for complete dominance of the galaxy!
<<
>>
DirkHowitzer
Corporal
posted 07 January 2001 16:51
   What am I doing wrong? Everytime I make contact with a race their opinion of me gets worse and worse even though I avoid their territory and even send many gifts...I'd like to establish a lasting research treaty but they see fit to cancel every other turn!!
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 07 January 2001 19:41
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   Are you ahead of all the other empires in the game? If you're ahead by more than a certain amount they will automatically hate you unless you disable "Meg Evil Empire" in the settings.txt file. Other than that, though, your "Demeanor" does have an effect on what the other empires think of you. I chose "Erratic" for my demeanor once, and the XiChung spent an entire game offering me treaties and refusing to go to war even though I was blasting any of their ships that entered by systems.  Weird.  I guess there's some sort of "assumed relationship" between each demeanor and the others. The XiChung are 'Psychotic' and this must be considered friendly to 'Erratic'... ???
<<


* MEE:
Mega-Evil Empire (MEE) is a status the game gives to the Empire with the highest score after it reaches a certain set of conditions.  Reaching this status will trigger all other AI controlled Empires into declaring war on the MEE, regardless of their current relationship with you.  Only the current Empire in first place can be MEE.  ("There can be only one!")

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 92. After expanding quickly into about a third of the galaxy, suddenly all the other computer players break their Partnerships with me and declare war, saying that I'm taking over the whole galaxy. What specific criteria causes this (a certain percentage of planets colonized)?
A. In the Settings.txt file, there are a few fields which deal with the "MegaEvil" empire. Once your score reaches a certain percentage higher than the 2nd place computer player, then the computer will declare you the "MegaEvil" empire. At this point, the AI will realize that it has to band together to fight you or you will gobble up the entire galaxy.

>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 17 January 2001 15:19
[Ed: Posted in a different but similar thread]
   Well, you know how in many (perhaps most) computer strategy games AIs tend to gang up on the human player and treat him most unfairly?  In some games, this occurs basically from the start...
   In SE4, they won't... up to a point.
   Look in Data/Settings.txt.  There are a few relevant settings.
   1) There's one labelled, IIRC [Ed: = If I Recall Correctly], AIUsesMegaEvilEmpire.  If it's true (default), then there are certain conditions under which all remaining AIs will focus on you (or, on another AI if it becomes MEE).
   2) There's a score threshold -- by default, 500k [Ed: = 500,000].  You may want to increase this if you like large quadrants.
   3) There are two relative thresholds -- by default, the one for an AI is higher.
   If a player's score exceeds *both* the score threshold (500k default) and a ratio of the second-place score (1.7x for you, 2x for another AI IIRC), and AIUsesMEE is on, then the AIs all turn Murderous and declare war regardless of how well you've treated them or continue to treat them.  MEE status will be lost if either necessary condition fails to hold; then the AIs may eventually calm down again.
   You'll know if you've achieved MEE when you start getting messages that your race has exceeded its natural limits and is a threat to all other sentient life (or similar foo)...
   Note that even when you're MEE it IS possible, through espionage for instance, to get AIs to declare war on each other... it's that they hate you, not that they all suddenly love each other as well.
<<
>>
nmoppa
Corporal
posted 07 January 2001 20:52
[Ed: Reply in thread]
   If the strength between your empire and the other is not too big, normally you either get an agreement on trade treaties after your first offer, or after several turns. I keep trying if it doesn't work right away. When your empire is far too strong for the opponent, indeed they will not agree to peace treaties. And of course the chances are influenced by your general empire settings (standard = neutral) and behavior (friendly, etc).
<<


* POLITICS & ANGER:
See the section "AI Behaviour" for more enlightening information on this subject.  There are no settings which determine how the AI will react to either "demanding" or "pleading" tone messages from you.  It is not known if such reactions are hardcoded into the game engine; just that the only settings found determine when the AI races will use those tones in their messages.  The receipt of a "General" message however, may have an anger effect which is set in the '<RaceName>_AI_Anger.txt' fle.
>>
evan42
Private First Class
posted 07 January 2001 21:27
[Ed: Reply in thread]
   Some AIs are naturally hostile.
Some AIs do not even like the idea of "talking" to you. So, the more you talk, the worse it will get. So, just stay away from them, then maybe things will improve. Every turn the AI's attitude shifts slightly towards you, so if you wait long enough, they will "like" you again. (That's if nothing else goes wrong during this time.)
<<
>>
Armageddon
Private First Class
posted 02 February 2001 23:05
[Ed: Posted in different but similar thread]
   I've noticed that interactions between AIs don't seem to take into account their special characteristics. In my current game, the first empire I met immediatly declared war on me, and has refused all attempts at peace despite having had its attitude towards me rise to receptive, thanks to several gifts. The second empire I met (The Texrak(sp?), herd animal aliens) is friendly enough, but immediatly starts to get angry whenever we have any treaties.
   The strange thing is that the third empire I met, with whom I am now in a partnership, has been able to maintain trade allainces with the two other empires. If they were following the same characteristics with that empire that they were following with me, then they shouldn't have been able to do that, especially since I doubt my AI ally has been courting them in the same way I have, with small resource donations every turn.
   There obviously could be other factors which are allowing my allies (The Phong) to be more successful than I in talks with these two empires, but it seems unlikely. I am playing a modifed Terran Empire with a Political Savy of 130%, so I should have a much higher advantage.
   So what do y'all think? Are the AI characteristics only being used when dealing with humans, or have I missed something?
   I am using Sundevil's mod BTW. [Ed: This mod of the Politics and Anger files for the default races makes them act more like their descriptions.]
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 02 February 2001 23:50
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   One thing to keep in mind is that there is a 'per other war' modifier to the AI's diplomatic routines. Basically, I believe this causes the AI to be 'friendlier' to people it meets when it is already at war with one or more other players.
   Most likely, the hostile races are encountering you, declaring War etc, and then meeting others. The modifier for being at war with you is allowing the other races to get treatys with the 'hostile' race.
   That would be my guess anyways.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Captain
posted 03 February 2001 00:22
[Ed: Reply in thread]
   The Political Savvy of 130% does not help you maintain or get into treaties in this game. As far as I know it only gives you higher income from the treaties that you get.
   Quote from the CD manual:
   "Political Savvy:  Determines the political ability of your race. Increasing this value will improve the amount your race will earn from trade."
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 03 February 2001 01:02
[Ed: Reply in thread]
   They take into account their special characteristics, anger files and politics files. However, Phong are pacifist race to the extreme. They have even managed to get peace with my new Xi'Chung race, which are genocidal, psychotic and xenophobes.   They DO get in war with Abbidon (which is another peaceful race btw.) on regular basis as if they can't stand them organically.
   Note that race relations have two sides of the same medal - your attitude toward them (you don't see it on diplomacy screen, but you can see it if you take control of that empire) and their attitude toward you (mood on diplomacy screen). These two are usually not the same and the AI makes decisions regarding both.  On their attitude toward you (the one you can see) depends what treaties they will accept from you, and on your attitude toward them MOSTLY, but not only, depends what will they offer to you (or what treaty level they will offer to you). That makes diplomacy a little more complex since now it is usually not enough to have 1 aggressive empire to make war. The peaceful one (Phong for e.g.) will bombard the aggressive one with peace offers until they accept them (this is what happened to Xi'Chung). Of course the aggressive one may declare war a few turns later if the reasons of their anger with the other empire still exist (like territorial dispute). That usually shows a little erratic relationship between two empires that can be seen quite often - they are at war for a few years, then they make trade alliance, and few turn later they are at war again.
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 20 March 2001 13:59
[Ed: Posted in different but similar thread]
   Some observations about the AI behavior (please remember that I learned with the old trial/error method... then, I could be wrong in some of my comments).
   Looking into the Anger.txt, there exist a lot of options that determine the way when the AI gets angry or not.
   I will comment on a few, because others are more easy to understand.
   1) Receive General Message := 0
If the race that has the treaty with you has something more than 0, they will get some angery every time that you send a general message.
   2) Per Ally Ship := 0
If the race has something more than 0, they will get angry against you, depending on your number of ships (Number of your ships x Ally Ship Anger).
  The same thing with the "Per Enemy Ship" parameter.
   3)Per Attack Location := 0
If the race has a positive value, they will get angry against you, depending on your number of planets (Number of planets x Per Attack Location anger).
   The other important file is the Politics.txt.
Some interesting parameters are:
   1) Highest Allowed Treaty := Partnership
It means that eventually some races never will accept a higher treaty. They don't care about your efforts to have a better treaty.
   For example, the modded version for the Sergetti have the Trade Alliance as max treaty.
   2) Turns Since Last War Before Friendly Treaty := 30
This is the min number of turns before accepting any kind of treaty, after a war declaration.  It means for example, if another race sends a "Communications Mimic" to your better ally, at least they will be 30 turns without signing the peace. And if they feel "Brotherly" for you, it is not important.
   3) Accept Treaty Base Anger Level:=30
It means that the race will not accept any treaty if they feel more anger against you than 30.
   4) Accept Treaty Minimum Time From Last Treaty := 10
Similar to the point 2). If for some reason, your previous treaty was broken, they will wait at least 10 turns before accepting a new treaty.
   5) Break Treaty Base Anger Level := 50
If the anger for you is more than this limit, they will break the treaty with you.  BUT, also means that the AI could be MURDEROUS with you, and still keep their treaty, if the limit is high.  Also, there exist other parameters related with the size of both empires, that the AI use to consider whether to break the treaty with you or not.
   6)Declare War Base Anger Level := 100
The same thing as the previous point, but they will declare the war against you.
   7) Max Anger Level for Accept a Gift := 80
It means that not all the races will accept gifts from you.
   Exist too much parameters to comment here, but are not hard to understand if you check a bit in both files (anger.txt and politics.txt).
<<
>>
SunDevil
Second Lieutenant 
posted 29 January 2001 15:48
[Ed: Posted in different but similar thread]
...
   1. MegaEvil Empire := 50 [Ed: in the Anger file] means that each turn that particular race will add 50 anger points/mood to their total, thus always increasing in anger [Ed: against the MEE].
   2. I think its in the settings file you can set whether there is an option for Mega Evil Empire [Ed: to be active or not] and also you can set a score to be reached in order for MME to take effect. There isn't a modifier in each race's files that govern this. (At least I haven't found one yet.)
...
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 25 November 2000 04:50
[Ed: posted in another thread]
   I did some experimenting and there is definitely a 'diplomatic penalty' associated with responding with a refusal. There does NOT appear to be any penalty for just not responding at all.
   I think this amounts to a pretty major flaw in the diplomacy model and probably accounts for alot of the reason why the AI is so darned peaceful. I think that is really the only thing I find severely lacking in this game...CONFLICT! Very few demands for gifts...very few ultimatums. Very little of anything except treaty requests actually.
   Maybe my play style is completely different than most, but I feel like the AI is always wanting treaties. I miss the surprise of a quick AI war/attack as in MOO/MOO2. Even in SE3 you could tailor the AI players so as to have 'Conquerors' or 'Xenophobes' or 'Marauders' etc. This made for conflict and unpredicability in the game and greatly added to the game experience.
   Nearly every game I've played of SE4 so far (Max AI players, Hardest Level, Low Bonus) has resulted in HUGE stretches of peace punctuated by my extermination of one race at a time.
   Even when the race is listed as 'berserk' or whatnot, its still the same old thing...treaty request after treaty request.
   I've tried to edit some of the AI files to make them more aggressive but have had little success as long as the player plays it cool.
   Anyone else have any success or experience AI player warlike tendancies?
<<
>>
Mithras
Private First Class
posted 25 November 2000 14:44
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by Talenn:
   "Anyone else have any success or experience AI player warlike tendancies?"
   This may be well known to the more experienced, players, but ...
   I was trying to play a peaceful game, with a "tiered" approach to allies (one partnership, one military alliance, etc.).  I was refusing treaty "upgrades".
   Then, all of a sudden, after a long stretch of peace, where relations were all very warm and brotherly, within two turns all of them declared war on me.     I believe that this may have been precipitated when my score became greater than 500, does this sound correct?
   So, no warlike tendencies, just a strong, unified reaction to the perceived strength of my empire.  FWIW, my counter-intel did stop an attempt earlier by one empire that I had no treaty with.
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 25 November 2000 17:45
   Mithras:
   Yes, that is the 'Mega Evil AI' kicking in. It is set for the 500 mark in your score. All AI players will hate you, but I've found that there is usually not a lot that they can do at that point. Its just mop up anyways in my games.
   What I am looking for is instances earlier in the game where the AI is the aggressor for seemingly little or no reason...ie a THREAT.
   Thanx though, at least we know at SOME point, the AI will fight back.
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 27 November 2000 19:54
[Ed: reply to a different message in the same thread]
   Oh yes, the Small Map is far more interesting against the AI. I play it on Small, with Max Number of AI players. I don't add in the Neutrals on Small anymore as I found that it tended to stifle the AI players expansion too much.
   They would end up with too few planets colonized and this led to unbalanced Econs that hampered their ship production. I think the Neutrals work out better on the Medium+ maps.
   And yes, the AI can be pretty bloodthirsty in the opening stages of the game. I think there is a negative modifier to its treaty acceptance logic for the first 50 turns or so. On a small map, that can seem like forever when you are engaged in an Escort and Frigate war from about turn 5.
   Also, if you give it the 'Low Bonus' it can definately outproduce you in the early stages and everything else being equal, numbers will tell. Its not entirely fair to a HUMAN player in these early stages, but it sure does make it tense.   Also, there is a pretty large feeling of accomplishment when you finally DO beat it down and stomp their Homeworld. Of course just about that time, another AI race come waltzing in with Tech that is MILES ahead of your cuz all its been doing is expanding while you've been fighting for your life!
   But overall, I think this makes for a far better game than the typical 'build until I'm ready to come out and play' that tends to happen on the larger maps.
<<
>>
Psitticine
Captain
posted 28 November 2000 04:18
   I also enjoy the small map games.  Aside from all the excellent points y'all have made, I also find it makes each and every planet worth something.  Even those tiny domed worlds can be important refuelling points.
   It also adds spice to the stellar manipulation and planet utilization fields.  When there aren't so dozens and dozens of systems to choose from, you need to pay more attention towards improving what you've got!
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 25 June 2001 03:47
   HI all,
   When you send messages to an AI player you can set the tone to Pleading, Neutral, or Demanding. Does anyone know exactly what effect this has on your chances of the AI accepting your trade / treaty?
   I wish there was a way of having better info beforehand on what the AI will accept and what they won't...
   Also, why will "moderate" races who are at war with me not make peace, and "warm" race with whom I have a NA pact  not accept a Trade Alliance?
<<
>>
jc173
First Lieutenant
posted 25 June 2001 10:38
   I am not exactly sure what the tone does it may affect the chance the AI will accept a request from you depending on how different your scores are.  Then again I might have that backwards sorta, I might be thinking of the setting that determines what tone the AI will use with you.
   If you dig around the AI's settings/politics files it does list the percentage chances of the AI's accepting different treaties according to your score differences.
   For the third part there's a minimum time that must pass after a war has been declared before the AI will accept a peace treaty.  However, I think there's something buggy in those subroutines because in the past I have seen brotherly AI's refuse to accept a nonagression treaty or trade agreement with me.
   The major factors in the AI's politics seem to be it's anger level/attitude towards you and the difference in your scores.
<<
>>
God Emperor
First Lieutenant
posted 25 June 2001 13:03
   I think the tone acts as a modifier to how an AI considers a proposal. In the Politics.txt file, each race has a modifier for Pleading and Demanding. Some races give you a bonus for pleading, whilst others give you a penalty. I haven't studied it in detail though to see whether the feature actually works.
   With respect to races accepting treaties etc. From my observations, your score position and whether the AI is already at war seem to make alot of difference.
   Ie in some games a particular race has been very reluctant to do anything whilst in other games they are quite cooperative. The only difference seems to have been the factors I have mentioned.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 16:36
[Ed: relevant part form a general questions thread]
...
   2: Trading comm channels: can this ever work against the AI? I can not ask them for comm channels of neighbors of theirs that I havent met yet, since my race doesnt know yet that those neighbors exist. Once I meet the neighbors, of course I immediately have the comm channel. So this feature seems useless..maybe not in multiplayer? Will its how you a list of all the comm channels of all players in the game, even the ones you have not met yet?
...
<<
>>
Matryx
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 16:43
   I've sucessfully used the trade com channels thing...
met an AI who had met virtually everyone and I just asked for "any 8 com channels" in exchange for a bunch of minerals/organics.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 17:02
...
   2. Trading comm channels is very useful in PBEM games. One way is to agree on the trade and then each side gift the other. Since you can see the other players on the load game screen, it would make sense to me to have a list of all comm channels for trading purposes. I would also like a game option to have all comm channels available to everyone (sort of like seeing all scores).
<<


* TREATIES:
See the section "AI Behaviour" for additional enlightening information on this subject.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 97. What does giving another player a system mean? "Dibs" on colonizing it, or all your colonies in that system?
A. Giving a player a system is basically like saying that you are giving up part of your territory to the other player. The giving player should then un-mark it as "claimed" in the Borders window. However, this is not guaranteed, because the giving player could always break the deal.
Q 98. I've got one general question. I've subjugated a race in the same game and they have Psychic technology unfortunately it is not being shared with me is this also a feature? I also am unable to select it as a target for technological espionage although I know they have it from tech reports.
A. Unfortunately, unique and racial technologies cannot be shared with other races. You cannot steal it through intelligence either.

>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 17 January 2001 15:59
[Ed: Posted in a different thread]
   I finally figured out why everyone started declaring war on me - first, I accepted a Partnership treaty; when the "partner" was able to see all my worlds, the "% of allied colonies to use as target for anger" (or however it's worded in the settings.txt file) kicked in & the partner got angry about all those colonies.  I guess he was hoping to expand throughout my territory...
   Anyway, the second problem is that other races started colonizing in systems where I had colonies, and vice versa.  Most AI's (at least in 1.19) get upset about sharing systems...
   And, finally, I discovered that one of my enemies was using the intel project that fakes messages, and was inciting others to go to war with me!  What a pain!
   That's all right, though.  I'm having fun glassing enemy planets (except for the good ones, which I invade, hehehehe).
<<
>>
jowe01
Corporal
posted 28 February 2001 10:15
[Ed: Posted in a different but similar thread]
...
   I am now at war with all known AIs (I am not MEE). Some of them only encountered me once and since then are at least 2 systems away. Neither me nor them send any ships.  How the heck do they "scan" my planets to get angry ?
<<
>>
UmberGryphon
Private First Class
posted 27 February 2001 22:14
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   One might wonder how the AI ever got happy enough with you to offer you a treaty if it was coveting your planets. The answer is that most of the AIs (14 of the 20 default races) covet more of their allies' planets than they do of their enemies' planets. This seems totally backwards to me, but it's true. So as soon as you become an ally, they start lusting after more of your planets, which makes them angrier.
   Example: the Cue Cappa covet 10% of allied planets and 0% of enemy planets. In one game, the CueCappa and I were both partners of the Praetorians, who had ships through half my empire 'cause they were at war with the Norak and the shortest path was across my empire. The Cue Cappa and I had no treaty, they offered me a trade alliance, I accepted, and 4 turns later they were murderous and at war with me ('cause they were suddenly coveting 10% of half my empire, which they could see via the Praetorians).
   The easiest way to get treaties is either (a) to send a scout far away to a race that can't see any of your planets, or (b) talk to the Eee, Phong, Praetorian or Toltayan empires, who don't covet.
<<
>>
dumbluck
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 06:54
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   My problem with this is that I AM sending scouts far away.  Like 3-4 system between the AI and any of my colonized systems.  I do claim systems w/ breathable planets in them, even before I manage to get them colonized.  Would the AI covet these systems, too?  Even if (to my knowledge) they have never even seen these systems yet!!
   My gifts and tributes (even of systems w/ their breathable planets in it) generally just get refused.  I'm almost tempted to completely ignore the diplomacy aspects of the game.  They do me no good anyway; in fact, it usually hurts me when an otherwise friendly AI suddenly declares war on me simply because I was foolish enough to accept their treaty.
   Which is sad, because other than this miserably executed diplomacy system, I love this game (what little i've played it.  not much free time lately).  Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong?  SHOULD I simply ignore all requests for treaties, or is there some way to get them to like me?
<<
>>
raynor
Major
posted 19 March 2001 07:19
[Ed: Reply to previous]
...
   In my games, I manage to keep the AI extremely happy with me by simply staying out of his systems. I try never to build a colony in a system with another empire's colony if I can help it. When my ships enter systems with foreign colonies, I immediately reverse course. From what I've seen, the AI gets much angrier with my ships in its systems and my colonies in its system than it does over 'lusting' after my planets. (Of course, I guess if he can't *see* my planets, then this won't upset him?)
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 27 October 2000 19:17
[Ed: Reply in the same thread as previous]
   After watching the "feeling" status for a few games, I have noticed the following.
   1)  Usually only 1 empire will turn on you gradually.  For me it was the 2nd ranked empire. Nothing, free resources, tech, releasing claims to systems (I did not try giving away planets) will stop them from turning on you.
   2) The remaining empires continued to stay friendly while the 1 grew less friendly.  Once the first declared war, the rest followed suit within a turn (maybe 2).  I also could not stop this from happening.
   I have not encountered any empires after war was declared, so I do not know what their response will be.
   Also note that some of the empires that went to war with me had no "official" contact with the other empires.  Nor did they during the war(s).
<<
>>
gbraley
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 15:54
[Ed: different thread on the same subject]
   All right, I just can't figure out how to offer a peace treaty.  I have never been offered one, even in the game where everyone was at war with me while "brotherly".  I've tried offering the normal treaties (nonagression, trade, etc) with no success.  There isn't anything called "peace treaty" that I can find...help!
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 29 December 2000 16:43
   All treaties trade and higher are 'peace' treaties.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Captain
posted 29 December 2000 20:45
   Even a non-aggression treaty if accepted will stop a war. You won't attack their ships and planets with that treaty if you occupy the same sector.
<<
>>
Dravis
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 22:46
   A non-intercourse treaty is a pledge that each empire will stay away from each other.  Also you can attack if you want to.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Private First Class
posted 20 May 2001 15:18
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I'm considering proposing a treaty of subjugation or protectorate as an alternative to destroying a weaker opponent. These treaties treat the sides differently but I can't tell from the screen whether I'm the one doing the subjugation or being subjugated.
   Is it always the stronger empire (in terms of score?) that does the subjugating or protecting regardless of who initiates the treaty? Or do I have to get the other side to initiate the process?
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 20 May 2001 18:40
[Ed: reply to previous]
   It's always the one with the higher score that takes the dominant position.  Back in beta I wondered about that, so I made a quick test game, let the AI grow for a while, and when I came in contact, I proposed Protectorate, and I became the protectee, and the AI the protector (took a few tries though, and a few gifts).
   You can tell which end of the treaty you're on by looking at the empires with the "Tariff" option, if all the numbers are zero, you're on the wrong end of the treaty.
   Can also tell by looking at the scores, although I don't know what would happen if the stronger somehow became the weaker...
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 20 May 2001 19:32
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Are you sure about this? If you have a lower over-all score but much more military strength you cannot force someone into a treaty as the 'tribute' payer? Have you tried blockading some planets and issuing a DEMAND for a treaty of subjugation?The 'Propose treaty of subjugation' option might mean that you want to be subjugated because you are proposing the treaty. I've only used this treaty a few times, though.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Private First Class
posted 20 May 2001 20:33
[Ed: reply to previous]
   It seemed a bit confusing so I tried an experiment. I created two empires and had both the high score and the low score propose treaties of subjugation. In each case, the empire that proposed the treaty was dominant and the empire that accepted the treaty was subservient. It didn't seem to depend on score.
<<
>>
Aussie Gamer
Second Lieutenant
posted 20 May 2001 22:09
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I had someone else tell me that as well. It the person offering the treaty that becomes the dominate empire.
   The other differences are in the manual. The biggest difference is that you get more resources in "sub".
<<
>>
HiveLordJim
Private First Class
posted 21 May 2001 08:03
[Ed: reply in thread]
   WHAT!
   Will,
   What is so dumb about accepting a protectorate or subjugation?
   Is it better the player have his empire destroyed than be subjugated?  That doesn't make sense.
Why not have a larger empire protect you - if you think they will hold up their end of the bargain.
   BTW:  Protectorate should NOT be considerd a lesser level of subjugation.
<<
>>
Q
First Lieutenant
posted 21 May 2001 10:18
[Ed: reply in thread]
...
   How can you demand a teaty?? It's not listed under the options for demands. And if you just use a demanding tone it probably won't change much. I propose the treaty rarely, but just recently when I used it the AI refused. The next turn I demanded surrender and he accepted!
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 21 May 2001 17:37
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
   Use the 'Demand/Request/Warn' menu, and choose "Want a tribute". It's a bit odd to think of a treaty as "tribute" but treaties are available as demands under that option.
<<
>>
Daeromont
Private First Class
posted 25 September 2001 18:19
[Ed: Start of a new (related) thread]
   If I ask for a Protectorate Treaty as a WANT in a trade with another Empire, does that mean I am asking for them to be subject themselves to me or vice versa?
   Also, if I just propose the same treaty, is it the same as the aforementioned effect?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 25 September 2001 23:11
   Originally posted by "chewy027":
   "i beleive the stronger empire becomes the protector of the other"

   You might think so, but no.
   Offering a subjugation, means you subjugate them.
   To beg for your life, you must demand that they offer you the subjugation.
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 26 September 2001 03:54
   so.. if you wanted to trade, say, a system map in exchange for someone's subjugation, you would not offer a trade where you give the map, and recieve the treaty?  instead you would give both?  or you would give a gift of both rather than a trade?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 26 September 2001 04:16
   You cannot make a "something for nothing" trade, so yes, it would have to be a gift or tribute.
   I highly reccommend starting a high-tech, small galaxy game with two players, just to test things like this.
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 26 September 2001 06:30
   actually i have a one system map for just that purpose.  and after a quick test, Daeromont had the right idea.
   if you want to subjugate another race, you must put the subjugation treaty in 1) a treaty proposal, or 2) the want column of a trade.
   if you put it in the GIVE column of a trade, or in a gift, you will be offering your self to them for subjugation.  score has no bearing on who gets what position.
<<
>>
Daeromont
Private First Class
posted 26 September 2001 18:25
   Thanks for your advice, gents.  I've one further question, "What are the consequences, if any, to becoming a Protectorate or Subjugated race?"  Since a person can choose to break these treaties at any time, it seems as though it would be a good alternative to total annihilation, a hope of rising from the ashes like the Pheonix.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Major
posted 26 September 2001 20:13
   The resource penalty that occurs when you're a protectorate or subjugate empire is computed based on your gross resource production.  -20% or -40% could make it difficult to develop an infrastructure and still amass a fleet... and it'll certainly set you far back behind somebody who's got a trade alliance with the Big Kahuna for a +20% of BK production.
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 14 June 2001 08:22
[Ed: start of new thread]
   First trading trick
   (this will work with the AI):
   You want a system that belongs to an allie but don't want to break your treaty.
   Capture enemy planets and trade them for the ones you want. I traded the the CuCappa completely out of my claimed systems. The AI will always accept if you offer bigger planets or packets were they always gain more then they lose.

   Second Trick:
   A friendly AI has parked a fleet in your system. You want them to leave (but as we know the AI never will).
   Capture enemy ships and trade them for the fleet Make sure the ships you are giving the AI are worth more as a total then the ships you ask for. I took 3 destroyers with Shard cannons and converters (captured by Intel from the Xi) and traded them to the Ukra for a couple of loaded carriers, who think it is fun to park fleets over my homeworld. I now have 3 fleets of 50 ships each and only about ten ships in my empire are mine. The rest came from trading enemy ships for allie ships. While I can not research any of the tech, I have the latest in crystal ships and organic ships.
   Plus you do not have to worry about getting intelled ships back to your systems. Trade them with your allie, who is also at war with your enemy.
   The Norak are about wiped out because I traded Praet planets that I converted near the Norak to the Ukla. In turn they have declared war on the Norak and proceeded to claim all Norak systems. That will teach the Norak to declare war on a empire that is nowhere able to attack them in any way.
   I now see trade as a useful battle tool and since I am giving different ships to all my allies. every Allied AI is running close to my equal in numbers and stats. I mantain 4 place. Plus most of My allies control systems next to my enemies so even with the limited AI, They will attack a common enemy if the ships are in enemy systems.
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 14 June 2001 11:57
   Update:
   The CuCappa in my game control 10 planets in the EEE claimed area. Yet none of the CUCappa race exist outside my empire. They are now made up of EEE, Ulka, Norak and a couple of other races that use the CuCappa  tech settings.
<<
>>
Saxon
Private First Class
posted 26 July 2001 15:30
   Howdy,
   As much as I hate to do it, I have to ask a simple question after playing for a few months.
   I have seen some other posts talking about trading technology with AI players and they make it sound like taking candy from a baby.  However, I cant seem to get the hang of it.  I can not figure out what tech my allies have, since we dont fight, and I cant trade with my enemies whos tech I know.  When I ask to trade, the AI offers some unknown tech and I have no idea if I am getting something new or not.
   Can someone let me in on the secret?
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 26 July 2001 15:59
   The first trick is to make them a firm offer - don't let them offer you stuff. Rather than trade tech directly, I prefer to trade ships and then analyse them.
   I never research ship/ component techs against the AI now (although I rarely use trade exploits either) I let the AI research all the ship construction, weapons, sensors, shields etc while I work on intelligence, boarding parties and troops. When I start falling behind in tech, I just steal or trade a few ships and catch up.
   It's an exploit because the AI won't take the components of a ship into consideration when trading - in other words, the AI thinks his top of the range cruiser loaded with tons of spanky high tech weaponry is a fair trade for your two grubby old DUC destroyers and 5000 organics.
   Furthermore, the AI doesn't learn from bad trading experiences, and doesn't care if the ships you are offering are out of supplies in a black hole system on the farthest side of the map.
   Try building two useless, empty escorts at the beginning of the game. Offer them to a friendly AI in exchange for a coloniser and he _will_ accept. I don't know exactly how the calculation is performed  but I'm fairly sure it's based on tonnage.
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 26 July 2001 19:44
   In my most recent game I managed to gain Ice Planet Colonization by trading with a neutral race and asking for it in exchange for giving them Rock Planet Colonization and 5000 each in resources.
   It was almost too easy.
<<
>>
justjake73
Private First Class
posted 27 July 2001 00:39
   I once offered 5 techs I was sure the AI did not have with a combined resarch total of some seven to 800,000 points, AND I gave him 10000 min and 50000 each rad and org.  I asked for only ice planet colonization.
   The response was "you need to work harder in determining what we like."
   I"M GIVING 5 TECHS AND 70000 RESOURCES!!!! I ONLY WANT ONE!!!!!
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 27 July 2001 00:50
   They're weird like that. I once offered an AI 200000 resources, no trade, a GIFT..
   ..and it turned me down.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Sergeant
posted 27 July 2001 01:48
   Justjake,
   I have done the same, usually with success, with regular AI's. I do it in the early stages when their temper is still moderate.
<<
>>
fulgrymm
Private First Class
posted 27 July 2001 11:13
   I have successfully traded colony techs (straight one-for-one) with AI's that I am at war with! In all the games I've played, the AI always seems certain to trade for colony techs it does not have. It seems to accept most trades I propose whatever its mood. I've had problems getting the AI to accept propulsion in trades, though.
<<
>>
Saxon
Private First Class
posted 27 July 2001 14:15
   Some great ideas here, I especially like the ship stealing to keep up in the technology race.  Doing the trade for old worthless ships for new ones does seem pretty cheap, but capturing them in battle seems fair.
   However, if I want to be a peaceful trading race, making deals with everyone and coming out ahead of all of them, how do I do it?  I cant see what the other guy has unless we are fighting, so I dont know what to deal for.  On top of that, I never get to see what he is offering me, so I dont know what I am agreeing to trade.  I suspect I am missing something pretty basic, please dont be shy to hit me over the head with it!
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 27 July 2001 14:53
   Saxon, you've hit upon what's possibly a weakness -- it's tricky to find out what tech an ally has.  You can use espionage to steal ship designs or more directly get a technology report, IIRC, but doing so risks irritating them...  If you're lucky, a mutual enemy captured one of their ships, and you can use crew insurrection to take THAT back, and examine it.
   AFAICT [Ed: ="As Far As I Can Tell"], AI allies generally keep mum about their tech, and whether or not they could help (or, conversely, whether they badly need assistance).
<<
>>
Krakenup
Corporal
posted 27 July 2001 15:06
[Ed: reply to starting message]
   Trading with the AI is simple except that you don't know what you'll get. When you set up the 'give' part, just click on everything except what you don't want to give him - such as anything you've actually researched.   What you end up giving him is basically the starting techs, but you give him a lot of them. What you 'want' is his colony tech and a few others. It's always safe to ask for starting techs since if he hasn't made any progress he'll at least give you something. Also, the AI usually researches Construction, Intelligence, Chemistry and Industry fairly early. If he doesn't have something, he will reject the trade, but you can try again next time - with the same 'give' list, over and over. It's like 'Go Fish' - you just ask for what you need or what you think he has. Once you have established that he has something (e.g., starting techs), you can ask for that every time, and he'll give you any upgrades.
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 27 July 2001 15:30
   "tricky to find out what tech an ally has"

   Research long range scanners. They're fairly cheap and can get you loads of ship designs, especially from your allies. Either that or just trade ships at random to to find out what tech he has.
   If you trade 2 or 3 cheap, useless ships for a larger ship then you won't feel ripped off even if the components gained aren't too special. This is especially true if you build "hollow" ships specifically for trade purposes. You can always scrap the ship you just got if it has no research value.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 27 July 2001 17:21
   Originally posted by Saxon:
   "However, if I want to be a peaceful trading race, making deals with everyone and coming out ahead of all of them, how do I do it?"

   I've been there, and life as a merchant can be quite rewarding.
   The first thing to do is build lots of Escorts (be sure to include at least one weapon).
Then when you meet your first Alien race, try to establish a peace treaty.  I always give a gift or tribute on the first turn in order to make a good impression.
   When you have a trade alliance or better, start offering trades.  Three escorts will get you anything up to about cruiser size.
   Always choose the lowest ship in the list of AI ships to trade with, but avoid transports and colony ships (once you have their colonization tech).
   Take your new ships home to analyse, and continue to pump out your ships.  Be sure to keep enough ships in stock to beat back attacks on your homeworld, and let the sold ships clear out of the area before you sell a second batch to the same empire.
   This way, you get the best technology from each of the other empires, and by combining it, you get a wide base of tech areas and are second place in each specific tech.
   I always put the best technology on the ships  I sell to the AIs, since I know they won't analyse them, but for a human, I would install the only buyer-known regular techs with lots of racial techs added on.
<<
>>
zeep
Private First Class
posted 28 July 2001 04:49
   I've had alot of luck getting Ice and Gas colony tech by offering empty systems that I don't even own. I have yet to be turned down if I include 5000 minerals.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Sergeant
posted 28 July 2001 05:53
   Oooh Zeep, that's diabolical and somewhat cheap    I never understood what the "trading systems" thing did anyway.
   If I play in a game with both humans and AI though, I would not use that trick. I would give the AI my colonisation tech in return for his. That way the next player with my native colon. tech who meets the AI can't get anymore good tech from them
<<
>>
Saxon
Private First Class
posted 28 July 2001 07:41
   Again, some very helpful information.  Let me summarize and see if I am missing anything.
1. The games isnt really set up to handle trading.  After all, it is 4X, not 4X and 1T.
2. You need to be on good terms with other races, trade alliances as a minimum level of relations.
3. That is ok, if you are trying to be a peaceful trader, you want this sort of thing anyway.
4. Trading ships for other ships, then analyzing them seems more effective than just trading technology.
5. If you go for tech trades, you need to keep track of what you are doing.  More of those bits of paper next to the computer that my girlfriend hate
6. The computer will give you the lowest tech they have in a category, you then have to keep trading to get their better stuff in that category.
7. Thus, if you are going to be a trader, do it early, otherwise you will spend many turns getting to something useful.
8. AI researches Construction, Intelligence, Chemistry and Industry pretty early, you should research other things and trade for those.
9. You can cheat like a very evil person, offering things like systems you dont own.  This clearly suggests a Ferengi shipset.
10. An allegiance subverter or ship insurrection could be quite useful, as you get more ships to trade, often ships that you dont really want anyway.  As they still look the same as the enemy, I have a nasty habit of looking past them and letting them get wiped out in unfriendly systems.
11. The more races you are on good terms with, the more trading you can do and the more trade alliances you gain from.  This is a more viable strategy in large galaxies with lots of races.
   A couple of things stand out in this.  One is that the income I get from trade always seems pretty low, you need a pretty big economy on the side to do this.  No Hong Kongs with zero resources but lots of trade.  Maybe some of the mods allow this, but not in the regular game.  Another is that it is a neat role playing opportunity, though not one the game is too inclined towards.  I can see doing it for a while in some galaxies, where a long period of relative peace is occurring and you are building up your infrastructure.  In a violent galaxy, you are less likely to get the ships home to analyze and you are likely to be on bad terms with several of the empires you need to trade with.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 28 July 2001 18:23
   Zeep --
   Did you ever try offering a system claimed by a third party?  Might be interesting, if it works...
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 30 August 2001 23:42
   While in earlier patches [Ed: prior to v1.41], it [was] only slightly useful to force a race into a treaty of subjugation or protectorate, it is now far more advantageous.
   Say you selected 'only colonize own planet type' or 'only breathable' as options.  If you forced that race to surrender, or you took over his worlds with troops, sure you would get some stuff you would not have been able to colonize on your own, but what about the rest of the systems in your empire?  You are missing out on all that real estate that you can't colonize.  Why not subjugate that race instead, and help it to colonize more planets by giving it lots of colony ships.  Remember, you can build colony ships of other types, you just can't use them.  So help that little AI race expand, and you get 40% of his resources while you do it.
   THEN go ahead and blockade his planets and and force him to surrender.
<<


SYSTEM DEFENSE:
Defending what you have colonized can be expensive and difficult if you don't know the tricks.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 62. Is it possible to scrap or upgrade ground bases or troops?
A. It only seems possible to scrap things which can be launched into space. You cannot upgrade units. You can only jettison them. As for ground bases, do you mean facilities? Facilities can be upgraded through the Set Construction Queue Window.
Q 63. How many troops or bases are needed to garrision a conquored population to keep them from revolting? Or is this not a worry?
A. It depends on the population. Usually only a few are needed, but it depends on what incidents happen in the system itself. If ships from the race of the population come into the system, the people on the planet will revolt even harder.
Q 76. Ground combat and troops design has me confused. Do non-Ground Cannon weapons on troops work? Does range matter? What are the stats of a militia unit?
A. Troops and their weapons are only used in ground combat. Their weapons do not fire into space or at anything else. The Ground-Cannon weapon can only be used on a troop, and therefore, only in ground combat. Other weapons which can be used on troops, such as the Small Depleted Uranium Cannon, can also be used on fighters. So this weapon can be used in both ground combat and space combat. However, when the DUC is used on a troop, it is only used during ground combat. Range is taken into account using an algorithim which simulates moving troops in ground combat. The values for a militia unit are specified in the "Settings.txt" file.


* CONTROLLING COSTS
>>
moondog777
Private First Class
posted 09 April 2001 04:02
   How do you keep from going broke? I mean if you build any kind of defense at all just the maintenance alone will bankrupt you.
   The only way I can see to avoid this is to keep expanding your colonies and building mineral colonies.... but sooner or later you're gonna run out of places to build, then that's not even looking at when you get into a war with someone and have to start building fleets!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Captain
posted 09 April 2001 04:15
[Ed: reply to previous]
   First thing to do is spend some racial points on maintenance reduction.  It helps a LOT.
   Next, only defend wormholes leading into your systems, not individual planets.  Find chokepoints, and defend those only.
   Use units.  Fighters, mines, satellites, weapon platforms are all zero-maintenance, and will be quite effective.
   Don't build resource storage.  They just eat up planet space.  Build another mineral miner, even if the planet is only 50%.  Either that, or build a research facility.  Income is better than a savings account with no interest.
   Last, learn to build more effective ships.  No matter what you're doing now, there's always a slightly better way.
   Work with your racial traits.  If you have great offence, add more guns.  If you have great defence, add shield regenerators to boost your shields in between the occasional hits.
   Learn to use tactical combat effectively, or work out the best strategic battle plans.  Either way, use the combat simulator lots design two ships, and let them fight it out.  See which one wins.  Modify that one, and start another combat.  Darwinian selection will get you a pretty darn good ship.  Don't forget to be sure it can fight the enemy, and not just your own ships.
   I once defended my 6-system empire with a mere 4 Cruisers for 10 years.  With one finely tuned, legendary ship blocking each warp point leading into my empire, and making pre-emptive strikes against any opponents who showed up, they worked wonders on very little maintenance.
<<
>>
Jason2
Sergeant
posted 09 April 2001 04:17
[Ed: reply in thread]
   The best defense is a good offense.
   I have a game going right now in which I'm fighting two different empires on both sides of my empire.
   My race's culture is warrior, and I have trade set to 50% - although the only treaties I will make with anyone is non-aggression (to roleplay my race correctly).
   I do not have any battle stations or weapons platforms.  In some systems I have fighters (no maintenance) but mainly I have three primary fleets.  Two fleets are defensive and protect the choke points leading into my empire.  The other one is an attack fleet - which I use to take out the weaker planets of the two empires (since they both have fighters out the wazoo at their main planets and would paste me)....
   My suggestion is this:  research Mineral extraction II quickly.  Build fighters at first (I use the initial set-up of 100000 points to get fighters right off the bat) to protect your systems.  Then focus your research on producing weapons, shields, armor etc so that you can create ships that are fairly well-equipped.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 09 April 2001 12:36
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Remember, if you try to defend everything you end up defending nothing as you will go broke.
Units are definately the best planet defense.
   Early in the game mines on planets can be effective for protection, they are cheap and don't take up much storage space.
   Fighters become a better option later in the game but can be countered by a few dedicated PD ships.
   Sats are good in worm hole defense but are not so good defending planets as you usually are on ther wrong side of the planet to defend.
   Bases are good. They pay half maintenance and have extended weapons range.
   WP are also good, especially if you play with the mod that increases their range too, but they take up a lot of space so you usually don't have many except on the green cross planets. They also are usually more expensive to build.
   Like SJ said defend the wormholes to your system and use a variety of things. You really don't need a big fleet, in fact most of my fleets have more support ships than attack ships. Rarely do I have more than 25 attack ships at any one time. Build wisely and you can get by with a lot less.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 09 April 2001 14:17
[Ed: reply in thread]
   And if you're trying the Good Offense/Strike First choice, try going for Stellar Harnessing to get the solar collectors so that your ships have a much greater effective striking range.  You're much better off if you can confine a war to the other guy's territory because he can't reach *your* systems with any supply left.
<<
>>
mac5732
Corporal
posted 09 April 2001 16:22
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Don't forget to use the upgrade facility button. This way you still get resources while you upgrade them. It (blush) took me awhile to figure this was possible and I kept loosing resources by removing and then re-building upgraded ones, (everyone makes mistakes) I guess I was just in too much of a hurry to play the game.... One can only learn from his mistakes..
<<
>>
Aussie Gamer
Sergeant
posted 09 April 2001 22:37
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Do build the storage facilites as when you do a wholesale upgrade of facilites it can cost you a lot!!!
   A friend just did an upgrade from res 2 to 3 buildings and it cost him 120,000 minerals approx, without the storage you can[not] ride the dips like that.
<<


* RESTRICTING SYSTEM ACCESS
The key to system defense is the Warp Points.  If they can't get past the Warp Point, they can't attack your resource producers.  In the early game this is usually dealt with by mining and positioning defensive units such as ships, bases, satellites, and fighters.  However, in the later game the ability to open and close warp points at will can allow the enemy to by-pass your existing defended Warp Points by creating new ones.  At that point the only way to prevent this is to develop your ability and create the maximum of 10 Warp Points within as many as practicable of your own systems.  Note that these Warp Points don't have to connect out of the system.  You can set them up to link within the system as well, thus speeding the movement of your own vessels across 'system space'.

But how to best defend a Warp Point?  That is a matter of debate:

>>
Jason2
Corporal
posted 18 December 2000 20:03
   Using Space Bases (stations, battlestations, starbases) seems pointless. They cannot move and (unlike MOO2) are easily avoided.  If they could even move 1 or 2 spaces in orbit around the planet they would be better... As it stands they are not worth making.
   This seems to be the case with satellites as well - for much the same reason.  They are stationary and easily avoided.
...
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 December 2000 20:18
   I've found Satellites to be extremely useful as they cost little and require no upkeep. In fact, I've removed them as a 'starting tech' because it was just so easy to mass them up and prevent any forms of early aggression. Note that this is from a multiplayer POV as judging against the AI is not really worth it.
   Starbases etc, I tend to agree on. We've upped the 'range bonus' of the Base Mounts a bit to help give them some power and have also reduced the maintenance cost down to 30% instead of 50%. This has helped somewhat, but we still usually only see orbital shipyards and not too many defensive bases.
   I'm not sure what the solution is at this point. Maybe limited mobility would solve the problem but it would seem sort of odd at best.
<<
>>
Blue Lord
Corporal
posted 18 December 2000 20:31
  Satellites are good for many things, I'm dropping sensor satellites in EVERY system in the galaxy that I don't control (yet). The are cloaked of courseand are excellent scout posts since the give information on every single enemy ship move.
   Bases, I don't use them to much anymore except for shipyards. My fronline is always moving and It's better to have  defensive battle fleet. But I still like them, they are very good to have.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 18 December 2000 20:34
   A Talisman-equipped Starbase w/ massive-mount weapons is something to be feared, since it'll hit every time before most ship-borne weapons get a chance to fire.  And if the SB has engine-destroying weapons, repulser beams (which will fling you back up to 30 squares or so...), and so forth, and is backed by missile-toting WPs, the attacking ships will need to number quite a few to have much of a chance.
   Plasma V-carrying satellites could be a nasty surprise at a warp point.  They've a combat speed of 6, meaning they'll outrun most ships, and they'll be in firing range first turn.
   It's probably possible to add a component for either which grants a small amount of bonus combat movement (only), using the same ability as given to afterburners.  This seems more reasonable for satellites than bases, but even a base perhaps should be able to (expensively) get a combat speed of 1, at basically no supply cost.
<<
>>
Noble713
Sergeant
posted 18 December 2000 21:07
   Sats: These are excellent quickie warp point defenses. Send a transport or two loaded with 'em and they can make a mess. I never use them for planetary defense though, as they tend be positioned poorly and the AI smashes the planet without taking them out.
   Bases: Defense bases are only useful if you are on the defense and need to keep the comp out of your territory. I've only had one game where this was the case, and 4 space stations with DUCs proved to be a formidable early/mid-game warp point defense. With the AI in its current state, however, it is rare to not be on the offensive smashing through its systems, which of course makes fixed defenses unnecessary.
<<
>>
Puke
First Lieutenant
posted 18 December 2000 22:01
   maybe I'm a prick for doing this, but I like to send a construction ship to a warp point (or stack thereof) and have it build a starbase or two, which will in turn sit there and build fighters or mines or sats or whatever.  I tend to prefer fighters and mines though, unless against the AI (where the whole concept just becomes far too rude).
<<
>>
God Emperor
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 December 2000 22:48
   I have developed pretty much the same views as Jason regading satellites.
   I tend to sit off at long range and destroy them with capital missiles. Later, once PD weapons become available, they become useful when used in large numbers. How many do you satellite builders usually build at a time?
   I like the idea of the shipyard station station and the cloaked satellites. Does any one ever retrofit old transports as carriers? They are 1 mp slower of course but still quite useful..
<<
>>
Shadow99
Private First Class
posted 18 December 2000 23:29
   hmm... I guess I'm one of the few to build lots of bases... My homeworlds normally have 1 or 2 spaceyards & 1 or 2 defense bases (varies dpending on max size researched)... beyond that portals direct into the heart of enemy territory get stations (as they make much better guards than sats). Their is just no equal to true defensive power to the Starbase, I mean sure a few hundred sats or a couple baseships could do the job... but not with as much style...
<<
>>
Puke
First Lieutenant
posted 18 December 2000 23:41
   yeah, i would like to add a comment about the statement that bases are ineffective due to the fluid nature of the front line.
   sure a base will always sit in the same sector.  the wormhole wont.  sure stacked wormholes to your interior worlds have defensive issues if they are penetrated.  heres what I like to do:
   2 gateway systems (per front).  one leads to your core systems, and is moderatly defended (internal gateway). the other leads to frontier systems via stacked wormhole and some heavy static defenses (external gateway).  as the frontier moves, move the wormholes with it.  put a conquered system behind the internal gateway once its conqured, and cut off its direct access to other systems.  add a new wormhole to the defended stack at the external gateway to attach to wherever the new 'front' is.
   and uh, try not to fight a war on more than 8 fronts or so from the same system, unless you are the "heir to the throne of the kindom of idiots," as Londo would say
<<
>>
AJC
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 00:48
   I agree the cloaked spy satellites work well - you can keep tabs on all the systems you dont inhabit.
   In combat -I find satellites are only worthwhile if they are sporting seekers and/or PDC for defense of a planet from your opponents seekers and fighters.
   I rarely build a base other than as repair facilities on the front lines, usually just space stations. They can also act as my resupply base when I dont have a planet nearby- just join up with them as a fleet.   I also use them when I build ring worlds and dyson spheres.  Occasionally I will build the symbolic "I built one" battle ready star base.
<<
>>
Instar
First Lieutenant
posted 19 December 2000 01:36
   Something that makes bases better in tactical combat is that they have a range modifier on the mounts (massive mounts can reach pretty far now)
<<
>>
Danny
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 03:53
   They'd work just fine if A) They'd orbit the planet/warp point two squares out, and stations where placed around a planet, not in a group on the wrong side.
<<
>>
Psitticine
Captain
posted 19 December 2000 04:42
   I tend to use bases either as space yard facilities or warp point defenses.  You can crank out a space station pretty quickly and the resupply capacity can be nice when moving into a nice plumb enemy system.
   Something I don't completely understand about base placement in combat is why they start so far away from planets they are supposed to orbit.  I suppose it makes it look a bit nicer to have some space but, considering the scale of the planets, wouldn't they be right snug up against the planet graphics if actually in orbit?  And wouldn't that help, when combined with their new range enhancements, to make them more useful for defending those planets?
   I just had a wicked idea.  I wonder if you could use tractor beam ships to "tow" enemy ships into range of a base's weaponry?  Nasty!
<<
>>
Danny
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 08:22
   Tractor Beams need a much longer range, they're completely useless when the emeny is already within "can't miss" range.
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 19 December 2000 18:04
   In strategic combat, missile sateLlites are useful for giving a cheap defense to a planet early in the game. Missile ships cannot target them, but must avoid their missiles.
   Best use of bases is to give you multiple production queues at one point in space.  You find this more useful against human players where the front-line is much more static. Once you have enough ship building bases in orbit, you can scrap the ship yard facility and use the slot for something else. When you don't need to build any ships, you can mothball the bases to save on resources. If you need the faster planetary queue for emergencies, then you are letting your enemy get to close to your planet and one or two last minute builds will probably not save your planet anyway.
   Satellites and Bases are useless at a warp-point because fleets can choose to ignore them with their battle plans!  The only things useful at a warp-point to keep your enemy out are mines, fighers, and ships.
<<
>>
greghacke
Corporal
posted 19 December 2000 19:00
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Quite true regarding the battle plans, however...
   Drop some mines, then place a base and/or satellites.  The enemy must stop to deal with the mines.  Put fighter bays in the base and some decent weapons and you'll maintain true control of the warp point.  Additionally, throwing a Shipyard/Repair bay means you can build and mothball a mine layer for after battle re-seeding.  Tossing in a low-tech Solar Panel for energy reduces your resupply needs considerablly too...
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Corporal
posted 02 April 2001 20:42
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   Don't know if this has been discussed b4 but I don't like my 'allies' building colonys in my territory (esp on my moons!), is there any way to mod the mines so they trigger for any ship but your own?? (ie, they will damage your allies if they try to enter system).
<<
>>
GruelThePurple
Private First Class
posted 02 April 2001 22:07
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Unfortunately, no.
   The way the current diplomacy model works, once you have entered into a treaty (I forget if the break point is Non-Aggression or Trade Alliance) with another race, that race is given free passage through your mine fields and vessel blockades.
   This has been a subject which many have voiced a desire for changing who can and can not pass through your defensive screens.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Sergeant
posted 03 April 2001 00:54
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I think it is any treaty except non-intercourse.
<<
>>
Magus38
Private First Class
posted 03 April 2001 07:50
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Once you establish a treaty with any power they will not colonize anything in any system that you have already marked as one of your borders, provided the border is not in dispute. This is viewable as an option under the Diplomacy Menu. The exception is if they already had colony ships on the way there when you colonized the first planet or moon in the system. In that case they will proceed to colonize every available spot. This is actually a bug in the diplomacy system, as the AI should know enough, if you beat them to system and you have a friendly treaty with them, to recall their colony ships.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 03 April 2001 12:22
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
You sure about that?
I try to avoid treaties at all costs because the AI spreads like weeds in my systems them declares war on me after all their colonizable planets are built.
<<
>>
Magus38
Private First Class
posted 04 April 2001 17:18
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yes, I am certain. I have tested it many times. As I said below [Ed: above here], as long as you have at least one colony in the system they will not, as long as a friendly treaty exists with you, colonize ANY world in said system. Again, as I previously stated, the exception is if they already have a colonizer enroute for a planet in that system. Moreover, once they colonize that planet, they will treat the system as ok to share and colonize every other suitable and available world in it. Racing the AI to fill up such a shared system will not affect their mood though, interestingly enough.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Private First Class
posted 03 April 2001 12:32
   My tactic has always been to colonise everything I can within my core systems to prevent friendly AIs from getting a foothold in there. However that isn't 100% effective so I have a few other tactics:
-Build colony ships and trade them for any AI colony ships heading into your space. You get lots of extra population / tech this way as well.
-If the AI succeeds in colonising a planet I want I just trade it for some other planet. I deliberately colonise within their space / space I don't particularly want so I'll have surplus planets to trade with.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
First Lieutenant
posted 03 April 2001 15:51
   Note:  The AI automatically claims any system it has colonized, as well as every sytem reight next to it.  If the AI colonizes a disputed system, then that opens up a host of new disputed systems in your territory, and their expansion is not slowed at all.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 10 October 2001 18:30
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
    I am in the middle of a PBW game, and a few minor skirmishes have broken out, but currently I am (Trade & Research) allies with all the other human players.
   However, one guy (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE), keeps sending these annoying little uncloaked escort vessels throught my populated systems just to "look around" (I don't believe he is laying mines--the ships are too small). Is there any way, short of breaking our treaty, to keep him from doing that? Can I attack an individual ship without declaring war on the entire empire? I guess I could remove a couple of warp points, but that might inconvenience me as well.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Advisor
posted 10 October 2001 18:54
   The only thing you can do without canceling your treaty with him is use intel against his ships. Ships bombs or crew insurrection will work just fine against allies ships. Of course if you are playing without intel that doesn't help you.
   Otherwise you're back to canceling the treaty. Of course once you have no treaty, you can attack his ships without declaring war. But you can't if you have a treaty.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 10 October 2001 20:30
   Well, I've already tried the "All systems to the South and West belong to our empire. Please return to your own space." Didn't work.
   I like the Intel idea, though. Might just have to build me some Intelligence centers.
   What about ship capture? Is that considered an attack, and therefore not possible with a treaty?
<<
>>
Puke
General
posted 10 October 2001 20:53
   yeah, allied ships wont engage each other at all.  the combat screen wont come up when they enter the same square.
   i believe that the attack command will still cause your ship to follow his, and so you could have a warship trail his escort.  then you can tell him "turn that thing around or im going to cancel our treaty and blow it out of the sky"
<<
>>
Kadste
Corporal
posted 10 October 2001 21:08
   Since you cannot prevent your ally(?) from hanging around your systems, why don't you let him feel what its like. Send one of your ships to each of his major planets (all of his planets if you can afford it). If that happens they really would not like your teaty expiring. Then negotiate passage rights.
<<
>>
Puke
General
posted 10 October 2001 21:13
   i have been meaning to find out how combat placement works if you leave sats or bases in orbit of a planet when a treaty expires.  I want some way to guarantee that a subjugated race STAYS subjugated and does not try getting uppity later on.
<<
>>
AJC
Sergeant
posted 10 October 2001 23:15
   unfortunately bases and satellites are out of range of the planet after a treaty is cancelled and you attack the planet..
   to stop wandering allies, close the warp pt or end the treaty. You can also create a storm that does damage over the warp pt, that can often discourage wandering ships.
<<
>>
mac5732
Second Lieutenant
posted 11 October 2001 19:19
   how bad do you need the treaty with him? that might dictate what you do. If you really don't need it, break it, see how he reacts, if he wants it back, negotiate about his ships. If not, build intel centers and steal a few of his ships/planets, but this could lead to war. Are you prepared if a war breaks out? Just remember if you use intel on him, he will more then likely recipricate. I have this type of war going on now in a hotseat game where we have trade and research with 1 human player but we are fighting with intel against each other...good luck
<<


* MINEFIELDS
>>
atomannj
Private First Class
posted 02 January 2001 16:32
   Is there any way to be able to group mines layed in a sector.  It's becoming a pain to laye mines in a sector in groups of 7.  I have over 10 groups of 7 in a sector and it makes it difficult to suffle through when you place your own fleet there.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 02 January 2001 17:30
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Once they have been deployed, no. You are stuck with a mine group once it has been created until it is "used up" or you self-destruct it. BUT... if you use "remote deploy" to lay your mines instead of doing it manually the new mines will be added to any existing mine groups in the sector instead of a new group being created as it is in manual deployment. Weird, eh? So just use remote deployment to keep the number of mine groups down.
<<
>>
Psitticine
Captain
posted 02 January 2001 22:09
[Ed: reply in thread]
...
   To Remote Deploy units (including mines), you need to select the transport carrying the units and click on the Launch Units Remotely button on the command bar (it's in the top row, two to the right of the Launch/Deploy Units button and looks just like it except for having arrows going both in and out of the square launch bay) and than click on where you want the units to be deployed.
   One feature of this order is that you don't get direct control over the number of units deployed.  The transport will now go ahead and deploy all the units it can once it moves to the selected location.
   I haven't used this feature since the new change in the number of units that can be launched in a strategic turn so I'm not sure if the ship will now only launch the most it can in one turn, carrying on launching in subsequent turns until empty, or if maybe Aaron [Ed: game developer] forgot this bit and they'll all get dumped at once.
<<
>>
Sinapus
Second Lieutenant
posted 02 January 2001 22:50
[Ed: reply to previous]
   It won't deploy all of them. It will deploy as many as it can in one turn, leaving the others in the bays. If you want to drop all mines in that place, then you would have to add an extra movement set that moved the ship away from the launch point then back at least one turn later to launch the rest of the mines.
   Personally, I just altered the settings in components.txt to let you launch enough mines to empty the bays, but not to allow the "one mine layer plus a bunch of cargo bays" strategy.
<<
>>
Hydraa
Corporal
posted 02 January 2001 23:34
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I was wondering.  Can you use a ally that does not have a peace treaty with you to allow you to lay more mines?  My idea is to have the ally place a ship at the point you want the mines to be and you move your mine layer there and attack the ship.  Have both ships basically on "do not get hurt" orders.  Then the minelayer gets to lay mines for each turn of combat or even each combat round.  I have not tried this but it could be a way around the slow strategic laying of mines.
   You might be able to use a variant of the white elephant tatic mentioned earlier.  Gift a enemy a ship with no engines and then attack it with your minelayer
<<
>>
Puke
First Lieutenant
posted 02 January 2001 23:57
[Ed: reply to previous]
   That's diabolical.  The only problem is you can't do it to an ally (can't engage combat with them) so you would have to do it to a enemy or someone with a NI treaty.  Then the problem occurs when a warship is not set to "don't get hurt" and wants to move through the sector where you are laying mines, and greases the white elephant.
   I like the idea of editing the component file alot more, as it is (a) reliable and (b) invokes alot less complaints about cheating.
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 03 January 2001 01:05
[Ed: reply to previous]
   And it wouldn't work anyway, I may add.  All the units deployed during tactical combat are RETURNED to their carriers after the combat including mines, satellites and fighters. So, as you see, that tactic wouldn't work.
<<
>>
Dracus
Second Lieutenant
posted 20 April 2001 22:26
   Here is another little tip:
   A way to help protect your homeworld or any planet for that matter in addition to using sat's or wp's is to add some mines in orbit. While mines are only good for ships entering orbit, they have been very effective to prevent the loss of one of my major planets. A fleet moves in to glass the area, they run into mines and take some losses. Then in the attack you mop up the remaining ships. The down side is that if a ship gets damaged to where it can't move and you have no way to attack it, then the planet becomes blockaded.
   To re-supply the mine field, either use a base with a SY and mine laying bays or keep a cargo ship in orbit with a couple of mine laying bays building mines on the planet and loading them to the ship after each attack then you can re-build the field. To protect the ship, when battle starts, just move it behind the planet out of attack range. but behind the cover of your planet defenses.
   Of course this all is somewhat useless if they send in penty of mine sweepers.
(if you use strat rather then tach then most of the time you will lose the ship since it will run to the corner to die.) But sometimes the mines take out all the attacking ships ant you don't have to battle.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 April 2001 01:00
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Mining planets also usually produces a suprised look on a human opponent, the first time.  After that they get smart but that means the minesweepers must enter combat and you have a chance to take them out.
   The best thing about using mines as a planet defense is every planet can produce them. They don't take up much space so you can keep them in storage until the enemy appears and then launch them. They are really good when used in conjunction with fighters.
<<
>>
Dracus
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 April 2001 01:43
[Ed: reply to previous]
   How about this against a human player?
   Put a small number of mines on a Warp Point then the sectors all around it put a few mines. They will come through the WP, hit the mines and then send in a mine sweeper to clear the WP.  When they move their fleet from the WP out into your system, they hit some more mines.  They will get so freaked about where you may have placed mines.  Or sneak into their system and drop mines either in the shipping lanes or out around one of their planets.  What a suprise they will get.
   (Hope no one reads this that is in a game with me. looks around...)
<<


* FIGHTERS IN DEFENSE
>>
Stockman
Private First Class
posted 11 February 2001 18:19
   Are fighters worth the effort. I never use them and I got this way in the beginning of my ownership of this game months ago. I see that the AI uses them and 90% of the time I can knock them right out. They seem never to have enough firepower to be a strong force in the game. Need advice on if I am wrong and am missing out on good strategy? Thanks
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 11 February 2001 18:37
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Well, you can build 'em on worlds without a spaceyard, put them towards the middle of a system, and then they can hit anything that enters.  So if you have excess resources (!) you can add to a cheap-to-build, maintenance-free response force.
   They're also nifty if you PPP a yard-less planet, or CI a colony ship in enemy space -- in either case, you can build fighters quite quickly, and they may be able to hit nearby worlds, intercept colony ships and transports, and so forth.
<<
>>
Blue Lord
Corporal
posted 11 February 2001 20:10
[Ed: reply in thread]
   They're usefeulness depends on their numbers, weapons, size, speed etc. My own little killer, where 14 of these fellows can bomb out a dreadnought (in both tactical and strategical). I've got a strike force of them heading towards a neutral, on heavy carriers of course. The poor neutral won't know what hit them, when my Mine Nought mines the only warpoint leading to a neighbour that might aid them, and my troop ships dive in. That's real fun.
<<
>>
Instar
Second Lieutenant
posted 11 February 2001 20:12
[Ed: reply in thread]
   A well designed fighter (large fighter, one or two small shields, plus a few weapons, and an afterburner III is really good) is an incredible weapon.  With the Afterburner III + the engines, you can get some mighty fast fighters.  I have designs that go up to 8 or 9 moves in combat.  They are great interceptors.  In a group, they can wallop small to medium ships, and if they carry missiles, they can blow anything up.
   A good carrier with 100-150 fighters is one of the most important components of my fleets.
<<
>>
Sinapus
Sergeant
posted 11 February 2001 20:28
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yes, but the annoying thing about them is that they are a hassle to maneuver in tactical. Plus if you launch them outside of combat, they all form one big mass.
   I'd like to see the 'launch fighters in groups' command be useable outside of combat, as well as allowing a "fleet" to be preset for each carrier's fighters so that when you do launch them in small groups they automatically are part of the "fleet" (think of it as a fighter group or wing) upon launch. Would make it much easier to move them on both the tactical and main game board.
   Having the fighter groups clump fighters of the same type in the same unit when you launch them would be nice as well. As of now I have separate carriers for different fighter types. Fighters w/rocket pods on one ship, fighters w/weapons that fire more often on another, etc.
<<
>>
raynor
Second Lieutenant
posted 11 February 2001 22:56
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Fighters are incredibly powerful if built in sufficient numbers. If the AI doesn't put point defence cannons on its ships, then you can build six small fighters equipped with just the small anti proton beam at any of your planets in a *single* turn and utterly destroy any escort, frigate, or light cruiser which the AI may spend two to three turns building at a space yard planet.
   They don't need to be built at a space yard so it is easy to spend all your excess resources building up quite a stockpile of these things. I figure that the average system can build at least 40 per turn. There are just too many advantages to list. You didn't need to build a space yard to start producing these fighters so you can start producing them the same turn you colonize the planet instead of waiting five turns. They don't require any maintenance so you can spend more resources on expansion. They don't effect your score. So, you can have enough fighters to utterly lay waste to the AI and still seem harmless--thus not invoking MEE. Fighters can leave planet orbit and attack targets inside the system. This is something that satellites and weapon platforms and mines can't do. Pack them on a carrier or a transport if you have a planet in the next system over, and you now have a mobile offensive force. Fighters are better than satellites because they are always on the correct side of the planet. They are better than WEP's because they can go out and meet the enemy. 40 small fighters can easily take on a cruiser or battle cruiser and destroy it. Remember that small fighters are incredibly hard to hit while packing quite a wollop...
   Later in the game, the AI will put Point Defence cannons on its ships. But if you play an EA-like game and mass produce fighters, you'll quickly find that even putting your fighters in much more manageable groups of 20 or more, you will easily be able to defeat AI ships with PD V cannons by englobing his ships. It seems that the PD cannons don't fire if neither your fighters nor the enemy ships move?
   Fighters are much more convenient to build than mines, satellites or weapon platforms because a planet can launch an infinite number per turn, and then you can move the fighters around inside a system without using another ship as is required by the other unit types.
   As you can see, I'm a very big advocate of fighters. Even before I installed the Mod Pack and observed the numbers of fighters the EA builds, I found fighters to be extremely powerful. Of course, a human player could easily counter my fighters by building ships with *only* PD V's on board. But he'll spend one heck of a lot more resources on maintenance than I will.
   IMHO, you would be extremely surprised at how effective just the small fighter is. Playing a high bonus game against the current AI, I think you could probably play a game where you never leave your current system and stop researching after you get the small fighter with the small anti-proton. Once you get that, I might make the ridiculous claim that you could declare war on all your enemies and survive. Of course, that might be a little extreme. However, I *was* at war with THREE empires at once and survived. (Hopefully, get rid of the defense base bug, and I would have been toast!)
   (Stepping down off the podium and stopping the auto-salesmen like pitch of fighters...)
---
   Notes for those of you who don't spend more time playing the game than you do reading this forum.
1. MEE - Once you reach a certain score, which is influenced heavily by the number of ships and bases you have, all races in the game decide you are a threat, break their treaties and declare war on you. The game is much easier to win if everybody *loves* you. With careful diplomacy, you can maintain peaceful relations with everyone in the galaxy until the turn before you start laying waste to their colonies.
2. EA - Earth Alliance - Awesome race created by Mephisto which you can find in the Mod Pack 1.01 over in the Scenarios/Mods forum which is up a level from this one and down a few.
<<
>>
Tomgs
First Lieutenant
posted 12 February 2001 08:57
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I agree that fighters are very powerful if used correctly and it seems you do. I don't use them myself anymore because the micromanagement is very high with large numbers of fighters in combat and if you build a good infrastructure I don't think maintaince is a problem. Of course as you say if the computer building queue problems go away then this might change. Right now I can win without them so I usually ignore that tech. I do win against missle and fighter AI races that I meet in the game very easily and all it does is give me legendary ships from all the point defence hits I get.
   So what I am saying is yes they are very good and against the computer they are probably unstoppable unless you mod the game to put more point defence in the ships. If you do that of course something else gets weaker so its a tradeoff. Against a human it won't work as well but you might win the first battles until his designs change sufficently to counter you. I Usually put at least 3 PD in any light cruiser and above when I fight seeker and fighter races and I don't think you could surround many of my fleeted ships with light fighters. My solo scouts however would die easily to that tactic. Of course large fighters with shields are able to take on larger ships and it takes a bit more to take them out. When I did use fighters I really liked the large fighters speed and in large enough groups most ships would have trouble with them.
<<
>>
raynor
Second Lieutenant
posted 13 February 2001 01:02
[Ed: reply to previous]
   "Against a human it won't work as well but you might win the first battles until his designs change sufficently to counter you. I Usually put at least 3 PD in any light cruiser and above when I fight seeker and fighter races and I don't think you could surround many of my fleeted ships with light fighters. My solo scouts however would die easily to that tactic."
   In general, I agree with you. But because fighters don't pay maintenance, I wonder if it might not be a worthwhile sacrifice to lose tons and tons of fighters against point defence cannons rather than pay the maintenance on a fleet of ships.
   For example, let's say you build a light cruiser equipped with PD V cannons and some shielding. In the simulator, this 7000 point ship can be overcome by 23,000 worth (about 75) small fighters. Is this trade worth it?
   On the face of it, this trade looks pretty one-sided against the empire using fighters. But what happens to the balance if you consider the resources spent maintaining that ship. Over a period of 12 turns, the maintenance on that ship bumps its cost up above the cost of the fighters.
   Of course, the next question would be: Can the fighter empire build enough fighters quickly enough--especially when he must spend three to four times as many minerals to equal one ship. It all depends on how long the other player has been maintaining his ships. I wonder if there might not be a point in time when it makes more sense to invest in fighters *even though* you are going to lose them in such large numbers against the enemy's PD cannons.
   Makes you think, doesn't it?
<<
>>
Drake
Sergeant
posted 13 February 2001 02:51
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by raynor:
   "Over a period of 12 turns, the maintenance on that ship bumps its cost up above the cost of the fighters."
   You could always set your ship maintenance to zero and ignore using fighters completely...
   Besides, if you really want to hurt them from a maintenance perspective, use engine overloading weapons on their ships and just leave them there if they don't have repair components or self-destructs and are in your territory. *evil grin*
<<
>>
Tomgs
First Lieutenant
posted 13 February 2001 08:33
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Originally posted by raynor:
   "In general, I agree with you. But because fighters don't pay maintenance, I wonder if it might not be a worthwhile sacrifice to lose tons and tons of fighters against point defence cannons rather than pay the maintenance on a fleet of ships."
   Well I would worry about that if maintaince ever slowed down my building but it doesn't unless I am building stellar manipulation and then if I blow up your star all your fighter go away anyway  . The truth is if you build a good infrastructure maintaince is non existant because you are bringing in more minerals than you spend anyway. If I didn't build ships at every planet that wasn't building facilities the minerals would just be wasted and lost anyway so the maintaince is a plus because at least my minerals are useful.
<<
>>
raynor
Second Lieutenant
posted 13 February 2001 09:05
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by Tomgs:
   "Well I would worry about ..."
   Uh, well... if you're achieving the kind of infrastructure sufficient to compete in the TG tournament, well, yeah, I think you probably have more than enough minerals coming it not to worry about maintenance too much. Man! Almost 300 M score in a small galaxy. And Geoschmo at 60 M *without* ringworlds. How much of their score is resources and how much is ships?
   Speaking of infrastructure.. I never ever bothered to research computers to get the Robotoid factories on up. Against the current AI, there wasn't any need. Hopefully, I'll do more than just scratch the surface of the game and be afraid for my life later this week with the new patch.
   Just to set the record straight. The main game I used fighters was a high bonus game in which I was surrounded on all sides by major empires and at war with one of them from the beginning of the game. By about turn 70, I still just had one system and had only 10% the resource production of the #1 empire--and that was *after* you figured in a 20% trade tready with the #2 empire. So, I had a real problem with NO infrastructure. Fighters were the only thing that kept me alive. The AI wasn't sending very many ships. But the ships it did send were BIG and had the latest tech. Fortunately, you would be surprised at what 500-800 fighters can do on defence. Oh, and I did eventually win that game.
<<
>>
Oggy ben Doggy
Private First Class
posted 13 March 2001 20:06
   Is there a way to rearrange fighter groups, without a planet?  I have two groups of fighters at a warp point, and I want to rearrange them by type, so my obsolete ones soak up the PD hits first, but they seem to be permanently grouped based on how they were whey they left the planet.
   I tried the Launch fighters command, hoping that would work, but it didn't
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 13 March 2001 20:40
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Only suggestion I have is try to form a fleet with them, then separate them.
<<
>>
Oggy ben Doggy
Private First Class
posted 13 March 2001 21:09
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I could group them into a fleet, but I couldn't transfer between the two groups, or create new groups.
<<
>>
jc173
Private First Class
posted 13 March 2001 21:18
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I'm pretty sure you need a planet or a carrier.  I think the fighter groups are pretty much permanent, at least until they land or are blown to bits.
<<
>>
Claymore
Private First Class
posted 25 February 2001 12:37
   Can I build and launch them as part of a planets defence? Do they have to be launched from carriers or can they be either in a cargo storage facility and jettisoned into space for a suprise defence, or could you just have them circling the planet like a satelite?  Does a ship have to place them in orbit around the planet that made them?
<<
>>
jimbob55
Corporal
posted 25 February 2001 12:44
[Ed: reply to previous]
   You can keep them in storage on a planet and launch them in tactical combat mode or you can launch them like satallites.
   As long as you don't move them round until they run out of supplies, they will stay ready for combat indefinitely.
   Launching them is the easiest because space has infinite storage capacity...
<<
>>
nweaver
Private First Class
posted 25 February 2001 18:07
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
   Be sure to launch fighters in large groups (20+ large fighters, 30-40+ small fighters).  The reason why:  With a fighter group, you want enough firepower to destroy the biggest ship in a single turn.  Otherwise, the fihters can't all get close enough, and they all get chewed up by point defenses.
   Organic fighters are the best, because of the available weapons being the most power/space.  If you are playing a nonorganic race, consider a shield depleater followed by a real weapon, once the enemy starts using shileds, because the shield depleters will fire first for ALL fighters in the group, then the normal weapon.
<<
>>
Q
Second Lieutenant
posted 16 April 2001 11:00
   The default value for fighter groups is 5.
   In my opinion this may not be optimal for two reasons.
   First a group of only 5 fighters may be incapable of damaging organic or crystalline armor (unless using rocket pods) and if you have a lot of fighters in a combat the field may be so much crowded, that not all fighter groups get into firing distance.
   Second if you have a large number of fighters in small groups it becomes very complicated for the computer calculation. The time for combat calculation goes up very much and sometimes the game even locks. This may be less a problem with powerful hardware, but the reported problems with SEIV in later games may partially be connected to this.
   So I set fighter group size to 20 or even 30 and I don't see any disadvantage.
   What's your experience?
<<
>>
raynor
Major
posted 16 April 2001 11:30
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I'm with you, Q. I think the larger the group the better--especially against point defence cannons. In fact, I think the very best use of fighters is to launch them *before* combat, add them to the fleet and then attack.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 16 April 2001 12:12
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I like 10-15 unit groups. Seems to pack a pretty good punch with small DUCIII cannons. Plus I can add two shields to each one so they last a little longer.
<<
>>
MrSchizoid
Private First Class
posted 16 April 2001 12:38
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Ive set my defaults to 20.  It works especially well for my interceptors as they can take out a smaller fighter group easily.
   Im wondering if anyone before has done new default strategies specifically for fighters.  Ive been around here for quite a long time and havent seen them before.
   Ive done interceptor and fighter/bomber, and they seem to work most of the time in strategic combat.  Interceptors going for other fighters first, then attack bigger ships.  Fighter/bombers go for the big ships first, then helping mop up any fighters left, although neither of them attack planets (easy to change)
   Anyone interested?
<<
>>
MrSchizoid
Private First Class
posted 16 April 2001 13:51
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Theyre in the data mod section!
   I havent play tested them as much as I would have liked, so let me know if they work as promised.  From what little testing Ive done, (30-45 battles) they seem to do ok.
   One more thing, I dont think they work with saved empire files (didnt for me anyway) I hope its not a problem.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Corporal
posted 17 April 2001 15:12
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I see your point when fighting certain armour types, but are you sure large groups are better against PDC than small ones? If playing tactical I prefer to launch fightrs in small groups, or even one at a time.
   Think about it - if a PDC (or any other weapon) does 50 damage, and each fighter takes 30 damage, 20 of that damage is wasted against a single fighter, but all 50 is used against a group:
   In other words it would take 9 hits to destroy 9 single fighters, but only 6 hits to waste 9 grouped fighters.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 17 April 2001 15:31
[Ed: reply to previous]
   That's a good strategy if you don't mind moving all those units. You could actually use un-armed/armored fighters as flak catchers.
<<
>>
Q
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 April 2001 16:18
[Ed: reply in thread]
...
   You are correct in this point, but there is no fighter group launch possibility of one, so you would have to do this manually!! And I don't want to think about the time it takes to move and fire all these single fighters.
<<
>>
nerfman
Sergeant
posted 17 April 2001 17:43
[Ed: reply in thread]
   If you have shields on your fighters, then smaller groups may help.  Damage applied to your groups to one fighters shield then to the fighters themselves.  If there is enough extra damage to destroy 2 or three fighters then it does so, not "attacking" the shields of the other 2-3.  Subsequent attacks on the next turn will have the shields for say the forth fighter.  Basically, once you burn through one fighters shields, all the rest of the damage is applied internally and damage that leaks to other fighters does not interact with their shields.
   With this in mind, smaller sizes mean more of this "extra' damage is wasted.  Also, by increasing the number of targets, you diminish your opponents ability to engage you with their normal weapons.  Even w/ multiplex tracking, they can only engage a few targets regardless of size.  This works even better when closing w/ heavy ships simultaniously.  Of course the point defense will not really be affected since it is autonomous but timing with some standoff missile strikes can really force the same type of targetting delema on the PD guns.  Saturation is key!
   So my suggestion is if your enemy is killing most of your fighters with standard weapons then break up your groups, but maybe if they are heavily armored or have lots of PD then jack up the group size.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
8: How does multiplexing work? Will multiplex 2 let you shoot at a second ship if you kill the first ship and still have unused weapons left? Or is it only good against things like fighters and missiles, which come in groups?
...
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 05:28
...
8. Exactly. Without multiplexing, your ship might have 20 weapons. If the first weapon kills an enemy ship, then other 19 won't fire until the next combat turn. But with the multiplexer, you can fire at multiple ships.
...
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
8: Multiplex 2 lets you divide your fire between two different ships in the same combat turn. You don't necessarily have to destroy the first ship before you can fire on the second. Multiplex 3 lets you fire on 3 ships and so on.
...
<<

* BUYING TIME: 
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 04 September 2001 19:32
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   Let's say you are under attack from an opponent who is systematically conqering your planets... your defending fleets have been waxed and you are trying to throw up something to slow them down while you "form up" another fleet.
   I have had nill success with this one by the way... Against an attack fleet of 20 or so, I could get nothing to even put a dent in 'em!
   I like the sound of Nitram Draw's WMG weapon platforms, they sound like they might do some damage...
   Any suggestions?
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 04 September 2001 19:53
   In my experience. If an attacker has a balanced fleet there is nothing your planet can do to save itself fast. Otherwise the only defenses I can think of are:
   Spending a lot of time/effort to fortify the planet. This is not very pratical on a large scale and you are better off building ships generally.
   If you have the tech. Build a star destroyer in each of your systems. Blamm his fleet and your planets at the same time. You were going to lose them anyway.
   Give the planet to someone that is allied to both of you. If you die at least you have helped someone else and some of your population may live till the end. If things change you might get the planets back from the person you gave it to. Think of it as the planet asking for sanctuary from a neighboring neutral empire. They pledge to stay out of the conflict and support their protectors.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 September 2001 20:09
   Use moons as defence systems.
Ie.  Put only cargo containers on them.  And then fill them up with different types of units.
   Point defence WP's and then the rest Direct Fire Platforms.
Make sure you have the range on the Platforms.
   Throw some fighters into the mix and you can take on a fleet.
   Always remember you want to make each planet hard to conquer. Force time on the enemy. That way they cannot split their fleet and take out many planets at once.
   Another thing I recommend is that if you're losing your systems then as soon as you're about to lose the last few planets in that system.  Gas the sun.  Take everything out with one shot.
   And always try to fight your battles at warp points.
   But Battle Moons rock.  If you have 2 of them maxxed out with units and then units on the planet ...  the player will be in for a big surprise.
   If you cannot take them out all at once then make sure it is a costly victory for them.
But to do this you have to plan your defences early in the game and stick to your plan.
   Use fighters and small ships to alter your plans.  If they are low on missle defence build fighters to take this on with missle destroyers. Or to exploit what ever weakness you find. Same with mines.
   Base ships with the battle moons work out realy well.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Colonel
posted 04 September 2001 20:23
   One thing about defending planets is you can't hold out forever against large odds. If the enemy has 50 ships and you cannot reinforce it soon, kiss the planet goodbye. Once fleets get large, over 20 ships, you will need a fleet to run them out.
   Some other tactics I've used are:
   Launch mines over the planet, usually minesweepers aren't brought in to combat. This only works on a Human 1-2 times but will work against the AI.
   Fighters are OK if the enemy doesn't have much PD, otherwise they get chewed up fast but can occasionally swing the battle your way.
   Sats, lots of them, with missiles or beams can help. Bases are better especially Starbases and larger. They can hold out for quite a long time if there are WP on the planet.
   If you are in danger of losing a well colonized system try to use engine destroying weapons to thin out, or slow down, the fleet until you can launch a counter attack.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 04 September 2001 21:47
   As a practical matter you cannot make a 4X game that does not make ships supreme.  If it were possible to fortify a planet so that it could not be taken by a fleet of ships you would have a game that would frequently get into stalemates.  So, the starship is the ultimate weapon in SE just as in any other 4X game.
   That said, the best way to defend a planet is, like most things in SE, with a combined strategy. WPs on the planet with direct-fire weapons using mounts (assuming you have a mod that uses these for WPs) and satellites with missiles and PDC. This is important. The satellites with PDC defend your planet against missile attack and can launch long-range counter-attacks with their own missiles. Since sats cannot be targetted by missiles your enemy would have to approach the planet to attack them directly and then the heavy weapons on the planet can fire on them. This is a fairly deadly combination. But, as with anything you can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers or a large technological advantage.
   A fleet of ships is also effective, of course. But since ships cost maintenance it's usually not possible to have a fleet over every planet or even in every system.
   There are also mines of course. Without a doubt mines are the cheapest and most effective defense. That's why I hate them. They are too simplistic. They ALWAYS hit, and there's no defense but a generic "mine sweeper" that also ALWAYS works. It's just disappointing that a game as sophisticated as SE would still be so crude about mines.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 04 September 2001 22:06
   I agree that mines are the best first line of defence at a planet.  Since there's a minor bug with the "units per sector" setting (i.e., if the setting is 100, and you have 99 mines in that sector, you can launch as many mines as a single ship/base/planet can launch, even if that will violate the 100 max mines per sector setting), you could have a minefield of 99 + maximum mine storage on the planet (well, a planet can only launch 999 mines per turn, but if you can store more mines than that you should have LOADS of weapon platforms for defense).  Anyway, put as many mines up as possible, so that even if the enemy sweeps a few you can take out and/or damage the rest of the fleet.  After that, you should probably have a mix of missile and beam weapon platforms.  Most fleets will shrug off small waves of missiles; but if even one or two get through, it's a bit of damage done, and if you can do internals and wipe out point-defence you're in better shape.  And don't forget point-defence for the planet!  I might also suggest putting a couple weapon platforms with all shields and/or all armor on the planet to soak up damage.  If you add fighters to the mix, the enemy's PDC will get overloaded trying to handle both fighters and missiles; although many other weapons will also target fighters, so be prepared to lose your fighters.
   Satellites, IMHO, are not as useful as the other options, as you run the risk of having them on the wrong side of the planet during combat, and they'll never get a chance to fire.  Bases are a little better, since they get range bonuses on their weapon mounts, but if you have time to build bases you have time to build ships.
   Obviously, you should also focus on using the longest-range weapons possible on weapons platforms.  The AI can be good at staying just out of range if it's weapons are better than yours.
   BTW - the other good tactic is laying satellites at warp points.  You get a shot at point-blank range to start; if you use high-damage weapons (especially shield or armor skipping weapons) you have a chance of taking out a few ships.  This is a case where missiles might work; 30, 50, maybe even 100 or more missiles in a single volley at short range would overwhelm the defences of most small to medium fleets (say, under 20 ships).
   Obviously, mining the warp points is a good idea too.  But minesweepers will ruin your day.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Major
posted 04 September 2001 23:18
   I find that a surprise salvo of Crew Insurrection ops can also be quite useful as a spot-defense.  Of course, it doesn't scale -- no matter how many intel points you have, you'll only CI twelve ships a turn, at best.  But if you're up against fleets large enough that twelve ships per turn doesn't even matter, by that time defense is probably not a viable option.
<<
>>
LazarusLong42
Corporal
posted 04 September 2001 23:21
   Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way... but if you have an opponent seriously glassing your planets, I consider it too late.
   In other words, your defense should not be near your planets, but at warp points leading into your space.  If the enemy fleets get past _that_, then you're screwed, but you would have been just as screwed if that large choke defense had been split up defending planets.
   There are several exceptions to this rule:
1.  Early game (<~20 turns).  A few WPs can take out any rush fleet.  Or should be able to.
2.  Very late endgame.  If your opponent is opening warp points into your system, you have othe rproblems on your hands.  The best defense here is not to let your enemy survive that long
<<
>>
docshane
Private First Class
posted 05 September 2001 05:20
   I agree with most of the posts here.  There are a lot of good suggestions.  They emphasize the most important element of any plan against humans: be versatile.
   I have really frustrated some enemies by radically altering my strategies mid-game. You will wipe out an attacking fleet only to be confronted by another fleet 10 turns later, fine-tuned to your strategy.  What a surprise when he finds out his PDF are completely useless against your missiles that have magically morphed into "super-duper mounted" WMGs!  Anticipate what your enemy will do and give him the opposite.  Even if it fails, it will damage his pride and confidence.
   Don't forget that there is no "secret" weapon that unbalances the entire game.  Only players who don't know how to counteract those weapons.
   Remember that space stations can be altered almost instantaneously.  Have versions that contain all PDF, or all direct fire weapons, or the occasional long-range WMG.  Retrofits on PBW games take only 1 turn.
   Cargo facilities can turn moons into battlestations.  Large weapon platforms can be designed into a variety of useful configurations.  Don't stick to one pattern.
   Warp points are the choke points of civilization.  Guard these with mines and satellites or fighters to clean up the fodder.
   Scatter single mines around that empty space between the planets.  Send those unescorted crippled ships leaving your system to get repaired a final "bon-voyage!"
   The power of the cloak is also powerful in the midgame.  Great the invading fleet with equal numbers of ships that mysteriously appear from nowhere.
   When the enemy opens a new warp across half the galaxy into your system, don't blow up your star.  Let him enjoy the pleasure of killing off your planets one by one.  While all this is transpiring, warp to his system and destroy his commerce with your cloaked star destroyer.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 06 September 2001 16:55
   Play the game with the wp mounts.  Increased range really kills ships quickly.
   If you have a huge planet and 1 moon.  Maxed out on units it will take the player a long time to take that planet out.
   In the modded game I play  Weapons Platforms have 4 mounts: 200k 400k 600k and 1000k.  Range increase is 2,3,4,6 and damage is 1.5,2,4,6.  Cost is the factor. The size stays the same.  So if you build the 1000k weapons platforms and fill a planet with them....  Well you get the picture.  Forces the player to build task forces just to take out one planet.
   More realistic.
   From testing  I have lost fleets of 100 battleships attacking a well defended planet.
   You need combined forces to take them out.  Fighters, missles, Direct fire ships, Troop transports.  Amazing.
   Now if it could only be done with tactical combat.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Captain
posted 06 September 2001 17:09
   Originally posted by docshane:
   "...The power of the cloak is also powerful in the midgame.  Great the invading fleet with equal numbers of ships that mysteriously appear from nowhere...."

   That IS a cool strategy.  I will many times send out fleets with all but 1 ship cloaked.  The enemy sees 1 ship and thinks 'Easy pickings'.  When he attacks all my other ships are there to 'greet' him.... works real well and suprises the $#!t out of most of 'em....
<<
>>
Commander G2
Private First Class
posted 06 September 2001 17:31
   As a refinement of the mine strategy suggested by others, consider making a cheap mine with only one warhead so you can build as many as possible.  Force your opponent to build many mine clearers.  In a game I am currently in, I have held off a power with 3 times my mineral resources just by putting so many mines over every planet.  He can now clear my mines, but he had to delay his offensive about 15 turns. With the cheap mine strategy, you must watch any unit limits that might be imposed in the game.
   Another thing you can do is mine some of your planets heavily and some lightly just to show mines to any scouts who come snooping to see if you have any.  Defend the lightly mined ones with fighters and WPs.
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 06 September 2001 18:43
   Originally posted by rdouglass:
   "What are you modding to get 1000Kt Weapons Platforms???  Telll me more!!!"

   Edit vehiclesize.txt, mainly. That's why I have superdreadnoughts, monitors and supermonitors as well as heavy fighters and bombers in my games.
<<
>>
Daeromont
Private First Class
posted 21 September 2001 14:39
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   I have a plethora of small worlds with inadequate defense.  Thus far, I've tried everything from a Sat/Mine mix, fleets in orbit, and expanding their Cargo storage.  Obviously, because of their small contribution to my overall empire, I cannot spare too much.  Anyone have any good suggestions for a good defense that doesn't cost too much?
<<
>>
dumbluck
Sergeant
posted 21 September 2001 14:55
   Don't defend planets, defend warp points.
   The best defense is a good offense.  Take the fight to him and he won't have much left to throw at your little planets.  Your meager defenses should be sufficient for that.
   Combined arms unit warfare.  Mines on WP and planet, combined with weapon platforms and fighters; none of which costs any maint. fees.....
<<
>>
CyC
Private First Class
posted 21 September 2001 16:12
   forget cargo facilities just build fighters on all of your planets and launch them ever turn and store them at the worm hole entrance or around one of your worlds as soon as someone enters the system put 5 billion fighters at them
   of course my standard defence for small worlds is to not have small worlds they are not worth while just have big ones
<<
>>
mac5732
Second Lieutenant
posted 21 September 2001 16:21
   Everything all the others said are good. Most players usually fortify moons that are in conjunction with larger planets because they only have 1-2 facilities. They put cargo on them and then put WP's and a spaceyard and if room ftr bays. Small moons by themselves are tough to defend, if they have good resources build that facility and whatever room you have for wp's. You probably won't be able to hold it against determined invasion. Best bet is put strong defenses on worm holes, but against human player the worm hole open/closer will eventually nullify that, so ftrs are probably best defense in this respect. If its one you want to really defend, then ftrs and numerous sats with seekers, beam and PD defenses.  If you use fleets to defend each one its a waste of resources and very expensive. If you build a spaceyard then you could also build battlestations, it depends on how much you want to keep it and what your willing to spend vs what it takes to hold onto it...
<<
>>
tesco samoa
First Lieutenant
posted 21 September 2001 18:50
   I always felt for defending small planets or any planet for that matter you have to decide what defence stag. you want for each type of planet.
   Usually with med, small or tiny planets I use them to house system wide fac's wharehouses, research or intel planets.
   (p.s. ) I aways take the 125% racial trait for planets.
   So for small planets if there by themselves then I will place what system wide's i want on them up to max 2.  1 slot for ship yard and the remaining 3 for cargo holds.
   If a small or tiny planet is orbiting a large planet then they will just have cargo fac's and one of the orbiting planets will have a ship yard.
   I fill them with weapons platforms, fighters and soldiers.  Usually a 50, 30 , 20 mix. on 60 % of the cargo hold.  The remaining 40 % go to inbound and outbound units
   I also try to build orbital platforms to help with this defence.
   But it all depends on the mod.
   And another consideration to take into account is the location of the small planet
   Further back from the front the more they will be producing out bound units.
   The good thing about this is that you can create a non-static planet defence system based on your needs short term and long term.
   The 40 % used for short term and the remaining 60% for long term.
   This makes sense right???????
<<
>>
Kadste
Private First Class
posted 21 September 2001 19:46
   On all of my planets, I will build fighters every turn, if I can afford them. I will also lauch them every time that I have a group of 10. I move them to a warp point that I want to defend. Soon you will have hundreds or thousands of fighters on the loose (up to the game limit). I will also max out the cargo facility on each planet with fighters (last stand defense). Also I build freighters and load them up with fighters, for reserves. Freighters are also great for staging fighters to new systems.
   Even if I come up against an opponent that has a lot of PD, the number of fighters will do a lot of damage, usually buying me enough time to move a fleet in.
   I find that you need to have a way to detect the enemy fleets before they hit your systems, for defense to be most effective.
   This works out well for games that allow fighters to move on the system map. Because they can move on the systems map, I think this makes them too strong, so in my mod fighters cannot move on the system map, but the move at least twice as fast as the fastest ship in combat.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
First Lieutenant
posted 21 September 2001 22:32
   Question why would you want to use up all your units in space quota.
   Is it not better to store units in planets, on ships or bases in cargo facilities.
   Maybe have a few floating, but also be allowed to release the max one area.
   Units need to be massed in space to be effective.
   Since 5000 seems to be the limit.
   What do you do if you have that number maxed out and an invasion fleet arrives and you have only 400 fighters in the area. And you cannot launch more because you would go over the max limit??
   I guess different styles.
   I feel unit storage and usage is very important since we are limited to such a small number of units.
<<


PROJECTING YOUR INFLUENCE:

   That is a diplomat's way of saying "conducting military operations".  Sooner or later you are going to have to deal with your opponent's defenses.  Typically this will require maneuvering a number of ships, which means you need to learn about "fleets".


* FLEET OPERATIONS:
[Ed: From the MM site Q&A web page]
Q 16. How do I transfer supplies between ships?
A. Put the ships together into a fleet. All ships in a fleet pool their supplies.
Q. 30. Can a quantum reactor resupply other ships?
A. Yes, if you put the ship with the quantum reactor in a fleet with other ships.
Q. 31. How do you make fleets with your ally?
A. You can't at this time.
Q. 34. How do I move multiple ships without making them into a fleet?
A. You can hold the Shift button while left-clicking items in the ship list to select multiple items.
Q 36. How do I stack my ships in Tactical Combat?
A You can't. In SE4, two ships cannot occupy the same tactical combat square unless they intend to ram each other. Only seekers can occupy the same square as a ship.
Q 37. How come some of my weapons fired by themselves in Tactical Combat?
A In SE4, point-defense will fire automatically when an enemy seeker or fighter moves into range. The same is true if your ship moves into range of a seeker or fighter, the point-defense will automatically fire on them.
Q 46. Do combat sensors affect Point Defense Cannons performance?
A. Point-Defense cannons are effected by Combat Sensors and ECM.  However, due to their very specific nature, they get a bonus when tracking and firing on targets.  Also, Point-Defense are not restricted to the number of targets rules that use Multiplex Tracking.
Q 47. Is there any way to control when PD cannons fire?
A. No, all Point-Defense weapons are completely autonomous. They will fire automatically when a fighter or seeker moves within range, or when your ship moves within range of a target. Don't worry about them firing at target at long range (as opposed to waiting until they got closer), they have an internal bonus to offset this limitation.
Q 52. When I give a ship the order "Attack" instead of "Move" why does the game keep asking if I want to attack?
A. The Attack order is used for two purposes. In a Turn-Based game, it is used to attack ships that are in the same location as your ships. The game always asks if you want to attack to be sure that this wasn't be accident. In Simultaneous games, the attack order is used to have your ship seek after a target and attack it.
Q 54. What is the difference between ship and fleet experience? Does a veteran ship get an advantage in a veteran fleet, etc.?
A. Ship experience helps with that ship targeting other ships, and making it harder to hit by enemy ships. Fleet experience is the same, except that it applies to all ships in the fleet. So yes, a veteran ship in a veteran fleet will have the maximum possible advantage.
Q 70. Does ship experience make the ship harder to hit, or only make it hit others more often?
A. Ship experience improves a ships ability to hit other ships and improves its ability to avoid being hit by other ships.
Q 71. Does a Talisman make training facilities useless?
A. Yes, as long as you have a religious talisman on every ship.
Q 72. Does fleet experience add directly to every ship?
A. No. The experience for a ship is separate from the bonus for a fleet. In combat, the fleet bonus is added to a ship's bonus, but that is only during combat. Also, when the ship is removed from the fleet, it only retains its own experience, nothing from the fleet.
Q 73. Does it still apply if I clear group assignments?
A. Yes, fleet experience still applies even if you clear the group assignments in combat (or rearrange them). When you exit combat, all of the ships (that are still alive) will still be within the same fleet.
Q 90. Combat sometimes seems to end prematurely, often even before a hit is scored. Is this a glitch or are there reasons for combat ending that I am unaware of?
A. Combat will end if: a. 30 combat turns have expired, or b. There are no longer any enemy players in combat.

>>
raynor
Major
posted 20 April 2001 21:20
   My favorite way to resupply is to send a spaceyard ship along with the fleet. While the other ships in the fleet are destroying the enemy planets, the shipyard ship constructs a space station with the minimum set of components. On the next turn, my fleet  makes the space station its last stop and adds the space station to the fleet. Voila! The fleet is fully resupplied and ready for the next turn. Granted, this takes a turn to build and a turn to resupply. But when you've got a fleet of 60 or more ships, it's kinda nice not to have to keep track of a half dozen or dozen supply ships.
   Another way of resupplying that should definitely be considered cheating is to share the supplies from your fighters with the fleet...
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Captain
posted 20 April 2001 21:37
   Another option is to build one supply ship, a ship with lots of supply components. Add a resupply pod. Have a repair ship in your fleet and you can generate a few thousand supply each turn by using the resupply pod.
<<
>>
AJC
Corporal
posted 21 April 2001 01:47
   Another good thing to do is make sure you put several cargo containers on your space yard ships and the resupply station- that way the space yard ship can sit around the resupply station and build replacement fighters, mines, weapon platforms and troops. Your attack fleet can not only refuel but also get replacement units without heading to a colony.
   All my ship yard ships end up always carrying replacement units. At the end of each move - I always clear my fleet orders - so that the fleet isn't committed. When I clear the order the shipyard build units, as one turns worth. On my next turn, those units are in the cargo containers and I move my fleet to its next waypoint.
<<
>>
atomannj
Private First Class
posted 16 April 2001 19:47
   What the best way to make a resupply ship early on in the game?  I've been playing with solar panels and supplies.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 16 April 2001 20:01
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Depends on how far away from a resupply base you will be. The cheapest is to use an LC with max engines, bridge, life support, quarters and fill up the rest of the space with supply components. It will hold a few thousand supply points.
   Solar panels are great for an attacking fleet but if you have a repair bay available a resupply pod is even better. Use it every turn and it will be repaired. You can add thousands of points per turn this way. You just have to remove the supply ship from the fleet to use it and the recombine it into the fleet to have the supply distributed at the end of the turn.
<<
>>
Trachmyr
Sergeant
posted 16 April 2001 23:47
[Ed: reply in thread]
   The best way is with a little modification to the components.txt file...
... [Ed: details on this "supply as cargo" mod are below in the section "Mods and Mod Packs"]
   As for solar collectors, I only put them on small scout type craft, not on tankers.  The reason is that you have to have A LOT of collectors to resupply a fleet!  It's better just having a couple of tankers that run supplies from your planets to the frontier/front-line.
   P.S. I also usually add a repair bay to my larger tankers, so they can refuel/refit my main attack fleet...   equip them with a cloak/stealth armor to keep them safe just on the otherside of the warp point.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 April 2001 03:17
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I have to differ with Trachmyr.  I do use Solar Collectors in fleets and on tankers.  I don't do the "cargo mod" for supply modules, but I've found that 1 Sol Collector on each ship (the space IMO is worth it) and 2 cruisers with a mix of SC's and Supply Modules (working in the tanker mode) works great.  I can go a LONG way without being too low on supplies.  And the occasional trinary system fills your tanks real fast...
   Besides, Solar Harnessing is a cheap and effective research early on in low tech games...I really like the Sails...
<<
>>
Puke
Captain
posted 17 April 2001 03:23
   Yeah, the solar tech is good to get into early, you will need the sails later anyway, and they can even be a cost savings over some engines.  I can't usually afford to put one SC per ship until I have LCs, but it's really easy to field dedicated SC ships with each small fleet.
<<
>>
Hydraa
Private First Class
posted 15 March 2001 19:08
   I tried out something last night and it appears to work.  I had a fleet steaming (plasmaing?) toward enemy space.  I had a thought: fighters use the same supply that my ships do.  So at the end of my fleet's movement I had the carrier spit out as many fighters as it could.  Then I join them into the fleet.  Next turn comes around and my fighters shared supplies with the fleet.  So I will just load up the fighters move the fleet it's allotment and then spit out the fighters which should have a new amount of supplies.
   However I did get a range check error if I loaded the fighters back into the carrier while the fighter group was in the fleet.  So I had to remove the fighter group from the fleet and then I was able to land the fighters.
   Even though fighters have zero movement when they are launched it appears that they still will share supplies.
   However I think this probably is bending the supply rules a little far and perhaps fighters should not share supplies excepting to other fighters. Another option is to not let fighters join a fleet with ships but that causes problem too since you might want your fighters and fleet to attack together.  I only have tried this once and have not fully expolited this technique yet.
<<
>>
Poliorcetes
Private First Class
posted 27 February 2001 18:00
   Ok, while having played lots of games I never used Strategic combat much.  Now that I'm in an email game I find strategic combat very difficult.   My fleets ignore space stations to bomb defenceless planets.  I have a mixed fleet of bombers and torpedo ships.  Everytime my leader ship shoots it moves away (good tactic), which makes every other ship in the formation turn away also (bad tactic).  How do I get them to blast the space station?     I changed the capture planet tactics to include the disabled weapons option which I thought would make them stop bombing once the weapon platforms were destroyed . . .  didn't work.
   Can anyone give me some hints on how to use the strategies effectively with mixed fleets?
<<
>>
Triumvir Emphy
Corporal
posted 27 February 2001 18:04
   Break up your fleets into two fleets, one for bombers, one for torpedo's.  Simultaneous movement should have both fleets attacking at the same time.
   Make sure you have apropriate tactics set for each fleet.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Second Lieutenant
posted 27 February 2001 19:20
   You can also try fiddling with the "Can Break Formation" toggle.  Certain ships will break formation and follow their own strategy.
   You can also change targeting priorities so the ships will go for the bases first...
   In all, strategic combat is tricky.  Basically, the same code that controls AI ships in combat is controlling your ships.  So AI combat improvements should improve the utility of strategic combat.  But we humans can also tweak the system by allowing ships to break formations, switch around targeting priorities, etc.
<<
>>
capnq
Corporal
posted 17 April 2001 20:15
[Ed: posted in a different thread about creating "task forces"]
   "I think you CAN split your fleet into subgroups in Tactical combat."
   Yep, under Orders there are set member, clear member, set leader, and clear leader commands. I think I remember a clear all assignments command, too.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Captain
posted 18 April 2001 16:48
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Just use "CTRL-#", where # is a number from zero through nine.
Zero will clear the currently selected ship's group designation, while the others assign it to that group number.
   Its just faster than going through the menu.
   (There must be a group leader before any ships can be added to the group)
   If you remove the group designation from the leader (or he's destroyed), the group will act as individuals until you assign a new leader.
<<
>>
Garet
Private First Class
posted 16 April 2001 01:33
   I use strategic combat almost exclusively. I'm having a problem with fleet strategies. It seems that no matter how I change the settings, certain ships constantly break formation. Is there a way to force the ships to remain in formation during strategic battles?
<<
>>
raynor
Major
posted 16 April 2001 01:40
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I don't know if this will help...
   Under Empire Options->Strategies->Formations, you can adjust which ships break formation. It defaults to:
   Carriers, Colony Ships, Fighters, Satellites, Planets and Transports
   I'm kinda disappointed that Planets break formation by default. :-)
<<
>>
Garet
Private First Class
posted 16 April 2001 01:46
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I've tried messing with those settings, yet they don't seem to help. My carriers always run to a corner, as do any ships that have only point defense weapons - bad to have your Aegis cruiser not there for point defense.
   Regardless of what settings I use, certain ships run away. What I would like is to have my carrier and its screening units remain in formation.
<<
>>
Lerchey
Major
posted 16 April 2001 03:00
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I've had the same problem with my Point Defense ships.  I had created a strategy of Point Defense, and set to for them to NEVER break formation, and to only fire at fighters, satellites, and seekers.
   They still run into the corners and hide.  Even when I'm using them as part of a formation fighting Terrans who are rather missile heavy.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 16 April 2001 12:25
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Put one direct fire weapon on your ships. Also make sure they are attack ships. This will help keep them in formation.
   I have the same problem with my PD cruisers. Be careful though, once you put the weapon on them they will follow the fleet strategy and may end up in the front lines!
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 10 August 2001 11:57
[Ed: posted in a different thread]
Hello Atraikius,
   I looked at your Ork files, because I am also doing an AI that will capture planets (I guess you know this from another topic). One thing I have noticed is that you set the default strategy of the fleets to Capture Planets. This makes perfect sense of course, however, I have found that fleet strategies will be set to Capture Planets by the AI automaticly, if a troop transport is present. So it is not really necessary to set all fleets to Capture Plants. Just wanted to let you know that, so you have some "extra freedom" in choosing strategies. Maybe that is useful information for you, if not, just ignore it  .
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 10 August 2001 14:29
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I had set the Fleet strategy to capture planets because while I was trying to get the AI to drop the troops, I was finding that unless the fleets strategy was Capture Planets, and the Capture Planet strategy had Drop Troops as the primary movement strategy, the entire fleet would just sit at the edge of the battle screen when attacking an undefended planet instead of moving in to drop the troops.  All of that was done with the last version, so when it still worked I didn't make any changes, I guess I'll have to play around and see if I can go back to their original strategy with version 1.41 now.
<<
>>
spacefan
Private First Class
posted 15 April 2001 16:27
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I'm relatively new at space empires 4, and never played space empires 3, only a lot of 2, so I am getting used to it gradually. Anyway, I'm in this middle of this game in a small galaxy with lots of empires, because I want lots of wars.
   4-5 turns into the game, I have DUC 2 and Frigate and 1 ship comes through into my system, and decides not to accept a peace treaty.
   So I build a Frigate with the DUC 2 components, go into battle against this ship
   He has a escort with DUC 1, and yet his weapons hit constantly and mine miss.
   I tried this in several other battles against this empire, one of them was with DUC 4 against his DUC 1. There wasn't any combat support components yet.
   So then I looked up his race, and he has impressive bonus to agressiveness and defensivness. (I'm at 100% in both of those, bonusses to Intel and Mining + Propulsion)
   So my question is, how do you beat a empire that has an advantage in those two, especially when it gets larger, should I just use missiles? Or just overwhelm him with more ships and better ships. I miss about 66% of the time even at 1 square away from him. And he hits like 70-80% of the time.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Corporal
posted 15 April 2001 20:10
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Space combat is a tricky thing.  If you are lacking in the 'to hit' department you could do many things.  You could mine off the warp point and then research sensors (giving you 20% bonus and up), you could use missiles and stay at long range.  Or you could just overwhelm him with lots of ships, be sneaky.  I prefer to use missile ships with boarding componants, damage him, take his ships and then use his tech as my own.  And yes I've used 10ships to his 2, you have to if his tech/to hit bonus is a lot better.  If you can't go one on one with ships then use your other resources like mines, fighters and satellites.  Every race has its advantages and disadvantages.
Any other questions just ask, someone is bound to answer and come up with something you havn't thought of, and the reverse goes as well.  You just might have a strategy that someone else hasn't thought of.  (see 'Operation Slick Weasel' and the '89 movement baseship' threads for more 'cheese'.)
<<
>>
Maverick
Private First Class
posted 15 April 2001 20:24
[Ed: reply in thread]
   What I try to do early in the game is use lots of missiles. Reasearch destroyers and design them with three missiles and two DUCs, then you simply make more of them. If you think you can risk it, put all your ships into one fleet so you will have the greater firepower advantage.
What you could also do is fight defensivly. Use a large fleet to fight any enemy ships that enter your territory, and keep asking them for a trade alliance.
   If diplomacy fails, go to a full offensive plan. Hit their planets constantly and wipe them from the galaxy.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 16 April 2001 12:29
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Definately overwhelm them if you can, after all who wants to get into a fair fight? The more ships you have the better off you will be because in the early stages of the game most races haven't researched multiplex tracking so they can only fire at on ship at a time.
   If all else fails put warheads on your escorts and ram him, you don't miss this way!
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
3: Ship/ Fleet Training: What's better? Ship training seems better, if you train a fleet then the individual ships loose the experience when you take them out of the fleet. What exactly does ship exp. or fleet exp. give you? up to 20% attack bonus?
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
3: 20% Experience (whether gained from training or combat) would give your ships a 20% less-likely-to-be-hit modifier and a 20% more-likly-to-hit-with-direct-fire-weapons modifier. As for fleet xp VS ship xp... not sure.
...
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 25 June 2001 17:27
   I read some time ago that Fleet experience doesn't work. Well, it does now. I just tested it. A ship with 20% experience from both ship and fleet training has a total of 40% combat offense and defense bonus. Just thought you all would like to know.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 26 June 2001 13:11
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I'm sending 2 sizeable fleets (now legendary) into the heart of enemy AI territory.  They have support (mine sweepers, solar collectors and resupply, repair and SY, etc.) - They're esssentially 'self sustaining'.  The enemy are an oxygen breather and a methane breather (can't remember the names of 'em).  I want both their pop since I'm a Hydrogen breather.
   So, these 2 fleets are deep in enemy territory since I want them to strike a few major installations (homeworlds, construction yards, resuplly, etc) to soften them up a little for plucking.  They're heavily distracting forces and generally wreaking havoc.
   Now I take one of my stellar manip ships and close the WP to the enemy area (I'm playing in a cluster system).  I closed it to seal off a flank since I'm fighting another war on another front with another Hydrogen breather.  I want to genocide the H's  since they're essentially fodder to me - no value at all.  It (the WP) is an original WP that was about 250 ?clicks? away.  The WP closes and suddenly I have no contact with the O and M races!  I'm bummin 'cause I'm only Stellar Manip level 1 and can only open WP 100 clicks.
   I am not in contact?!?!?!  I got 46 friggin' ships glassing planets for cryin' out loud!!  Since I'm not in contact, I can't crew insurrect or PPP.
   Now my question:  What exactly is the criteria for Contact.  It seems at least 1 criteria is a WP path to Homeworlds.  If that is the case, how are people trading comm channels???  Does anyone know the exact, complete requirements???  IIRC this  has changed!  It didn't used to be like this.......
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 26 June 2001 13:21
   I think, but am not totally sure, that you have to be able to trace through WP from one of your planets to one of their planets even if the systems in between are unexplored.
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 26 June 2001 13:31
   Yes you have to have a direct path to them. Now they are not your enemy since you closed the wp.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 26 June 2001 14:08
   And the best (or worst depending on ones point of view) part if I remember correctly, when contact is reestablished they won't remember a thing about you!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 26 June 2001 14:33
   In order to maintain contact, there must be a path from any one of your planets to any one of their planets.
   Just use one of your space yards (you did say "self-sustaining") to build some troops and take over a small colony in enemy territory.  You can then reactivate your intel ops, or make peace and trade for the population.
<<
>>
Zanthor
Private First Class
posted 05 July 2001 20:49
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   Playing with version 1.41 on a low tech game.
   I am attempting to attack a planet with 10 Satellites.  It wiped out my 20+ ship fleet.  I thought ok I don't have any point defense cannons.  My mistake so I built 10 ships with 8 point defense cannons each.  Went in with a 30 ship fleet and attacked.  The other ships were destroyed and defense cannon ships ran for the corners.
   Ok maybe I made a mistake again.  I decide to investigate the strategies.  It was on Optimal firing range.  So I decided to set up my own since they seem to be avoiding the sats.
   I created one called 'Sats' and set it up to attack Sattelites first and clicked on the use type before targetting priorites.  They just sit with the rest of the fleet and do nothing.
   They also sit there if I put them in a fleet by themselves.
   Am I missing something?  Do I have to set something up special to have ships go after Satellites.  They destroy everything else in the sector except the planet which I have turned off in the attacks.  I want to land on the planet with my troop transports but not before those satellites are gone.
   Any ideas?
   I don't remember having problems with this in with earlier versions.  I upgraded from 1.19 to 1.41.  Hmmmmmm
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 July 2001 21:14
   Try giving the satbusters a meson blaster (which can target sats)... The AI probably considers the PD only ships as "weaponless" and so has them run away.  They should then get close enough to use the blaster, and the PDCs with activate.
<<
>>
Puke
Captain
posted 05 July 2001 21:17
   Could be a conflict of interest between ship orders and fleet orders?  You can give a stratagy to a ship design, and you can give one to a fleet.  Not sure which takes precedence.  Also, it might be a good idea to check the 'let ships break formation' box, otherwise your ships will just sit there if the formation leader does not feel like attacking.
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 06 July 2001 17:24
   Suicide Junkie is right, if you have a pure PDC ship, it will not approach planets or satellites.  Put on the cheapest, lightest weapon you have that can target satellites (Depleted Uranium Cannon I).
   I had a similar thing happen to me a while back when I converted on obsolete escort hull into a point defense ship.  It was worthless until I put a direct fire weapon on it.  No matter what you do with the combat orders, a pure Point Defense ship will not engage.  It also will not stay in formation.
<<
>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 06 July 2001 17:34
   As far as effectiveness, consider using your best non seeking weapon against the Satellites because point defenses only work against seekers, satellites, and fighters.  I would suggest a mix of point defenses and a weapon that will be effective against both satellites and the planets.  If you take out the Satelites and the planet has adequate point defenses on its weapon platforms, you need something that can hit the planet close up.  DUC, Messons, Phased Energy, whatever.
   The most common mistake I see people make is they try to attack a planet with a pure Missle attack fleet. Missles cannot hit Satellites.  Pay attention to what weapons can target when adding them to ship designs.
<<
>>
Natsef-Amun
Private First Class
posted 15 August 2001 21:03
[Ed: Start of new thread on "How big does your navy get?"]
   I don't mean throughout the game, but when the AI races at some point refuse to be reasonable and force you to take up the sword and *seriously* go to war, how large is your navy at that point?
   In my current game I'm playing using the so-cool Klingon shipset. My empire covers the entire "western" end of the map, with a strange buffer of asteroid and blackhole systems between me and most everybody else. I've been warring with the Cue Cappa and the Abbingdon (spelling?), but am now at peace with both. I think pressure from my Klingons and the Federation (TOS) made them see that 2-front wars are not a good idea.
   Now I'm at war with the Federation (TOS), which seems to emerge as the 800 lb gorilla in every game they show up in. This war has been going on and on for many years. I've got my resource converter going, have researched quantum reactors and seem to be doing OK, economy and intel-wise
   I've only got 59 ships total, including just two battle cruisers. The Feds, meanwhile, have *lots* of DNs. I don't know how many ships they've got total; I usually keep the score viewing option off to make things tense.
   Is just 59 ships normal at this stage of the game? The AI seems to come at me with waves and waves of ships, which I've so far been able to chop down with mines and fighters. I've got 4200+ "units."
<<
>>
Imperator Fyron
Private First Class
posted 15 August 2001 23:38
   What did you start the game with? I started with low tech and 1 planet. I'm on turn 169 and I have 223 ships. 38 of them are enemy ships I converted in the last two turns with my allegiance subverters. I've got 51 cruisers, 15 battle cruisers with damaging weapons, 66 battle cruisers with allegiance subverters, and a whopping 2 light carriers. I'm only about 6 or 7 turns away from having 3 battle moons (10000kt ships).
   In conclusion, my navy tends to get rather large (especially with enemy ships  ).
<<
>>
Natsef-Amun
Private First Class
posted 16 August 2001 01:22
[Reply to previous]
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
   "What did you start the game with?"

   I started with low tech and 1 planet. I'm on turn 169 and I have 223 ships...
   200+ ships!!! Geez! I guess it'll be a long time before I dare to play against any of you guys.
   I also started with 1 planet and low tech. Large galaxy.
   For me it's now game date 2430.7. I've got 11 systems, 69 planets, and 27.8 bil proud Klingon citizens.
   I've got 66 ships as of right now (mostly frigates), 4398 units and 3 bases. I've got 33.3k intel points, 53.6k research points and 164.8k resources total. My score is 551k.
   At this point I'm still rather new to the game; I have trouble getting the resources/maintenance costs/need to mothball equation right.
   The learning curve is a little steep, but it sure is fun climbing it!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 16 August 2001 00:04
[Reply to message at start of thread]
   P&N 2.1 (tweaked, unreleased)
   Date: 2411.5
   Small galaxy, mid life.
   Currently at a general peace, launching hit & run raids on my one neighbour for ships & tech while I research racials.  Using 30% of my forces there.  The rest are collected on two other warppoints, and stashed at my homeworld (which is protected by black holes & dead systems)
   My dad is currently MEE, having built too many ships, and is now bleeding 35K redioactives per turn.
Cut back on the nukes, I said.
   I need them to fight the krill, he said.
17 ES  (Missile assisters & boarding ships)
2 FG  (Low-cost Anti-Krill ships that I'm selling to my dad - they can hold off one krill LC each, but don't do a lot of damage)
4 DS  (Torpedo destroyers, left over from low tech times.  Seem to be more effective that they really are, probably 'cause the enemies ignore them and attack my LCs instead)
24 LC  (mostly warships, one or two repair ships)
3 CR  (spaceyard ships with 3 MP, used to retrofit Warppoint defenders)
--------------------------------
50 ships  (32% mothballed)
BC construction is beginning, but no ships are in service yet.
Producing 34K, 23K, 26K resources.
Maintenance 10K, 6K, 9K.
   Currently running a deficit for no apparent reason (construction on planets of troops & facilities which look cheap, but are built in bulk)
------------------------------------------
   Back in my Story game, (if you recall that far back), I had 2 systems, fully colonized and terraformed.  After a peak of 22 low tech ships, I entered a steady-state situation of 6 BCs defending my two warppoints against all of the AIs.  I was acutally at war with everybody, but only the phong and jreanar were bordering me.  They would regularily send fleets of 5-7 dreadnaughts into my system and would be repulsed by the pair of "Ubernaught" BCs waiting on the blind side of the wormhole.  I would then swap out the damaged one for repairs if nessesary with one of my two spares.
   This lasted for a couple of years before my dreadnaughts were built.
   A six battlecruiser army fending off two AI empires.  Not bad, eh?
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 16 August 2001 00:07
   By 150 turns I run about 200-220 ships total
   6 pop transports, 4 troop transports, about 30 ships of odd designs and the rest are from capture or trading with allies.
   Since I never scrap any ships, I get some very old designs running around. Captuered ships that I can not repair, I use as ram ships for finding mine fields. Older ships either are used as scout ships or stationed to prevent rioting on captured planets.
   The AI's run about 150 ships themselves in my games. I tend to see fleets of 75 or more ships.
In my current game, there are 200 systems, 10 Ai's and me. We all have large fleets of ships made up of ships we have traded or captured from each other.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 16 August 2001 01:40
   I tend to start slow because I build as many colonizers as possible and they are "destroyed" by colonization. Many AIs will be ahead of my total score before I've contacted any of them. (Yes, I always play with scores visible so I can see what's going on.   ) Once I contact some AI empires I shift into military build-up and generally exceed 100 ships in any game. If I'm "dominating" the game I'll get close to the 300 limit that I've generally played under. Many of the AIs will reach or exceed 100 themselves but few have been able to build up to 200 or more. This despite the fact that I play in a huge galaxy with a low AI bonus. I think the AI has trouble balancing its resources properly to maintain a fleet so it falls short of the potential it seems to have just looking at the raw resources score.
   One thing I'm always waaay ahead of the AI in is population. The AI seems to be AWFUL at managing it's populations. It's a very rare game that I am not first in population through the whole thing. Since I've altered the production bonuses to give some more advantages for population that may be one major reason that I seem to win against otherwise superior forces almost all the time.   That and the AIs' utter cluelessness about tactical combat.
   It might be interesting to see how things would go in a smaller map where I had less time to build up before contact. I just enjoy the 'epic' feel of a large game too much to try it that way.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 16 August 2001 02:40
   If you care about my solo game it is about turn 120, me vs lots of AIs at high difficult. I've 190 ships plus 6000+ units. There are 5 attacks fleets, lots of DNs, some BCs and a few cruisers, about 20 auxiliary ships and 30 engineering ships (mainly used to build that sphereworld). The great majority of my ships were captured and refit from enemy hulls, and I had to scrap close to a dozen heavy carriers because there is a 200-ships limit that I forgot to reset. My units are mainly troops and fighters, there are 2 troop ships and 2 heavy carriers in each fleet.
<<
>>
Hadrian Aventine
Sergeant
posted 16 August 2001 02:57
   Normally, in peace time with the AI, I have a standing fleet of 2-20 active ships. During war time, I expand my fleet by 200 times that by unmothballing and retrofitting ships into combat modes.
   I tend to follow FDR military style that says a greater number of small ships can overwhelm a smaller number of larger capital ships.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 16 August 2001 02:57
   Well, it's been about 7 weeks since I've touched SE4 (mainly because I was gone for five weeks, and my motherboard is fried so I'm sending in for a replacement)...
   But, when I was playing, I would usually go for Large quandrant, max AI with high bonus, and using default files.  I'd usually start with 3 or 5 planets with low tech, high cost.  By turn 100 I'll usually have a ship count of 120 with 20 being a mix of transports, carriers, support ships, etc., and the remaining 100 being BBs (800kT) of the same design family, with a few generations of designs that haven't yet been retrofitted.  Also by turn 100 about a third to a half of the AIs have been eliminated (some being 'absorbed' by me), and I'm just about to enter MEE.
   I generally will have about 20% of my ships in attack fleets with the rest remaining home.  Attack fleets are usually 15-30 ships strong, and include a troop transport and, depending on the enemy, a few retrofitted warships that have all PDCs as weapons.  A fleet like this will usually be able to consume an AI home system in about 15 turns.  I don't like glassing planets, and usually only do it when I want the fleet to move on and the other planets in a system took too many troops and the captured planets haven't been able to replace them.
   Forgot to say, once it gets down to me and the largest few AIs, I generally have around 300 ships, and only use one or two of the attack fleets I mentioned above (rest are used to keep the captured systems happy).  At that point I'll just capture their home systems, become ridiculously MEE, and split up those fleets to go pick off stray ships, and send the troop transports with minimal escort to mop up the remaining planets.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 16 August 2001 14:57
   When playing as a Ruthless Back-stabbin' Warrior Technologist, I tend to
a) strike first, and
b) use ships with range advantages due to solar cells
   If you can fight enemies entirely in their space, because they can't reach yours and have any supply left, then you need very few ships -- I've won with 70 warships in a 255-system galaxy, especially in a Cluster system.  This might not be as feasible now, because the ModPack AIs have improved AI ship design...  but even still, I rarely put more than 20 ships in a single fleet.
   (* Note -- you can get away with having fewer ships if you have a very large intelligence network.  If you have enough points, you can subvert 10-12 ships instantly... quite useful for a quick defense. *)
   At the other ridiculous end of the scale, in my "Mr. Nice Superpower" game (no Mega-Evil... but also, trying to avoid wars without an excuse, such as persistent attacks on an ally, or incursions into my space, and then preferably short wars that DON'T result in a surrender), I've got over 800 ships (many, if not most, *not* warships -- think colony ships, warp ships, repair, shipyard, scanner, minesweeper, plague/medical, troop transports, planet makers, etc) to go along with maybe 890 worlds.  It's slow trying to convince AIs to make peace with each other, without simply demanding their surrender and instantly absorbing them.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Corporal
posted 16 August 2001 16:23
   I am a firm believer in keep all ships. mothballing and retro are the keys to the game.  Also placing construction ques on hold with one turn left to build.
   For the first 100 turns I like to have a ratio of 4 defence ships a system on patrol. 10 scouts ,2 mine layers per 4 systems, 2 cargo ships per 2 systems.  2 to 6 bases above homeworlds and 1 to 2 bases(ss with yard) above planets with space yards and resupply ports.
   Mothballed I will have 4 scouts.  3 to 5 bases (ss with yard) above homeworlds and planets with space yards and respupply ports. 1 base above each planet with space yards.  Also will have 4 more defence ships per system mothballed.
   Now turn 100 to 200 All this will increase 2x to 4x and I will start to build assault fleets ( using the on hold build method )and I will mothball 2 to 3 fleets ( Strike Wings of 10 to 12 ships ) located evenly around my systems.  I will also keep upgrading and motheballing ships.
   IF I get in any fights I just unmothball the defence ships in those sectors and the assault fleets.  Then the onhold units get built and upgraded while new ones get placed on the que. And I decide if the space yard basaes need to come in production.
   I follow this system until the end of the game.  Making adjustments along the way.
   After turn 100 I am a firm believer in that you should have a ratio of the following:
number of turns = x
number of ships = y
total number of ships = z
x*y=z
For peace y = 0.8 to 1
For forced peace and expansion y = 1 to 1.5
For threats scare tatics etc... y = 1.5 to 2
For war y = >2
   To follow this system storage research must be maxed out and lots of storage facilities need to be built.
   I always like to have enough reserve resources to keep all ships and build ques going for 10 turns.  I hope buy then that problems are resolved.
   But the only way to do that is to constantly build and mothball.
   And max out units in space and stored on planets which do not build ships.
   Or something along those lines... HA HA
   Now if I could only get everygame to play out the same then I would be ok.
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 16 August 2001 17:40
   I've only played two games that I recall where my navy exceeded 100 ships. One of those was a solo game that I ended at turn 170, when was in second behind the Xi-Chung, who had declared war immediately after first contact at turn 35.
   Playing against humans needs drastically more and  bigger ships. There's nothing like seeing, for the first time, a fleet of over a dozen ships of a class two sizes larger than you've ever researched.
<<
>>
Kadste
Private First Class
posted 16 August 2001 18:07
   Of the many games that I have played, most of my empires, after a few hundred turns, have 100-200 ships. Usually just above 100.
   I try not to scrap any ships, just refit them into something else, like minesweepers, carriers, or PD ships. 4 or 5 PD heavy cruiser sized ships supporting your dreadnoughts are tough to beat.
   What I would really like to see though is an AI that will build fleets in excess of 50 ships.  Only once have I seen this, and it was during some testing and the fleet was on the other side of the quadrant, and never came into contact with me.
   I have found that if I have a balanced fleet of 10-20 ships, I can easily (read it is usually a totally one-sided slaughter) defeat an AI enemy two or three times my size.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 19 August 2001 05:56
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   For some reason I have never been able to put my ships into fleets in the simulator. I open the window, click "create fleet", type in a name, but then when I try to add ships to it by clicking on the ships, the fleet disappears from the right-hand-side window. Can somebody confirm that this is a bug?
   Question 2, I don't get why you can set a strategy for both the fleet and the ships within it. Which will override which?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 20 August 2001 02:03

quote:
   Originally posted by "CW":
   "For some reason I have never been able to put my ships into fleets in the simulator. I open the window, click "create fleet", type in a name, but then when I try to add ships to it by clicking on the ships, the fleet disappears from the right-hand-side window. Can somebody confirm that this is a bug?"

   Yes, it is a bug, but the solution is quite simple (and I've mentioned it three or four times now in old threads)
   Open the "fleets for player" menu, then close it, then open it a second time.
   Everything should work now.
   If you close the simulator, you will have to do it again.
<<
>>
Imperator Fyron
Private First Class
posted 19 August 2001 06:14
...
   Originally posted by "CW":
   "Question 2, I don't get why you can set a strategy for both the fleet and the ships within it. Which will override which?"

   Where can you give a strategy to both a ship and it's fleet? When a ship is in a fleet, it uses the strategy that the fleet is set to.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 19 August 2001 09:10
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Not necessarily. I started a long thread about this a few weeks ago. A ship will revert back to it's individual orders when it breaks formation, and apparantly sometimes under other circumstances too. It's quite myserious.
<<
>>
Imperator Fyron
Private First Class
posted 19 August 2001 19:43
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I know that if a ship breaks formation it will use its original orders for strategy. I meant that while a ship is in a fleet it uses the strategy of the fleet, at least in my experience. If all the ships ignored the fleets strategy orders and used their own, then what would be the purpose of assigning a strategy to the fleet?
...
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 20 August 2001 08:24
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I could never figure that bit out! The only purpose for the fleet strategy in my opinion is to confuse the player!   I've learnt not to use fleet strategy by making a new entry called "standard fleet strategy", and make everything break formation when get are in combat.
   There should be a way to assign orders to individual ships, not just ship CLASSES. They current way is just another anonyance in strategic combat.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 19 August 2001 12:15
   One more thing, who says a troop ship under escort wouldn't attack if there are WPs on a planet? I've just witnessed my escorting DNs running to the corner while my troop ship made a suicidal charge at a planet with a heavy WP and 20 fighters!! That damned stupid move trashed 5 turns worth of my EMPIRE'S GROSS production!
<<
>>
shonae
Private First Class
posted 12 September 2001 16:03
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   I have recently gotten to the point of experiementing with different formations and up til now I've been using the default formations in my games.
   I was wondering what the best formations were and in what combat situations.  So my question is: What's your favorite formations and for which situtations?
   i.e.  Defense, Attack, Bombing, Patrolling, etc.
<<
>>
rdouglass
Captain
posted 12 September 2001 17:18
   I DEFINITELY do not use the default arrow formation - you're fleet leader gets hammered a lot.  I use a 'double wall' for almost all circumstances.
<<
>>
Commander G2
Private First Class
posted 12 September 2001 17:46
   Of the Standard Formations, I like Wall and Spider.  Spider is nice against incoming fighters and missles.  Wall is nice for creating lots of overlapping fire zones (that is why variations of it used frequently in land commbat). The problem with line formation is the opponent can focus one ship if he can swing the flank.  Often the AI will do just that if for some reason it decides to go that way.
   If I bothered creating a custome formation, I would use a double or triple  wall with a extra ships set back on the ends to refuse the flanks.  If you outnumber your opponent or your opponent likes to use arrow, I would suggest the V formation and catch his point ships in the cross fire for fast kills.
   V is probably better for bombing, but if there are no enemy ships to defend, you have probably won anyway, unless they are mega into storage facilities and lots of Weapon Platforms. However, a V would probably be real suseptible to a wall formation, so a wall is better in most cases.
   If you greatly outnumber an opponent with light ships and he has a few heavy duty ships, a wall will work poorly as your flank ships would not join the combat for a couple of rounds.  In that case a densor formation might work better.
   I suppose to use a custom formation in a PBW game, you probably have to submit the administaitors to edit the formation text file.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 17:54
   With the TDM modpack I tend to use the "compact" formation a lot. However I noticed that the AI tends to break formation prematurely with the custom formations, can any one offer a solution?
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Second Lieutenant
posted 13 September 2001 19:18
{Ed: reply to previous]
   I did the "Compact" formation ... and although I really like this formation, it has problems because sometimes the leader does not have room to move (usually fighting over a warp point, or planet, or defending).
   And if the leader can't move, most of the time the other ships stay without moving too... but, sometimes the formation can break.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 12 September 2001 18:49
   From the name, it sounds like the AI is probably breaking formation because the leader can't move.
   If the AI ever decides that the leader is stuck, it will break up the fleet so that it can move the ships.
   Before that, you could sometimes defeat a large enemy fleet with the proper manouevering of a quick escort, causing the enemy wingmen to box in the leader, and bringing their advance to a halt.  Wait out the 30 turns, and then counter attack with a large defense force.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 13 September 2001 03:39
   I use the spider or diamond fleet, and somtimes the V formation....but my favorite is the spider, modified so that ALL ships break formation and follow their own firing orders (max, point blank etc)....
<<
>>
capnq
Major
posted 13 September 2001 23:17
   I use Wall more than anything else. I'll sometimes use Diamond for convoys escorting non-combat ships. I've gotten fairly good results using Bull for planetary assaults.
<<
>>
capnq
Major
posted 01 October 2001 23:16
[Ed: Separate thread]
   I think I've uncovered another clue in the mystery of how ships behave.
   It appears that when following individual orders (rather than fleet orders), a ship which has been retrofitted uses the strategy for its original design, rather than the one for its current configuration.
   If this observation is correct, it also explains why some obsolete designs stay on the ship list long after you've retrofitted/scrapped all the old versions; the design would still be considered "active" as long as any of the original hulls are still in service.
<<


* MINE SWEEPING:
>>
mottlee
Private First Class
posted 28 February 2001 01:06
...
   Is there any way to get mine sweepers to sweep mines BEFORE I find out the the hard way?
<<
>>
pathfinder
First Lieutenant
posted 28 February 2001 01:30
   Destroyed minesweeper means ya didn't have enough minesweeper components in the sweeper.. make bigger ship with more sweeper components...
<<
>>
mottlee
Private First Class
posted 28 February 2001 01:34
   Hmmm   BC [Ed: Battle Cruiser] with 5 engines 1 computer, 1 cloak, the rest is mine sweeper V.  think that was enough (about 15 sweepers).
<<
>>
raynor
First Lieutenant
posted 28 February 2001 04:12
   A mine sweeper ship will sweep the maximum number of mines it is capable of sweeping before any remaining mines begin damaging ships in the fleet.
<<
>>
mottlee
Private First Class
posted 28 February 2001 22:05
...
   The mark V sweeper sweeps 5 mines and I have 15 on a ship. So it should take out 75 mines and with 2 ships at 75 thats 150 yet I still lose them.
<<
>>
TaeraRepublic
Private First Class
posted 10 April 2001 17:39
[Ed: posted in a different thread, but it appears to answer the question above]
   Well, consider that - when encountering mine field, you enter a fight with them, and mine sweeper will act like PDC. You appear at close range, and mines approach you every turn..
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 10 April 2001 22:40
[Ed: posted in a different thread]
...
   The damage done is not per mine but per warhead. Each warhead in mine will hit ship separately, so it won't make any difference if you are using small mine with Warhead I or large mine with Warhead I. You will only make more hits, but won't be able to penetrate organic armor (100 mine warhead I damage vs. 150 organic armor 3) or any armor that has such resistance (like crystalline or stealth armor).
   Basically in order to penetrate high resistance armor you need better warhead that makes better punch. Usually mine warhead II is enough to penetrate all armor.
   Large mines have purpose in later games when large class starships come into game. When a fleet of 50 dreadnoughts enters a minefield (with restriction of 100 mines per sector) you won't be able to destroy them with 100 small mines, but large mines will do the job.
<<
>>
raynor
First Lieutenant
posted 28 February 2001 04:51
Originally posted by mottlee:
   " I would think that I would at least get a message telling me it cleared some mines"
   To the best of my knowledge, you *WILL* receive a message telling you how many mines you sweeped before your ship was destroyed.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Private First Class
posted 10 April 2001 14:39
[Ed: posted in a different thread on modifying large mines to count as 3 for sweepers]
   I agree with Taera on this - a mine is a mine. (unless it's yours=-)
   Let me get this right though, if I have a minefield of 50 mines (for example) my enemy would need 10 ships with 5 Minesweepers each to clear it without damage?
   Wow. That's a lot of ships. Would it be cheaper maybe to build a "mine sacrifice" ship - really big with loads of shilds to go in first and soak up the damage?
<<
>>
Hydraa
Corporal
posted 10 April 2001 15:00
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Shields are not active against mines.  However armor is, so your mine sacrifice ship would need to be armor heavy and not shield heavy.
<<
>>
Sinapus
Second Lieutenant
posted 28 February 2001 16:42
[Ed: reply in original thread]
   Minesweepers [components each] sweep [the number of] mines according to their level, unless I missed something in the latest patch.
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 10 April 2001 22:40
   Nitram Draw and rdouglass, you have it wrong. The damage done is not per mine but per warhead. Each warhead in mine will hit ship separately, so it won't make any difference if you are using small mine with Warhead I or large mine with Warhead I. You will only make more hits, but won't be able to penetrate organic armor (100 mine warhead I damage vs. 150 organic armor 3) or any armor that has such resistance (like crystalline or stealth armor).
   Basically in order to penetrate high resistance armor you need better warhead that makes better punch. Usually mine warhead II is enough to penetrate all armor.
   Large mines have purpose in later games when large class starships come into game. When a fleet of 50 dreadnoughts enters a minefield (with restriction of 100 mines per sector) you won't be able to destroy them with 100 small mines, but large mines will do the job.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 16:58
   I get tired of my reinforcing ships being ambushed on the way to the front. I recently discovered a new tactic to give them a better chance of getting there alive. It works against most races and will even work, probably once, against a human.
   I bring a minelayer with me and drop a few mines at the end of my move if there is a danger of being attacked. If they get jumped then the mines help even the odds, as the AI rarely brings minesweepers into combat.
   It also produces some great suprised looks on your opponents face when the tactical combat starts and his ships have damage! Now against him I get a shot at his minesweepers too.
   Sure it wastes a few resources but the look of surprise was worth ten times the amount of resources.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 16:36
[Ed: relevant part of a general questions thread]
...
1: The "sweep mines" command. When would you ever need this? I a minesweeper enters a minefield, one of two things happens: you sweep all mines and live, or there are  more mines than you can sweep and you die. Why would you want an explicit re-sweep?
...
<<
>>
Andrs Lescano
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 17:00
   It's used to sweep mines when your minesweeper is already in the minefield.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 17:40
   In my experience, if my sweeper enters a large minefield, he will be killed by the mines. Basically he is overwhelmed and can't sweep them all at once. And dead sweepers cannot do a manual re-sweep...
Still puzzled.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 25 June 2001 02:20
   Example:  You attack an enemy fleet with your fleet.
   One enemy ship turns out to be a minelayer, and spews mines into space as it runs away.  You and the other fleet square off and fight it out.
   You win, and combat ends.  Now, you are in the same square as an undetonated minefield.
Using the Sweep command allows you to sweep the mines without moving one square away, then coming back to sweep the mines.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 25 June 2001 17:09
   I think the "sweep mines" command was intended to be used for giving orders to a minesweeper ship (i.e., instead of giving a "move to" order, give a "sweep mines" order and select the destination sector).  I've also used the sweep mines command (in previous patches) to get rid of the minefield designator in sectors where I've cleared the minefield, but still have that "M" symbol and ships continue to avoid the sector.  Supposedly, MM has finally fixed that bug...
<<
>>
Aristoi
Corporal
posted 12 October 2001 00:51
   When a minesweeper goes encounteres a minefield that it cannot completely sweep and is destroyed, should it not list how many mines it swept before destruction?
   I lost two minesweepers which appear to have swept no mines at all before being destroyed by said minefield.  This doesn't make much sense to me.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Major
posted 12 October 2001 01:54
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Were they cloaked at the time??? Cloaked sweepers do not sweep any mines at all, and the cloak offers no protection against mines.
<<
>>
Aristoi
Corporal
posted 12 October 2001 01:58
[Ed: reply to previous]
   That was exactly what it was!  Thanks for the answer!
<<
>>
Hotfoot
Corporal
posted 12 October 2001 01:07
   Minesweepers sweep as many mines as they can before they die, IIRC.  That means that however many mines they were designed to sweep they swept, but they were overwhelmed by the remaining mines in that sector.  So if you had five level 1 minesweeper components on two ships, they would have swept a total of ten mines before they died, no more, no less.
<<


* BOARDING PARTIES:
>>
Deathstalker
Corporal
posted 04 April 2001 17:02
   Ok , heres the deal.  How the heck DO boarding parties and Alligence Subverters(sp?) work.  Is there a standard % takeover modified by shipsize/shields etc.  Do more boarding parties (ie. six Boarding parties I) make a difference?  Different levels of both make takeover easier?? Do psychic races defend vs Subverter easier?? (Damn, I wish the manual was clearer)(that and they never mentioned shields going down to board!!!).
<<
>>
chewy027
Private First Class
posted 04 April 2001 18:38
   I Think the boarding parties are like mini troop components: the higher the level the more troops per component. Likewise the defense stations are troops aboard the ship that defend against the boarding parties. That is why if there are defense stations aboard a ship with more troops than there are on the boarding components then the ship will not be successfully boarded.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
First Lieutenant
posted 04 April 2001 20:00
   Also, it tis not mentioned anywhere (even in the component's ability list), but the crew quarters component provides 16 defence!
   Compare this to the 20 attack of a BP 1.
   So you need at least one BP per crew quarter remaining, plus enough to defeat any actual defence components on board.
   Note that the value for the [defense] ability in the text file is 1/4 of the number of troopers said in the description [i.e. 4].
-------------------------
   For an alliegiance subverter, the damage it says in the description is a percentage chance of capture.
   So a large mount AS, has 100, 80, 60, 40, 20.
   Which means a guaranteed capture at range 1
   80% chance at range 2
---
   All of which hinges on you actually hitting the target.  A miss on the shot means you don't capture.
<<
>>
Codo
Corporal
posted 08 April 2001 21:22
   Maybe I need to know a little more about boarding party combat.
   Does a ship equipped with boarding parties use them as defense if they are boarded? I guess for some reason I always assumed that only the defensive types were used when the ship was boarded. I ask this because one of my boarding ships defected. It only has one baording party on it, and no defensive types. When I sent a single boarding party after it I got a message that my boarding had failed (So I then blew the ship out of space...)
   Just wondering...
<<
>>
chewy027
Sergeant
posted 08 April 2001 21:31
   Codo the crew quarters has a defense of 16 I think. So depending on how many crew quarters there were then without a defense station they could still defend. Also, I do think the boarding party has a defense value but it is decreased.
<<
>>
Codo
Corporal
posted 08 April 2001 23:46
   Silly me. I never paid enough attention to the description of Boarding Parties. It says they will be used for offense or defense. Whereas security stations are only used for defense...
<<
>>
Author Topic:   Boarding Party Actions
suicide_junkie
Captain
posted 09 April 2001 04:42
   I did post this somewheres earlier on, but the crew quarters have a built in defence of 80% of boarding party 1 [20*80%=16].
   So in trooper count, each crew quarter holds 16, but in the text files, it would have a defence of 4 [25%].
   There is no mention of this fact anywhere in the game, but it is there nonetheless.
<<

* CAPTURING SHIPS:
>>
Testosteronos
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 12:30
   I try and try...but in my simulator fights I've never been able to capture an enemy col ship.
I've used a boarding ship with weapons...the result is a destroyed col ship....without weapons it will just stay beside the col ship, never boarding it!!(Strategy used is "Capture enemy ship", first and second mov strategies at "boarding enemy ship")
Any help would be appreciated!
<<
>>
Tampa_Gamer
Captain
posted 08 March 2001 12:50
   Try using "Optimal Firing Range" as the first movement priority, then use "Capture Enemy Ship" as the second movement priority.  Put a few shield depleter/disruptors on it and this should fix it.
<<
>>
Testosteronos
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 13:01
   Thanks Tampa!
I used the move strategies you proposed and as long as my boardship has no weapons, all is well!  (With only one depleted uranium cannon on my boardship, the colony ship will not be boarded.)
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 15 March 2001 17:16
[Ed: posted in a different thread on the same subject]
...
   This is another case of the simple documentation in the config files being inadequate. I haven't seen anything in the manual that covers all the details of boarding, either. First, you must not use 'Board Enemy Ship' as your PRIMARY strategy (even though that's what the default config uses! apparently MM changed the way boarding works at some point and forgot to change the text file) -- unless shields will not be involved. In order to be boarded, your target must have no shields. If your boarding ships will only go after colonizers then using 'Board Enemy Ships' as a primary strategy will probably work.
   Edit the "Capture Enemy Ships" in "default_strategies.txt" to use a normal attack strategy like 'Optimal Firing Range' or even 'Short Weapons Range' since you want to be close when the shields are gone. Make your boarding ship as fast as possible of course, and give it lots of PDC. Also, give it lots of ARMOR, because another undocumented feature of boarding is that the attacking ship ALSO loses all its shields. Apparently they have to be "turned off" to launch the boarding parties. Including shield regenerators in a boarding ship might be a good idea, but skipping shields entirely is an option with a good armor tech like organic. Hmm, with crystalline you're missing the advantage of your armor if you don't have shields...
   Guess crystalline is a good choice for a boarding ship. Anyway, set your SECONDARY strategy to 'Board Enemy Ship' and your boarding ship will suddenly change behavior when the target's shields are gone. It WILL close in and board at that point. Yep, just REVERSE those two strategies in the default_strategies.txt file!
   Final hint, once your boarding ship uses its boarding parties, IT will be completely vulnerable to boarding. If your enemy has boarding ships, best to include a self-destruct device even in your boarding ship!
   BTW [Ed: By The Way], the "Time Distortion Burst" in Temporal Knowledge techs is just about the ideal boarding ship weapon. It's a powerful shield depleter but also a useful weapon so the boarding ship is not helpless if it's boarding parties are gone. A boarding ship with the TDB and Crystalline armor to regenerate it's shields would be just about the ultimate. Getting both of those techs would be mighty expensive, though...
<<
>>
Windborne
Corporal
posted 15 March 2001 18:19
   You can set your individual ships strategy to "Board enemy ships" then put it in a fleet set to "optimal firing range". If you do that your ship should work right.
<<
>>
Possum
Sergeant
posted 16 March 2001 05:46
...
   Another thing that helps, is to make sure you design the ship as part of the class "Boarding Ship", rather than "Attack Ship".
<<
>>
seik
Private First Class
posted 29 September 2001 05:29
   Getting mad ...
   In a single player game I want to capture an enemy MineSweeper in strategic combat.
   But that does not function.
   I've tried every strategy but everytime I've got the same result: the mine sweeper will sit down in one corner and my capture fleet in an other corner or the sweeper was blown away.
   My boarding ships all have ShieldDepleters.

   I've tried:
- only boarding ships = see above
-  boarding ships + 1 LC = sweeper destroyed (option used: damage until no weapons!)
   Boarding ships start to move toward sweeper after shields are down but come too late.
   Also tried to use different target options (shoot only at ships with/without weapons and so on)...
   If I use the same fleet to capture an armed Dreadnought all is ok.
   What I m doing wrong?
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 01 October 2001 20:28
   Originally posted by Commander G2:
   "The combat engine considers certain weapons to not be weapons for purposes of closing with the enemy.  You will find the same problem with creating a pure Point Defense ship.  It will break formation and hide in the corner.  Add a standard damage weapon to make sure it closes.  I do not know if anyone has repeated the PDC test with other specialty weapons such as shield depleters, engine disrupts, etc. I have only encountered the problem with PDCs myself."

   That would be why I've never had these problems that others are encountering. I always include a few 'real' weapons on my boarding ships. Once the boarding parties are gone, they have to be able to defend themselves!   So, in my mind these work-arounds aren't even necessary. Giving a ship nothing but shield-depleters is going too far in specialization.
<<


* TAKING PLANETS:
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 19 March 2001 09:45
   What is the best way to capture a planet that is defended with weapon platforms without destroying it in the process....
   I sent a troop ship there and it got blasted.
   So I sent some military ships first to suppress those defenses but unfortunately they glassed the planet in the process...  Ooops...
   So how do i go about this.
   By the way I do all my combat in the strategic mode...
<<
>>
Griffin
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 10:18
   If you include the troop transport in the same fleet as your combat vessels and give the fleet 'capture planet' orders then the fleet shoots the planet until the weapons are gone and then the transport moves in to drop troops. If the troops fail then the fleet glass the planet (or at least try).
<<
>>
shmily_dana
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 19:53
   I just hate that it takes forever to fill a transport with troops.  Even having a bunch of planets making the troops, there is a lot of shuffling.
   I have also had all the troops disappear after a sucessful invasion.  They're not on the planet, they're not on the transport...
<<
>>
geoschmo
Sergeant
posted 19 March 2001 20:12
   Originally posted by shmily_dana:
   "I have also had all the troops disappear after a sucessful invasion. They're not on the planet, they're not on the transport..."
   Did you happen to leave enemy sat's or bases in orbit around the planet? If you conquer the planet with troops the sats/bases will turn their fire on it. Your troops will receive damage before any population or facilities on the planet.
   This has happened to me a few times in tactical, but I could see what was going on, so I knew what happened. If you were playing in strategic I would imagine it would not be so obvious.
<<
>>
Arralen
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 21:37
[Ed: reply to same post as previous]
   Turn on the "Troops Minister" .. and don't forget to set at least one Troop Transport to minister control, as this minister is of "individual" type.
   The AI does a sufficient job on collecting the troops from the various planets .. but don't forget to check sometimes, or the ship will just sit somewhere with all cargo holds full and go nowhere anymore.
   PS: Seems to be a little bug with this minister, though - had a transport fill up to ~50%, and than it kept running for the nearest fueling station .. and never started going around again ?! (Maybe that's the cause the AI seldom use it's troops - the troops transports get stuck somewhere in the bureaucratic procedere of aquiring additional fuel.)
<<
>>
javaslinger
Private First Class
posted 02 March 2001 22:03
   Ok, my fearsome missile ships aren't doing squat vs his satellites.  They don't even get close to them.
   How do I kill these dern Sat's?
<<
>>
geoschmo
Sergeant
posted 02 March 2001 22:06
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Can't kill sat's with a missle. Can't even target them.
   You need a beam weapon, or depleted uranium cannon. Point defense cannons are very nice for killing sat's as they have a pretty decent range.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 02 March 2001 22:08
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Seekers can't hurt satellites, so use something that can -- *most* regular beam weapons (not the 'heavies', such as WMGs, tachyon cannons, etc) or even point-defense (albeit those need to be fired manually).  PPBs hit sats just fine, for instance.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 March 2001 16:28
[Ed: reply in thread]
   I've also discovered that massive mount weapons (requires a baseship-size vessel) work really well against sats & fighters... a massive-mount PPB can wipe out 5 fighters at a single shot (at least until someone decides to implement the "one shot, one kill" idea).
   Obviously, satellites can be harder to destroy, but still...
   I'd also like to see the satellites show damage statistics during tactical combat.  If I'm using, say, weapon destroying weapons, I'd like the satellite (and weapon platform and fighter) displays to show that I've destroyed some weapons, not just show a generic picture of the unit I've been pummelling.  I want to know if I've destroyed some components, especially for weapon platforms.  If the weapon platform only needs one more hit to be destroyed, maybe I only want to fire one weapon, and then let my troop transport land and take over the population and facilities.
<<
>>
Will
Private First Class
posted 06 March 2001 00:46
[Ed: reply in thread]
   Use Ionic Dispersers.
   I sent this in as a (possible) bug a few days ago.  I mean, engine destroying weapons destroying a satelite with *no engines*.  Heh
   Other than that, I just use EAGs [Ed:=Enveloping Acid Globules] (can't do without Organics).
   This also works well against fighters (2-3 destroyed each shot), and is really useful when you have a bunch of boarding (or crew conversion) ships and a few repair ships in a fleet.
<<
Ed: See also discussion on capturing planets under the "AI Behaviour" topic.


* GROUND COMBAT LESSONS
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 August 2001 14:51
[Start of new thread]
#1.  You cannot win if your troops do not land.
   I had 9 warships and a small transport full of 230 "WobblyBob" walkers.  The enemy sats were on the far side of the planet, out of range.
   I moved in, and the planet launched missiles at my warships.
   While they were reloading, I sent in my troop transport... and it got torn to shreds by the short range DU autocannons on the surface.
   Unable to complete the mission, I had to retreat.
   -Always destroy the weapon platforms first.

#2. Know your unit's capabilities
   After the loss above, I designed a Super DeathHawk.  As a medium transport, I got 2x the cargo, 4 movement and more armor.  This one should survive the planet's WPs long enough to drop troops.
My fleet of 13 LCs moved in, and dropped antimatter torpedoes onto the surface, wiping out the WPs, and only taking light damage to one ship.
   The transport moved in, and dropped 375 WobblyBobs.
   But, Oops!  My 50% ground combat ability hurts, and 400 small troops are whittled down by 300 Militia.
They hold out for 4 turns, and are defeated on the 5th, having destroyed only 60% of the defenders.
   They did last long enough to report the construction of PPB platforms, though.
   -50% ground combat really hurts!  You don't need twice the number of troops, you need quadruple!  (-50% to attack and defense?)
   -[i]Always use insanely overwhelming force
   -Militia don't come back every turn!  They only come back when they defeat the attackers.

   Third attempt:
   13LCs, and a new cruiser.  One year later, and over 800 WobblyBobs amongst two Supers and one original DeathHawk.
   The fleet comes in range, and the ships move in to pummel the planet with torpedoes.
   2WPs are destroyed, but the planet blasts the cruiser with PPBs.  Its 150 shields are skipped, and 720 damage burns away its armor.
   The cruiser retreats, and the planet fires again, blasting through the armor of an LC, destroying the ship instantly.
   Torpedoes fly, and slam the planet, turning platforms into rubble.
   A few beams lash out to scratch at the armor on another LC, but a third volley of torpedoes quickly silences them.
   The SuperDeathHawks deploy two attack forces, and 800 troops sweep the planet in under a month.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Corporal
posted 05 August 2001 17:23
   Just a comment about using multiple troopships in simulataneous play. When I tried this, the ships fought independently. That is, the first ship landed troops and they fought the militia and lost. Then the second ship landed troops but the militia had regenerated so they fought and lost.
   So I don't split up my troops in simultaneous play.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 August 2001 19:06
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Your troops were totally defeated in the 10 ground combat turns, right?
   In this case, I only lost 20% of my forces each 10 round GC.  Since my troops were still fighting a stalemate, the second troopship added to the battle, and the militia did not get to regenerate.
   During attempt #2, my troops survived 4&1/2 turns of combat, and I know for sure that the militia did not regenerate while the combat was still going on.  They started at 300 Militia units, and I killed an average of 50 per round.  There were only 102 on the 5th month of GC, and they ended with ~75.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 05 August 2001 23:40
   Here's a data point for those interested in ground combat...
   In one single-player game with a +10% ground combat bonus, I've been able to capture planets of 8 *billion* people with all ground defenses (e.g. 13-15 million tons of weapons platforms) without orbital bombardment of any kind.
   Traits relevant include the aforementioned GC bonus, plus a +10% defensiveness bonus -- which will help a LOT.
   Transport design is a heavily shielded (maybe 2400 pts or so -- most of my warships lean towards firepower, instead) battleship, with full training (+20%/+20% fleet/ship), ECM III (+60%), Stealth Armor and Scattering Armor (+25% from those two, IIRC).  That's a total of... +135% defense if I do my math right; there's no size penalty for being a BB.  Subtract 65% figuring the weapon platforms may have a Combat Sensors III; that's still +70% to defense net, *plus* range penalty (since these transports have QE IIIs plus Solar Sail, they can stop at range 7 before closing next round).  Net effect is that enemy hit rate on transports appears to be 1% (warning:  not against Deeply Religious races...).  Units can't gain experience, which cripples them (again, non-Religious) when attacking a prepared fleet, so in practice these transports have yet to sustain more than perhaps 2-3 hits to shields even against huge amounts of ground fire.
   Note:  Refitting a Legendary warship in a Legendary fleet to a combat transport can bring total defense bonus to +195%; +130% less CS III.  Subtract 10% for a race with normal defensiveness; at that point, it's not particularly necessary...
   Each transport (perhaps up to 4 in any given task force, each of which contains several warships, plus sweepers, shipyards, scanner, and warpships; they're detachments from the Grand Armada) can transport 162 Large Troops, each of which has ECM, Sensors, 2xShields, and 3xGround Cannon.
   A single wave of 162 troops, in my experience, will trivially conqueror (1 round, no return fire) many lightly populated planets.  For an completely full, 8B world (400 militia; in test case, pretty much full of weapons platforms, 'tho I don't know if that affects GC), the first wave sustains heavy casualties, but survives the 10 turns; a total of three drops overwhelms the militia, with perhaps ~240 losses among the attackers.  Two waves might suffice, but probably with greater losses, and also it may take more than one game turn.  Multiple transport landings should take place simultaneously if at all, to minimize time spent under fire.  Moons should be taken simultaneously as well, if they have WPs that could fire at your new acquisition...
   Incidentally, the planetary WPs can be fired the same combat turn you capture 'em.  Assimilation is quick.
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 06 August 2001 12:20
   I *never* bombard population from orbit. It's just not nice. I've been trying to capture the crysonlite homeworlds recently (Devnullmod, V1.35) and I think soon I will also be able to take an 8000m world intact.
   First up, getting troops in to land is easy. Destroy most of the weapons platforms from orbit without damaging the population. Then either use a heavily shielded troop transport, or a heavily shielded/ expendible "decoy" ship to soak up what's left of the weapons platform fire.
   One shipfull of troops just won't be enough, so you need to make sure your first wave will survive at least 10 ground combat rounds. Othrwise, you can't get any reinforcements in.
   For this reason I developped the Scuffle III vanguard troop. These are all shields and no weapons, so won't do much (any?) damage, but based on my experiences with 4000m worlds, 1200ktonnes of these will last long enough to deploy a second wave of troops. Once I have 2 or 3 loads of vanguard troops down, I don't have to worry about the 10 ground combat turns while I deploy as many ships full of heavily armed troops as I need to take down the militia.
<<
>>
dmm
First Lieutenant
posted 06 August 2001 17:49
   Info that's been posted before but is worth recalling:
   In a transport, first in = first out, and first out = front line.  So put all-shield troops into a transport first, then put in all-weapon troops for counterattacks.  This is extremely effective for storming smaller colonies.  Remember that the defenders get to fire first.  For large colonies (high pop), your first transport might need to be ONLY all-shield troops, so that your attack can last >10 turns and not let the planetary militia "regroup".
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 07 August 2001 22:32
[reply in thread]
   Originally posted by capnq:
   "On a related note, does weapons range matter in ground combat? In other words, do troops with range 2 weapons have an advantage over troops with range 1 weapons?"

   You could probably test this easily. Setup a situation in a savegame where you are just ready to drop troops on a planet. Drop them one way and see the result, then edit the components.txt file to change the range for the weapon use in the troops and then reload the savegame and see if the result changes. Short range first, long range first... Whatever order you want.
<<
>>
LCC
First Lieutenant
posted 09 August 2001 11:51
[reply in thread]
   I don't understand the difficulty discussed here. Against even homeworlds I never needed bigger than a Battle Cruiser (or was it a Dreadnought ?) with basics plus three phased shields V and the rest cargo bays. It holds 150 large troops equipped with shields 3, ecm, sensors, and a ground cannon 3. Possibly you are using some other weapons ? Somebody pointed out that other weapons do not work properly for troops. I would not know since I always considered GC3 to be most cost effective and cheap to research to boot.....
   I ignore weapon platforms on the target, just use a decoy ship to draw off missiles, then when they fire the troop ship runs in. But it occurs to me that only works in tactical, not strategic. Okay, use two decoy ships at least as fast as the troop ship, with the decoys leading the fleet. Since they have weapons the AI will target the weapon platforms on them first. Use the cheapest combination of shields and armor available (no regenerators) and just one cheap and small weapon on each decoy.
   The 150 troops will blow away all weapon platforms with no effort. Before you send in the invasion fleet, make sure you soften them up by taking out all satellites, otherwise the sats will fire on the newly captured planet. Also checkout any moon colonies for WP and if found just wipe them first. A piece of cake. Your fleets need to be given orders to stop firing when all weapons are gone, otherwise they will blast population, when capturing it is the whole point of the exercise. OTOH if you are an organic just build facilities to change atmosphere and whatever it is that generates 40m pop/turn per colony in each system....
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 09 August 2001 13:42
[reply to 1st paragraph in previous]
   The problem for me was the fact that my race had a -50% ground combat modifier.
   Also the design of my "Wobbly Bobs" was:
1 x Troop cockpit
2 x Ground Cannon 3 (15 damage each)
1 x Plasma Armor 3 (24 hitpoints)
For a total of 10Kt size, and 31 hitpoints.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 09 August 2001 13:24
[reply in thread]
   IIRC the problem with this in strategic is if your transport doesn't have weapons you are correct it will be last on the enemy targeting list, but it will not approach the planet until all the WP's are gone. Since you are not targetting the planet, your transport will never land troops at all.
   The only way to get the transport to approach an armed planet is to have weapons onboard, and then it becomes a target for the defenders.
   It is doable I am sure. It would take some testing of various fleet configurations to get the right mix between decoys and troop transports. But against a human player it would be harder cause they could simply modify the targeting to target closest first instead of biggest weapons.
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 09 August 2001 13:46
   I always use strategic combat for the capture of a planet without any problem. I give the fleet the primary strategy "capture planet" and the secondary strategy "optimal weapons range". In the capture planet strategy I specify under the point damage "damage targets until all weapons gone". This makes first the attack ships wipe out all enemy weapons while the troop transport stays out of the enemy's reach. Then the troop transport moves to the planet and drops the troops. The troop transport has no weapons or only point defense and its strategy is of course also "capture planet".
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 09 August 2001 15:09
   As LCC stated - the Small weapons are not really for use on ground troops.  50-60 Light troops with 1 cockpit/3 Ground Cannons 1 can capture a planet with a population of just under 1000 and only loose a few troops.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 August 2001 19:06
   Originally posted by "LeTharg":
   "Just a comment about using multiple troopships in simulataneous play. When I tried this, the ships fought independently. That is, the first ship landed troops and they fought the militia and lost. Then the second ship landed troops but the militia had regenerated so they fought and lost.
   So I don't split up my troops in simultaneous play."

   Your troops were totally defeated in the 10 ground combat turns, right?
   In this case, I only lost 20% of my forces each 10 round GC.  Since my troops were still fighting a stalemate, the second troopship added to the battle, and the militia did not get to regenerate.
   During attempt #2, my troops survived 4&1/2 turns of combat, and I know for sure that the militia did not regenerate while the combat was still going on.  They started at 300 Militia units, and I killed an average of 50 per round.  There were only 102 on the 5th month of GC, and they ended with ~75.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 05 August 2001 20:27
   There's a flaw in the use of troops that I've just recently recognized. Since troops are CARGO they get destroyed in bombardment. So you hardly ever get troops vs. troops combat. It's always troops vs. militia. Why couldn't troops be hidden well enough to be as hard to kill as population? Apparently the Serbs in Kosovo faked NATO out pretty effectively with wooden mockups. They hardly got any real tanks. It must be far harder to identify small vehicles from orbit. Somehow, troops need to be harder to kill than WPs so there is a real reason to build defensive troops. Then we can have some really classic ground battles!
   This would complement the other desperately needed change: The change to the 'damage to kill population' ratio. Right now, it's too easy for standard weapons to wipe out the surface of a planet. We need to set this ratio very high. 50 to 1 or better. Then "planetary weapons" need the special ability to cancel this ratio. That way, you would really need a special ship to bombard a planet once the WPs were destroyed. Or, you would have to resort to troops!
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 05 August 2001 23:40
   Here's a data point for those interested in ground combat...
   In one single-player game with a +10% ground combat bonus, I've been able to capture planets of 8 *billion* people with all ground defenses (e.g. 13-15 million tons of weapons platforms) without orbital bombardment of any kind.
   Traits relevant include the aforementioned GC bonus, plus a +10% defensiveness bonus -- which will help a LOT.
   Transport design is a heavily shielded (maybe 2400 pts or so -- most of my warships lean towards firepower, instead) battleship, with full training (+20%/+20% fleet/ship), ECM III (+60%), Stealth Armor and Scattering Armor (+25% from those two, IIRC).  That's a total of... +135% defense if I do my math right; there's no size penalty for being a BB.  Subtract 65% figuring the weapon platforms may have a Combat Sensors III; that's still +70% to defense net, *plus* range penalty (since these transports have QE IIIs plus Solar Sail, they can stop at range 7 before closing next round).  Net effect is that enemy hit rate on transports appears to be 1% (warning:  not against Deeply Religious races...).  Units can't gain experience, which cripples them (again, non-Religious) when attacking a prepared fleet, so in practice these transports have yet to sustain more than perhaps 2-3 hits to shields even against huge amounts of ground fire.
   Note:  Refitting a Legendary warship in a Legendary fleet to a combat transport can bring total defense bonus to +195%; +130% less CS III.  Subtract 10% for a race with normal defensiveness; at that point, it's not particularly necessary...
   Each transport (perhaps up to 4 in any given task force, each of which contains several warships, plus sweepers, shipyards, scanner, and warpships; they're detachments from the Grand Armada) can transport 162 Large Troops, each of which has ECM, Sensors, 2xShields, and 3xGround Cannon.
   A single wave of 162 troops, in my experience, will trivially conqueror (1 round, no return fire) many lightly populated planets.  For an completely full, 8B world (400 militia; in test case, pretty much full of weapons platforms, 'tho I don't know if that affects GC), the first wave sustains heavy casualties, but survives the 10 turns; a total of three drops overwhelms the militia, with perhaps ~240 losses among the attackers.  Two waves might suffice, but probably with greater losses, and also it may take more than one game turn.  Multiple transport landings should take place simultaneously if at all, to minimize time spent under fire.  Moons should be taken simultaneously as well, if they have WPs that could fire at your new acquisition...
   Incidentally, the planetary WPs can be fired the same combat turn you capture 'em.  Assimilation is quick.
<<
>>
First Lieutenant
posted 06 August 2001 12:20
   I *never* bombard population from orbit. It's just not nice. I've been trying to capture the crysonlite homeworlds recently (Devnullmod, V1.35) and I think soon I will also be able to take an 8000m world intact.
   First up, getting troops in to land is easy. Destroy most of the weapons platforms from orbit without damaging the population. Then either use a heavily shielded troop transport, or a heavily shielded/ expendible "decoy" ship to soak up what's left of the weapons platform fire.
   One shipfull of troops just won't be enough, so you need to make sure your first wave will survive at least 10 ground combat rounds. Othrwise, you can't get any reinforcements in.
   For this reason I developed the Scuffle III vanguard troop. These are all shields and no weapons, so won't do much (any?) damage, but based on my experiences with 4000m worlds, 1200ktonnes of these will last long enough to deploy a second wave of troops. Once I have 2 or 3 loads of vanguard troops down, I don't have to worry about the 10 ground combat turns while I deploy as many ships full of heavily armed troops as I need to take down the militia.
   I'll let you know how I get on.
<<
>>
dmm
First Lieutenant
posted 06 August 2001 17:49
   Info that's been posted before but is worth recalling:
   In a transport, first in = first out, and first out = front line.  So put all-shield troops into a transport first, then put in all-weapon troops for counterattacks.  This is extremely effective for storming smaller colonies.  Remember that the defenders get to fire first.  For large colonies (high pop), your first transport might need to be ONLY all-shield troops, so that your attack can last >10 turns and not let the planetary militia "regroup".
<<
>>
LCC
First Lieutenant
posted 09 August 2001 11:51
   I don't understand the difficulty discussed here. Against even homeworlds I never needed bigger than a Battle Cruiser (or was it a Dreadnought ?) with basics plus three phased shields V and the rest cargo bays. It holds 150 large troops equipped with shields 3, ecm, sensors, and a ground cannon 3. Possibly you are using some other weapons ? Somebody pointed out that other weapons do not work properly for troops. I would not know since I always considered GC3 to be most cost effective and cheap to research to boot.....
   I ignore weapon platforms on the target, just use a decoy ship to draw off missiles, then when they fire the troop ship runs in. But it occurs to me that only works in tactical, not strategic. Okay, use two decoy ships at least as fast as the troop ship, with the decoys leading the fleet. Since they have weapons the AI will target the weapon platforms on them first. Use the cheapest combination of shields and armor available (no regenerators) and just one cheap and small weapon on each decoy.
   The 150 troops will blow away all weapon platforms with no effort. Before you send in the invasion fleet, make sure you soften them up by taking out all satellites, otherwise the sats will fire on the newly captured planet. Also checkout any moon colonies for WP and if found just wipe them first. A piece of cake. Your fleets need to be given orders to stop firing when all weapons are gone, otherwise they will blast population, when capturing it is the whole point of the exercise. OTOH if you are an organic just build facilities to change atmosphere and whatever it is that generates 40m pop/turn per colony in each system....
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 09 August 2001 13:24
[Ed: reply ot previous]
   IIRC [Ed: =If I Recall Correctly] the problem with this in strategic is if your transport doesn't have weapons you are correct it will be last on the enemy targeting list, but it will not approach the planet until all the WP's are gone. Since you are not targetting the planet, your transport will never land troops at all.
   The only way to get the transport to approach an armed planet is to have weapons onboard, and then it becomes a target for the defenders.
   It is doable I am sure. It would take some testing of various fleet configurations to get the right mix between decoys and troop transports. But against a human player it would be harder cause they could simply modify the targeting to target closest first instead of biggest weapons.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 09 August 2001 13:42
   Originally posted by "LCC":
   "I don't understand the difficulty discussed here. Against even homeworlds I never needed bigger than a Battle Cruiser (or was it a Dreadnought ?) with basics plus three phased shields V and the rest cargo bays. It holds 150 large troops equipped with shields 3, ecm, sensors, and a ground cannon 3. Possibly you are using some other weapons ? Somebody pointed out that other weapons do not work properly for troops. I would not know since I always considered GC3 to be most cost effective and cheap to research to boot....."

   The problem for me was the fact that my race had a -50% ground combat modifier.
   Also the design of my "Wobbly Bobs" was:
1 x Troop cockpit
2 x Ground Cannon 3 (15 damage each)
1 x Plasma Armor 3 (24 hitpoints)
For a total of 10Kt size, and 31 hitpoints.
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 09 August 2001 13:46
   I always use strategic combat for the capture of a planet without any problem. I give the fleet the primary strategy "capture planet" and the secondary strategy "optimal weapons range". In the capture planet strategy I specify under the point damage "damage targets until all weapons gone". This makes first the attack ships wipe out all enemy weapons while the troop transport stays out of the enemy's reach. Then the troop transport moves to the planet and drops the troops. The troop transport has no weapons or only point defense and its strategy is of course also "capture planet".
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 09 August 2001 15:09
   As LCC stated - the Small weapons are not really for use on ground troops.  50-60 Light troops with 1 cockpit/3 Ground Cannons 1 can capture a planet with a population of just under 1000 and only loose a few troops.
<<


* SCANNERS AND OBSCURATION:
You have looked over the HTML manual section on "Sight", haven't you?  If you don't have a clear picture of what you can see and what you might be missing, then you can expect be surprised frequently.  There is more to "line of sight" than targeting, sensors, and cloaking.  The various nebula systems and sector storms obscure anything within their clouds to various degrees.  Different levels of scanners can penetrate different levels/colours of obscuration.  The AI uses this to it's advantage, and you should as well.

>>
duggold
Private First Class
posted 01 December 2000 15:57
   Ok, I give. How do I use long range scanners? I put them on my ship and am at a loss at to what ability I just got and how to use it...
<<
>>
Shadow99
Private First Class
posted 01 December 2000 16:35
   LRS (Long range scanners) allow you to look at enemy ships just as you would one of your own ships (can peek at it's cargo, take a look at it's damaged components, etc.). It does nto need a special command you just need to click on an enemy vessel (or fighter, or planet) & take a look... though do make sure your in range first...
<<
>>
Kodos
Private First Class
posted 01 December 2000 23:42
   Strange, but in Tactical Combat mode, you can do that even without scanners.
   Do you mean LRS allow you to do that on the System map?
<<
>>
Sultan
Private First Class
posted 01 December 2000 23:48
   Yep LRS work at a system level. In SE3 I would put them on cloaked ships and go around scanning ships and bases to keep an eye on what techs the enemy and my friends had.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Corporal
posted 21 April 2001 10:43
   Some thoughts on the 5 available scanners. I begin with the cheapest to research, end with the most expensive Tachyon sensors:
1) Hyper Optics (255 K of RP):
-BTW you get some tech areas: Combat Support, Torpedo Weapons, PDF Weapons, Weapon Overloading Weapons, Ship Capture, Advanced Military Science
-and some Facilities: Ship + Fleet Training Facilities
2) Psychic Receptors (Racial Trait needed, 350 K of RP):
-Facilities: Psychic Ship/Fleet Training Facilities
-leads to Psychic Scanner Facility (any ship within system can be scanned in detail)
3) Temporal Sensors (Racial Trait needed, 350 K of RP):
-Facilities: Events Predictor Fac.(System Combat Bonus), Temp. Vacation Service (Happiness)
-leads to Temp. Spaceyard Fac.
4) Gravitic Sensors (450K of RP):
- Tech Areas: Stellar Manipulation, Tractor/Repulser Weapons, Stellar Harnessing, Gravitational Weapons, Null-Space Weapons
5) Tachyon Sensors (1100 K of RP):
-Tech Areas: Shields, Sensors, Energy Stream Weapons, Energy Pulse Weapons, Combat Sensors (attack bonus)
...
<<
>>
Q
Second Lieutenant
posted 30 March 2001 10:14
   I don't know if anybody has noticed this before (don't remember to have read it in this forum at least) and for me it was new:
   Cloaked ships (maximum cloaking level) in a nebula system can't be detected even with the highest level of tachyon sensors. In an isolated opaque sector storm however you still see the cloaked ships at least if the ship with the sensor is outside the storm.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 31 March 2001 00:33
   Speaking of nebulae, has anyone tested whether the 'shield canceling' effect works in nebulas? I've never seen it work in a Black Hole system, every combat I've had in a black hole has been with full shields. I think that's because the SECTOR level ability 'Sector - Shield Disruption' is still being used in the SystemTypes.txt -- there is no SYSTEM level ability yet. I tried changing it to "System - Shield Disruption" and the program gave an error message. I guess the shield draining would work on the central sector or something? This seems to be another one of those 'loose ends' like the combat to hit plus/minus oversight.
<<
>>
Admiral Grover
Private First Class
posted 31 March 2001 02:05
   I've personnally had no troubles with the shield disrupting effect of nebulae.  In fact that is one of my best late game strategies ... have all warp points open into the same sector in the nebula system, build 3-4 starbases over the warp points (all armor, no shields) and any fleets sent through basically get destroyed.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Private First Class
posted 13 April 2001 09:07
   Originally posted by Q:
   "I think you are right. There is one nebula system with sight obscuration level 5, which means that no detectors will work. The description should however then be changed (and I did this now) from "this storm is opaque to most scanners" to "This storm is opaque to all scanners". It really is good to know because as you say ships are absolutely safe in this system!"
   Have made some observations about that: It seems to be always the RED colored (system-wide) nebulae which cloakes everything in it to level 5.
Further observations proved:
Level 5: nebulaes are always red
Level 4: green
Level 3: orange/brown
Level 2: cyan
Level 1: violet
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Corporal
posted 20 April 2001 21:52
...
I have observed the data files once more and have noticed that cyan and violet nebulaes also obscure to level 3, small sector storms do the same.
   Summary , ver 1.35 compatible:
   Cyan, violet, orange/brown nebulaes and every small storm:  Obscuration to level 3, ability to scan with level 3 sensor, e.g. Tachyon Sensor II
   Green nebulaes:  Obscuration to level 4, ability to scan with level 4 sensor, e.g. Tachyon Sensor III
   Red nebulaes:  Obscuration to level 5, ability to scan with level 5 sensor, not yet available (w/o mod)
   Remark: Cloaking is still buggy with "omnipresent view of all systems"; scanners have no function at all with omnipresent view, you can't even detect not-cloaked satellites if they just have a cloaking device in it.
<<
>>
TaeraRepublic
Private First Class
posted 17 April 2001 17:18
   Well, maybe this has already been asked, but whats the difference between psychic, passive and tachyon scanners?
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 17 April 2001 18:21
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Not a whole lot.  Stealth/Scattering Armor only provide cloaking in the Active/Passive EM modes, so a ship hidden only by one of those (not full cloaking device, nor nebula) should be visible to even the lowest levels of the other three (gravitic, psychic, temporal).  But the cloaking devices, mine innate cloaking ability, and nebula cloaking are all equally effective in all five types IIRC.  So beyond the two armor types, there's just device and research cost.
<<
>>
Aristoi
Private First Class
posted 31 May 2001 07:15
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   Is there any use putting Combat Sensors on a missile ship?  It looks like the missiles always hit unless they are out of range or shot down.  Is this correct?
   The same goes for PDCs.  I know they are already modified, does the sensors help them even more?
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Corporal
posted 31 May 2001 08:06
   Yes, PDCs are better with combat sensors, if you have a religious talisman (the MEGA combat sensor of the game) then you don't need a combat sensor because then the PDCs and every direct fire weapon ALWAYS hit (100% to hit chance).
   No, missiles are not assisted by combat sensors , just the direct fire weapons. But I think they don't need any to hit chance modifier (they hit or they die, that's it).
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 31 May 2001 13:40
   Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
   "Yes, PDCs are better with combat sensors, if you have a religious talisman (the MEGA combat sensor of the game) then you don't need a combat sensor because then the PDCs and every direct fire weapon ALWAYS hit (100% to hit chance)..."

   That is why I now frequently play the Religious Tech.  The shrines are nice but the Talisman rules!  Never misses - NEVER!  That and some PPB V's and you can hit anything from a decent range and repeatedly.  They (as mentioned in another thread) are a good counter to the fighter stacking 'bug' since PPB's target basically everything (ships, fighters, sats, planets) except mines.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 15:44
   I haven't really figured out what the LR scanner do but I just put it on my ships anyway. So, what does it do? Does it let you detect ships in the current system? Let you see what's on an enemy ship? Or what?
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 15:49
   LR scanner lets you see what comoponents / cargo / damage etc an enemy ship has. The first level has a range of 1 square on the system map, level II 3 squares (I think) and level III more.
   Well worth investing in, especially if you're an intel freak lik me=-)
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:51
   CM: With the Long Range Scanners, you can see the enemy ship design (if the ship have not the Scanner Hamer or the Scatered Armor).
   Very useful in simultaneous multiplayer games.
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:52
   Me agreeing with dogscoff for a change.
   LR II scans 3 sectors away, and LR III scans 5 sector away.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 17:10
   Missile Ships don't need a combat sensor right?
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 17:18
...
   Nope, but they will need Multiplex Tracking to target more than 1 ship....
<<


* CLOAKING:
The term 'cloaking' covers both the passive and active effects of anything which a ship can do to make itself invisible to others.  It must be 'activated' and 'deactivated' by a button on the 'Main Window - Command' display.  Active effects consume supplies, which is why you need to be judicious in your use of cloaking or you could find yourself visible and defenseless since weapons and engines require supplies to function as well.  In addition, some things can only be done while visible (such as attacking).  Forgetting this can really disrupt your plans in Strategic Combat.
>>
Aristoi
Corporal
posted 04 October 2001 02:35
   Do the bonuses from these two components [Ed: Stealth & Scattering Armor] combine?  Or are they considered the same family of components?
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 04 October 2001 02:45
   Their bonuses combine, so you get 30% if you have both.
<<
>>
C4
Private First Class
posted 22 November 2000 21:31
   What's the best use for cloaking?  It looks like I can't attack an enemy ship while cloaked.  Is it basically good for sneaking around and setting up ambushes?
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 22 November 2000 21:42
   I've been using it on a LOT of ship designs.
- Attack ships.  Great for ambushes, even better with solar collectors (because you can cloak while refueling), and they let you *choose* your fights.  You can uncloak, attack a fleet, and recloak.  Very helpful for long-range ships that would otherwise need to return to base periodically, but would risk being attacked frequently if they simply sat there, visible, while refueling.
   This is also good for recon, where you may not want to attack/be attacked immediately until you have better info on what you're dealing with.
- Minelayers.  They often wander into enemy-controlled warp points to mine the other side, and risk getting nailed by satellites otherwise.  Besides, you can manually use 'em to mine your enemies' (and "allies'"...) warp points and planets.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 22 November 2000 21:49
   Think "submarine" for tactics that work for cloaking.
   1) Scouting around behind the lines, so you know what you enemy is doing -- Equip these scouts with sensors and scanners for maximum payback.
   2) Hit and run raids -- mainly on planets since there is no "civilian shipping" to hit, but there are unescorted transports -- Equip these ships with a few beams and PDC so they can defend themselves against small ships and take out transports, but make sure to include some "planetary" weapons.
   3) And the occasional terror mission where a whole pack of 'submarines' actually take on a major fleet or base and try to destroy it. These would be equipped with more "regular" armament than your raiders. They just have to out-gun the forces you are attacking by sheer weight of numbers. This will take more than it would with traditional forces since the cloaking device is rather large and reduces your ship's resources in other areas. But as long as your victim doesn't have advanced sensors you have the advantage of surprise and can choose your battle.
   4) Secret resupply and support services. It sure does reduce the need for 'escort' for ships crammed with solar generation and/or repair bays if they can CLOAK, ya know? Especially useful for keeping your 'submarines' in service against the enemy, but also useful to support normal fleets. This is also a good thing for mine layers/mine sweepers/satellite layers and maybe even plain old transports. If your transports are cloaked, the enemy 'submarines' will have to have large and bulky sensors in order to find and attack them.
<<
>>
Noble713
Sergeant
posted 13 December 2000 23:37
[Ed: start of a new thread]
...
   Actually, I just realized something else: If you put Stealth Armor on a ship (Lvl 2 Pas EM Cloaking) and order it to cloak, you can move it through enemy territory totally unnoticed. Why is that? It doesn't Lvl 2 cloaking in any of the other areas, so regular ships should still be able to see it, right? Or am I interpreting the whole system wrong?
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 14 December 2000 00:15
   One of the help files (Game_Sight.htm) states that objects default to having level 1 EM Active ability, and 0 everything else.  Hence level 2 EM Active will hide you -- but not from, say, Gravitic or Psychic scans.
<<
>>
Resident Alien
Private First Class
posted 14 December 2000 03:46
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Here are the results of some of my experiments with sensors and cloaking:
   1. There is no difference between Tachyon, Optical, Gravitic, Psychic, Temporal scanners at the moment (v1.11).
   A ship with any of the sensor level I components can see Cloak I or Stealth Armour ships in normal space.
   Any Sensors II can see Cloak II and any Sensors III can see Cloak III.
   2. In a nebula system Sensors I don't see anything.  Sensors II and III can see to expected levels.
   Some comments:
   1. Sensors beat Cloaks in SE4.  In SE3 there was no way to detect a cloaked ship unless it hit your tachyon ship.  In SE4 a sattelite with a III level sensor can detect any ship in a system.  I think I prefer it that way.  An undetectable,cloaked enemy Base Ship in you home systems is no fun at all as I found in one SE3 multi user game.
   2. Stealth Armour says it blocks EM 2 active and passive.  But I don't think there's a gravitic, temporal, psychic sensor that has level 1 that might see it.  The Sensor I components can see at level 2 so can see the Stealth armour anyway.
   3. Perhaps in future the interactions of cloaks and the different sensors could be expanded so there are choices and trade offs in choosing sensor techs and cloaks.
<<
>>
Psitticine
Captain
posted 14 December 2000 05:16
   Originally posted by Resident Alien:
   "1. There is no difference between Tachyon, Optical, Gravitic, Psychic, Temporal scanners at the moment (v1.11)."

   A ship with any of the sensor level I components can see Cloak I or Stealth Armour ships in normal space.

   Originally posted by Resident Alien:
   "Any Sensors II can see Cloak II and any Sensors III can see Cloak III."

   That's because you only need sensing capacity that meets or exceeds cloaking capacity in one area.  The cloaking devices provide level X in all areas.  Sensors that give level X in any one area meet the criteria.
...
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 11:37
   I am VERY disappointed. My brand new space yard ships started building bases on warp points last turn. They were cloaked when they arrived, and I told them to build a six turn cloaked yard base. But on the next turn their construction queues were cleared. My whole strategy for secretly building cloaked yard bases above the 17 sphereworlds not yet colonized on my map is blown. Is this a bug or a feature ? If building with a yard component while cloaked is not legal, then it should not have allowed me to queue up the projects at all, rather than clearing the queue next turn....
   Also, will a cloaked sensor satellite work while it is itself cloaked ? I verified that I CAN tell the sat to cloak and it will.
   Also, I read in a thread that combat was occurring at warp points between cloaked ships and enemy ships which lacked the sensors to detect them. Was this a feature or a bug, and if a bug, has it been fixed ?
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 12:00
   Can't build while cloaked, that's feature I think.
   Cloaked sats with sensors work fine, I use them all the time.
...
   last time (a few patches ago) I used cloaked ships I was able to move free in and out enemy sectors. Combat would only happen if an enemy ship in the sector has the right level sensors.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 13:30
   I can confirm both of the things Lemmy has just said. In my vs AI game I am using cloaks a lot and my cloaked ships / sensors work fine. I can also fly into / over / through enemy fleets without causing combat. I don't know what happens if the AI moves into my sector though because it doesn't try, due to the "routing takes undetected ships and colonies into account" feature.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 16:50
   Originally posted by dogscoff:
   "I don't know what happens if the AI moves into my sector though because it dosn't try, due to the 'routing takes undetected ships and colonies into account' feature."

   IS THAT A FACT!!!!
   Evil me, you just introduced a new tactic vs. the AI - warp point blockade ships. I just checked - Escort with b/ls/cq + 6 eng + ss3 + cloak 3 costs 6810 1000 1280. Park them on all the warp points in enemy territory until he learns sensors 6 or the equivalent. I designed one but have not checked it out yet.
   I am going to check what you can/can't do with cloaks using a high tech test game under 1.35 and will put it on this thread. I will check the Dubious Strategy Guide first of course.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 18:20
   Ok - verified under 1.35 While cloaked you CAN :
1) Launch/recover satellites
2) Launch/recover fighters
3) Launch mines, but there is no recover of course. To get rid of excess mine stacks select icon scrap then button self destruct
4) You CAN transfer cargo between cloaked ships and cloaked to colony or noncloaked ship/base.
5) You can NOT colonize a planet while cloaked. Your colony ship must first move to the planet, then decloak, then you can colonize.
   Furthermore, although you are limited on launch to whatever your bays allow, you are NOT limited on recovery except by your total cargo capacity. So to clean up those stacks of satellites left behind when your front lines move forward, you need just ONE satellite bay on a cargo ship....
   Same applies to fighter stacks if you have to get them past a warp point, just one fighter bay to recover them at the warp point, then deliver to the carriers on your front lines. Usually you would fly them to a colony for recovery then cargo transfer, but like me you might have lots of yard bases on warp points cranking out fighters with no carriers or colonies in sight....
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 16 June 2001 02:38
   As I mentioned in another thread, resource mining with starbases works while cloaked. The best place to mine is planets with moons and a high total percentage of any single resource. See the thread "Remote Mining Economics" for more. [Ed: this thread is under "* Remote Mining".]
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
2: If cloaking detection sensors are placed on satellites, must the satellites be launched by the planet in order to see cloaked units in that entire system?
...
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
2: Yes. [Ed: Any unit "on planet" is in "cargo".  Normally everything in cargo is inactive.  The exceptions are Weapon Platforms and Troops on Planets/Moons, because they have that specific ability/role.]
...
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 26 August 2001 18:28
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   Now I could be wrong in this....but cloaked ships do NOT gain the bonus from ship training facilities (although the fleet bonus is still gained).  I was noticing this on a planet that has both fleet and ship trainers, the fleets were getting the bonus, as were de-cloaked ships but cloaked ships were not.
   Was just wondering if anyone else noticed this/can confirm this....is this a bug??
   Or am I just buggy?
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 26 August 2001 19:40
   I can confirm this, but I am not sure if it is a bug or maybe the same idea as with cloaked SY ships ( the trainers should better see what they train ). I had a fleet- and a ship training facility, but IIRC the fleet bonus has not been increased also with a completely cloaked fleet, could it be that one ship of your fleet was decloaked ?
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 26 August 2001 19:50
   Nope, the whole fleet was cloaked and accrued a bonus, but the individual ships were not gaining a bonus.  Also seems to be a 'bug' in sim-move, I de-cloaked the fleet to train, then added more ships to the fleet, the following turn the fleet still had the formerly cloaked ships cloaked and the newly added members not cloaked, so it followed the second order but forgot about the first.
   and as an edit, a cloaked ship may not build, but it still can repair (check when you cloak a ship space yard, the symbol changes from the 'crane' to a 'wrench')..
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 28 August 2001 07:13
   I've also noticed that cloaked ships don't show up on the Retrofit screen.
<<
>>
askan
Private First Class
posted 28 August 2001 14:57
   I happened to have noticed that if a cloaked ship with stealth armour moves through one of those damaging warp point thingies, the armour may be destroyed but the ship is still cloaked.
   The other thing too is that any partners you have can't see your cloaked ship...but I wonder if you had some sort of hypers optics or something would your partners then be able to see you ships if they were in a system with one of your hyper optics satellites (or something similiar)? Can the ship training facility see them as well?
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 28 August 2001 16:00
[Ed: Reply to 1st part of previous]
...
   Yeppers.
   If fact, if a cloaked ship has sensors onboard, your partner can now see your cloaked ship with it's own sensors. Kind of goofy.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 28 August 2001 16:05
   Another little thing about cloaking, if you have no supplies the cloak disappears, ie, cloaked miners (robominers) use 100 supplies/turn, when the supplies are gone the ship appears with 'no gas', makes for an inviting target
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 09 September 2001 13:51
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   A while ago somebody said your partners would not see your stealth ships without their own detectors, well that is only PARTIALLY true.
   Say I have a stealth ship somewhere in space, for my partner to see that ship there MUST be a detector (hyper optics or others) in the system, and that detector could belong to MYSELF! Funny way to do things huh?
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 09 September 2001 13:57
   Yep, I agree it's pretty weird.
   And if your only sensor is on the stealth ship itself, even then your partner can see it.
<<


* FORMATIONS:
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 11 October 2000 14:53
   Can't find the orginal post but someone was complaining about moving 1 ship at a time and that foramtions we useless. I want you to know that you can make multi formations in a combat. During your turn under the options button to your right it shoudl give you an option to create a group leader and assign group numbers to ships. This way you can create multi "V" formations for instance that would better simulate what you want your ships to do rather than 1 big "V". Give it a try
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 11 October 2000 15:07
   Seawolf's comment is right.  It comes in handy when fleets get to be around a dozen or so.
Also someone once posted that the AI does not appear to use fleets.  I just had a small combat (10 vs 8) last night.  I have also seen combats between 2 AI players with fleets of about a dozen each.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 11 October 2000 20:11
   I want to be able to assign groups for a fleet before battle with different orders and formations for each group. You can't change this stuff in strategic and it gets tediuos to do in tactical after awhile.
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 11 October 2000 20:38
   Hurm... can't do it in strategic... a possible suggestion?
<<


FAVORITE DESIGNS:

Everyone finds themselves using a few basic designs over and over.  Here are some of the forums'.  They should give you a decent idea of what's effective.  

But first we will start off with a fascinating discussion of how to defeat a massive high tech opponent WITH NO MAINTENANCE COSTS in the late end-game phase of a Strategic Combat game.  The forum's analysis of the strategic component trade-offs are a classic example of what needs to go into every ship design.  And fortunately for us all, there is an after-action report so we can see how well the process worked.  It's lengthy, but you should find it well worth your time.

>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 12:58
   After all my refit woes, a more amusing puzzle; in the endgame of a pbem (turn 100+) my big rival has expanded massively and built a fleet of giant base ships to oppress the galaxy. His race is no maintenance and can simply keep building.
   Mine is crystal-tech, attack advantage, movement advantage (+1)
   The bulk of my enemies fleet is likely to be equipped with base-ships like this one;

"Tyrant mk 3"
1xBridge
5xCrew
5XLifeSupport
2x Quantom Engines (+3 move)
1x Solar Sail3 (+3 move)
1x Combat sensors 3 (+65 attack)
1x ECM 3 (+60 defense)
1x Multiplex Tracking 5
1x Stealth armour (cloak and defense bonus)
1x Emergency Propulsion 5
1x Self destruct device
6x Phased Shield Generator 5
5x Point defense Cannon 5
10x Massive Phased Polaron Beams

   So, the above monster moves 8(4 in combat) - can take 2250 points of shield damage in combat and deals 2500 points of phased damage at range 6 per combat turn.
   The question is, how to defeat a fleet of these vessels with finesse? (inferior odds/improved efficiency) There are likely to be around 150 of them in the main offensive when he comes over the border.
   My empire can support a defensive fleet of around 150 similar vessels - but would struggle to put more of the them in the field at any one time.
   I have access to all technology and can build at around 6000/6000/6000 resources a turn at my best planets.
   So the challenge is to design a defender design that can deal with this ship in detail ... not just winning 1 on 1, but also engagements with inferior numbers ... ideally i'd like to be able to halt the advance of the main 150 strong fleet with half the defending ships to free up my remaining strength to counterattack....
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 June 2001 13:09
   A few things spring to mind...
   1> Run away and hide=-)
   2> A ship with a few massive shield depleters teamed up with half a dozen (ie more than the enemy multiplex) fast, cheap boarding party ships might be able to trigger the self destruct. Of course with 5 crew quarters on the target ship you'll need several boarding parties, but a frigate or corvette might do the trick. Use the simulator to get the right design.
   3> mines + intel - use targetted intel to trash the minesweepers and repair ships. You can then use cloakd ships to plant mines in the enemy's path.Remember mines won't even notice all those shields, they'll just get skip straight to that nasty old stealth armour=-)
   4> Of course all this is useless if you don't eliminate the resource/ production base which is churning out these monsters...
   5> Don't use any advice givn out on this forum, because your enemy is probably reading it too=-)
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 05 June 2001 13:33
   PPB's have a short range. Try to build some ships with Wave Motion Guns as stay at max range. Another possibility is Null Space weapons, skips shields and armor.
I'm not real familiar with the crystal weapons but IIRC crystal armor adds to shields so load up on that armor to keep you defenses strong. Fighters could also help espescially heavily shielded fighters with 1-2 weapons. 5 PD's per ship is not that much if you can field 1000's of fighters that require more than 1 hit to destroy.
   Good luck man, sounds like you are in for a long fight!
<<
>>
God Emperor
First Lieutenant
posted 05 June 2001 13:41
   What do people think about the utility of Null Space Projectors? (given their reload rate of 3)....
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 05 June 2001 13:50
   If you have a speed advantage and can get the first shot in, I think there is nothing better than Null Space weapons. You take out components with every hit.
   The reload rate is the only drawback. In tactical it can be overcome but I don't know how well you can use them is strategic.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 13:57
   1) Nullspace cannons; in my experience they are very solid weapons in the mid game where a heavy mount can actually do serious damage against a lean cruiser design. 3 turn reloads are not a problem when you cripple with the first volley. Also, have you seen the damage resistance of a massive nullspace mount? - 250ish - ironically means that a massive nullspace mount is amongst the best way to soak nullspace or shield-skipping damage.
   Negatives; if your ships are slower then you could be screwed by the opponent using max-range strategy and longer weapons. Or perhaps flooding the field with small disposable vessels. Economically, the radiactive costs of mass null-space building is vast - can be a big problem. A nullspace equipped base ship is amongst the most expensive vessel in the game outside of steller manipulation - takes a long time to build and a lot to maintain.
   2) mines and selective intelligence hits vs minesweepers; nice combo - any hints as to the best way of knocking down 100,000 pts of counter-intel? (I have 200,000 pts of intel available)
   3) Wave cannons - I am dubious about these, the 3 turn reload and massive cost seem a disinincentive - for the space and cost you could mount multiple anti-protons or shard cannons and fire every turn. I suspect that in a big fleet battle the strategic AI will not be able to dance reloading ships out of enemy weapon range so the reload cycle will kill.
   4) Suicide borders .... now that i like *grins* appeals to the spirit of heroism of my empire. Couple of shield depleters per border maybe and pack the rest out with troops ... interesting results.
   5) Economic war, I have more or less concluded that the only way to fight no-maintenance is to go for a very high direct attrition combat; looking for as many damaging engagements as possible to cause maximum casualties (hopefully his) Hence my quest for a "Tyrant"-killer design.
   Thanks for ideas so far, please keep them rolling in.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 June 2001 14:02
   One thing we haven't considered is the defence modifier - does the ECM III stack with the stealth armour? If so how does that compare to combat sensors + racial bonus? Since he can't develop the talisman and there are only 5 PDCs per ship, should he be looking at overwhelming the enemy with seekers instead?
   I think using fighters is a must, because the PPBs will target them in strategic and draw fire away from the rest of your fleet.
   Do you anticipate any support ships in the enemy fleets or will it be just this one design?
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 14:10
   1) defence modifiers are a null issue with baseships really - yes the stealth armour stacks with ecm (as would scattering too) for a +75% bonus but compare that with the +65% attack bonues and the inbuilt -40% defense for base ships and hits are assured (even without considering my empire's +20% attack bonus)
   2) fighters are interesting but need to attack with vast numbers to penetrate those shields in a timeframe to effect the outcome of the cap ship engagement.
   3) refits to pds-massed designs are likely should I use missiles and fighters in the first combats.  It is likely that the enemy power has some specialised defense assets.
   4) I have consider system-destruction weapons as a last ditch fleet interdiction weapon. i.e. black hole generators trigger when an overwhelming incoming fleet is spotted. This use is entirely hypothetical though - I have no idea how the dynamics of triggering/resolution would work in simultaneous play....
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 05 June 2001 14:12
   You could also try to fight in nebulas, shield aren't as effective.
   Fighting a war of attrition against a maintenance free opponent isn't a good idea IMO. You will lose units also and still pay to maintain your remaining ships.
   A better goal would be to cripple his shipbuilding capacity, either by targeting planets with yards or big resource producing/storage planets. Once he has built them he's done. Keep him from building as fast as you and the attrition strategy makes more sense.
   The benefit of the Wave Motion Gun is range and a +30 to hit modifier on the weapon. This makes those long range hits more likely, although I agree sometimes I'd rather fire 4-5 beams every turn. WMG's are a good alternative to going toe to toe.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 June 2001 14:24
   Originally posted by Mordante:
   "2) mines and selective intelligence hits vs minesweepers; nice combo - any hints as to the best way of knocking down 100,000 pts of counter-intel? (I have 200,000 pts of intel available)"

   Now the way I understand counter-intel is that no matter how many points are invested in a counter-intel project, it can only counter a certain amount of enemy projects, 1 for level I counter intel, 2 for II and so on.
   Therefore, (correct me someone if I'm wrong) if the enemy has invested 90,000 points in a counter-intel I, you can effectively cancel out that entire project by throwing a single 5000 point cargo bomb at them. A 150,000 point CI II can be wasted with any two cheap ops.
   This means you can wear down your opponent's counter-intel much faster than he can build it up. Set a dozen or so cargo/ ship bombs to complete in the same turn, and there will a very good chance at least one of them will get through. If it does, you know that next turn your opponent will have _no_ effective counter intel projects left. He will have to start some new ones from scratch. OK, if he's investing more in counter intel than you are in sabotage AND he starts enough projects then you won't be able to touch him, but if you can hit him with enough projects and / or persuade other empires to spend intel points on him you will sabotage him into the ground=-)
   Oh, it's worth mentioning - I think the defender in intel conflicts gets some kind of bonus modifier, so counter intel points are worth more than offensive ones.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 05 June 2001 14:31
   Originally posted by Mordante:
   "2) fighters are interesting but need to attack with vast numbers to penetrate those shields in a timeframe to effect the outcome of the cap ship engagement."

   The fighters don't need to damage the cap ships, just draw their fire. PPBs _can_ target fighters, so depending on your opponents' fleet strategy settings, you could force all those big scary weapons to be wasted on cannon fodder fighters, allowing your cap ships to get in closer and do damage. Just a thought.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 June 2001 15:27
   If you make a black hole at one of your empire's chokepoints, you can then decide whether to fight with shields or without.
   Just move from one side of the wormhole to the other, and you get to disable the enemy shields OR make full advantage of your own.
   You can put shields on your ships and fight outside the BH, or use armor & long-range WMGs to fight inside the blackhole.
   The enemy has a 50/50 chance of guessing correctly, and will either have useless shields(by BH) or few shield points(by design), if they guess wrong.  In case they guess right, you can use the other strategies mentioned in this thread.
   Armored boarding ships in a Blackhole system would rule against baseships, since his shields would be gone
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 05 June 2001 15:28
   Research stellar manipulation to destroy stars in his industrial systems. Go cloaked with two minesweeper DN sweep 100+. Of course by the time you pay for the stellar he will have researched sensors and put up sensor sats - but is worth a try ? It seems likely that his maintenance free option is going to kill you unless you get him FAST.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 05 June 2001 16:08
   Hrrrrrrrm.
   What's the range on your engine-killing beams?  Given that he has NO missiles, and no range-7 or range-8 weapons of any kind, engine killers might be helpful.
   Since you have all technology and a propulsion advantage, you may want to go for speed/range.  Say --
BC chassis/propulsion:
6xQE III, Solar Sail III => 13/7 speed
All ships use maximum weapons range, tweaked so that second movement strategy may need to be 'Don't Get Hurt'.  Try it in the simulator -- it's smarter than it used to be.
   Weapons to favor:
   Engine-killing beams if range is good.  Don't bother with missiles unless you've got a LOT of them -- his PD will probably shoot them down.  PD is probably more space-efficient than most of the missiles in terms of shots needed to kill a missile and shots available while it closes.
Shield depleters, if you WON'T be fighting in a nebula.
   High-energy magnifiers (range 7) or possibly WMGs (range 8).  His armor is insignificant, so it's not like you need to rely on low-damage shard cannons.   Incidentally, his shields won't help at all in minefields.
   As a last-ditch scorched-galaxy defense, have a cloaked star destroyer ready IF your opponent prefers the Main Fleet approach.
   Does your opponent have supply ships at all?  I'd be tempted to (simulate first!) try to designate a few ships to kill only unarmed ships if it looks like they're vulnerable... probably wouldn't be, but maybe.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 June 2001 16:21
   Originally posted by LCC:
   "It seems likely that his maintenance free option is going to kill you unless you get him FAST"

   Time is definitely NOT on your side.  You'll have to go on the offensive, which puts your ships at a slight disadvantage, but means that the destruction will occur on his industrial base.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 05 June 2001 16:43
   One of the biggest problems I see is if you have 150 ships and he has 150 ships how can anyone maneuver? If you could disable the engines of the first rank of ships then all his other ships would be sitting ducks!
<<
>>
Menschenfresser
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 17:19
   Since you are looking to knock out most of his fleet and counter attack, without, I assume, leaving your system completely devoid of ships, traditional ship to ship battle is not the way.
   Granted, I've never actually fielded or fought such a fleet, but I'd go with an all out non-ship to ship offensive. Wear him down and scatter his fleet. First turn on the intel machine. Change it up all the time. Find out what works. I usually go for ship insurrection, because it seems that even in the face of large counter intel it works. I believe you said something about 200,000 points. That can field a counter intel project and three SIs.
   Next I would send numerous cloaked, fast wolf packs, with enough solar collectors to stay in the field forever. Equip these with sun destoryers or plague bombs or standard weapons or mine layers. Cause havok wherever you can, no matter how small. Plague his planets. Attack small groups of ships when you can (ie colony, transport, mine layers, etc.) More than likely he will take the time to replace these. This really isn't meant to knock out his capacity for building (that is for your main offensive) this is just to keep him moving and producing ships other than those for his main attack fleet.
   Next you'll have to play George Washington and try to guess where his main fleet will strike. Set a star destroyer over the star of the system you think he will enter first. Preferably one with just asteroids or at worst a few of your own colonies. As soon as his death fleet enters "BOOM." He'll never know what happened, especially if he thinks he's entering a system with a few of your colonies. I know it's sick to vaporize one's own people, but don't the good of the many out weigh the good of the few.
   Keep us updated as to how it comes out. And once it's over I'd really like to hear what strategies and tactics you employed.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 19:03
   Some good ideas and interesting points everyone;
   1)choice of battlefields/choke points  not an option I fear, I already have 3 maximum range (500ly) renewable (ie. Onboard repair) warp point constructors myself (each tied to a fleet) and I expect a similar capacity from my enemy. From my front line I can target his rear territory and I expect a similar advance from him when the time comes. Thus choke point defence (mines/satellites etc) will be irrelevant since the warp points will be newly placed. I can see able practical way to force the battle in nebulas either.
   2)attrition tactics  although my opponent has no-maintenance advantage, my resource income is approximately twice his and my planetary shipyards outnumber his by over a hundred (we have 200 space bases each). If both fleets were annihilated I believe I could replace mine faster.
   3)wave motion gun  I didnt know it had +30% to hit, interesting but it does depend on the launching vessel getting out of range effectively during recharge.
   4)fighter combination attacks  fighters to draw the big guns, yes, I could see that working  until he orders standard base ship designs to ignore them and lets the custom pdcs engage the skirmishers! But a battle could be won that way I think.
   5)Sun-destroying  I have several sun-destroyer craft on standby in potential target systems of mine  what worries me about their offensive capabilities is the fact that a) they need to start the turn above the target start, and b) does the detonation occur immediately in the simultaneous turn sequence or at the end of movement and combat?
   6)cloaking  rendered impotent by high level sensor nets  all my systems have sensor satellites capable of detecting the maximum cloak available in the game. (no psychic or temporal players left alive) I expect the same of my enemy
   7)engine-killing beam  I think they max out at range six, I can certainly rush the base ships and burn engines on individual ships in the enemy fleet but at the cost of the engine-killer hulls existence by massive retaliation at range six from polaron beams.
   8)enemy supply strategy  not sure, I imagine he will add one or two quantum reactor equipped ships to the grand fleet to replenish everything. (all of my ships have quantum reactors so no supply hassles for me)
   9)Manoeuvre with 300 ships!  not sure what will happen, even the combat simulator on strategic takes a long time to do a battle of that size  interesting to see his fleet lumber around immobile hulks though 
   10) guerrilla tactics with wolf-packs  I was think of doing this with range eight cannon cruisers to pick off lone colonies and support craft 
   Kind regards all, I will certainly let people know what happens ....
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 05 June 2001 20:21
   Put the minefields around your planets if your opponent has warp-point generators.  He has to come after your colonies sometime, and like others have said, mines ignore shields.  As for engine-destroying weapons, build a couple (large) ships with lots of the engine-destroying missiles.  Overwhelm the PDC (and maybe add some fighters, just for flavor, and to keep more PDC busy).  And, of course, load up on armor (or phased shields) so the Phased-Polaron Beams are less scary.  I'm up against an AI that uses PPB's and got used to staying out of range (I only had standard shields on the ships in that region), and in one battle (tactical, not strategic) thought I was in trouble when I failed to stay out of range.  Then, as I watched the enemy fire, I realized I had finally gotten ships with phased shields deployed... what a relief...
<<
>>
Vger
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 21:02
...
   I find your dilemma fascinating.  I'm just glad I'm not in your shoes.  I know I'm an SE4 neophyte, but looking at weapon mounts, if you use Extended Range or Dreadnought mounts your engine killing weapons will outrange his PPBs by 2.  (Unless he's using D mounts also, which I take it he's not.)
   You can put ER mounts on anything Destroyer sized or larger, so you could put cheap shield depleater/engine killers against his big guys and leave them sitting ducks for your main fleet, assuming your main fleet was using ER or D mounts also.
   Forgive me if I'm suggesting an unworkable option, but this just jumped out at me.  You have one big advantage and that is tactical and strategic maneuverablility.  Those Monitors are slow.  Even if they can form any warp point they like, it still takes them time to move around to kill/take your planets.  If you build SDs and smaller you can move 50% faster around systems.  You can also collect replacements faster, which should allow you at least a local, temporary superiority.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 05 June 2001 21:26
   "dreadnaught and extended range mounts" - what are these? do they exist in the standard game ... I know that starbase weapons get range bonuses but do any basic ship mounts?
   "mines for planet defence" - well, one problem is the units in space limit (4000) - I have 270 odd planets to defend (about 14 mines a planet!) another is the limit of mines per sector 100 + deployment load ... say 175 as a maximum with an abusive mine layer strat - it's childs play to design a large mine-sweeper that can clear 100 mines a turn - 2 of these babies with every fleet and the mines are worthless.
......
   Dilemma aside, it is a damned amusing game and the closest thing to a competitive space opera I've ever played ...
<<
>>
PvK
Spec Ops
posted 05 June 2001 22:49
   Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
   "One of the biggest problems I see is if you have 150 ships and he has 150 ships how can anyone maneuver? If you could disable the engines of the first rank of ships then all his other ships would be sitting ducks!"

   If your opponent has 150 ships, and puts them all in one sector... he can attack one of your planets and win, while you attack 150 of his planets...
   I don't think he meant all in one single engagement, although that would be a sight.
<<
>>
PvK
Spec Ops
posted 05 June 2001 22:59
   Originally posted by Mordante:
   "...
   4)fighter combination attacks  fighters to draw the big guns, yes, I could see that working  until he orders standard base ship designs to ignore them and lets the custom pdcs engage the skirmishers! But a battle could be won that way I think.
...."

   After using this tactic with cheap-o fighters, you can switch to sending in fighters that can hurt ships (e.g. rocket pods). If he's told his PPB's to ignore them, they might be able to get through the PDC's. You can also send in cannon-fodder fighters and other seekers to absorb PDC fire from the bombers.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 June 2001 23:50
   Originally posted by Mordante:
   "1)choice of battlefields/choke points  not an option I fear, I already have 3 maximum range (500ly) renewable (ie. Onboard repair) warp point constructors myself (each tied to a fleet) and I expect a similar capacity from my enemy. From my front line I can target his rear territory and I expect a similar advance from him when the time comes. Thus choke point defence (mines/satellites etc) will be irrelevant since the warp points will be newly placed. I can see able practical way to force the battle in nebulas either"

   Uhmm.  Don't you know about the 10 WP limit?
   Just like the "can't create stars if more than zero" thing, you can't add new WPs if theres already 10 in a system.
   So activate those WP openers, and shield your systems by interconnecting them till no more WPs can be added.
   Then, WPs cannot be opened into your territory, and you can force the enemy to travel through chokepoints.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 01:22
   re warp point limit - no, i didn't know that - very interesting and useful piece of knowledge - thanks ...
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 06 June 2001 02:01
   Note on missiles and WMGs:
   When I've been fighting the AI recently, I noticed them doing the infamous "missile dance" to my planet- i.e. they were FLEEING from the enemy while waiting for a recharge, then coming back to fire again.
   Something to think on.
   Oh, and bomb his main contstruction worlds, steal resources via intel.. etc. Remember that with plague bombs and smart bombs you don't have to hit more than once- and knocking out a spaceport in a system HURTS, if only until it can be rebuilt.
   BTW, if at all possible use Black Hole or Nebula blasts on his stars. While the standard SD can't be blocked, it leaves behind remenats of planets that can be rebuilt. The black hole, when disappated.. leaves a blank space. They have to reignite the star, and no planets at all!
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 06 June 2001 07:22
   Your enemy has ships with PPB each giving a damage of 250kT, isn't it? You have crystalline technology with crystalline armor III each reflecting 15kT damage to your shields. So if you build ships with at least 17 crytalline armors, which certainly is possible with baseships you can't be hurt by his weapons. Use yourself either shield depleting weapons plus any potent normal weapon or nullspace weapon. Of course he soon will change his ship design and use other weapons, which will penetrate your crystalline armor, but you will get time, which you can use to destroy his colonies.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 12:09
   Regarding;
   "crystalline armour and massive guns" - the problem is that the armour doesn't pump the shields until it is damaged (assuming it survives the damage) and since the massive phased polarons are doing 250+ the armour belt is mostly destroyed at the first volley rendering later shield augmentation mimimal. I have seen crystalline armour clad ships work well against low damage organic cannons but not against massive endgame damage.
   "hit and runs with starbase smart bombs and plague warheads" - is there any way to effectively program a ship to hit the planet in combat-mode once and then withdraw for a continued strategic move? Since the ship only needs one pass it's survival chances  would be greatly enhanced by getting out of close proximity fast once it's paylaod strikes.
<<
>>
Cyrus
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 15:33
   One thing you can do to make the Engine Destroying weapons useful is put them on a smaller hull, like a destroyer.  That gets a +25 to defense, put on stealth and scattering armor +30 to defense, put on ECM 3 +60 to defense, train the ship and fleet to max before using them +40 to defense.  I haven't used engine destroying weapons with this strategy, but I've used PPB's at max range succesfully against battleship and dreadnought sized ships.  They ended up having something like a 1% chance to hit even with a combat sensor.
<<
>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 16:46
   "engine destroyers/small hulls" - I can see the advantages - but i do wonder about their ability to avoid all hits in a target rich environment. Unfortunately my racial traits produce an additional -20% defence bonus so my vessels will not be very good at dodging. That said, I am beginning to see the advantages of sticking 1 engine-killing cannon on everything ... even if i lose the engagement it will stop the fleet moving on.
   PS. to anyone interested in the political situation of this game have a look at the "face of the enemy" - narrative thread elsewhere ... [Ed: This thread appended the words "(Destroy this Ship!)" to the same title.  Don't confuse the two.]
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 06 June 2001 17:21
   Of course, whether or not engine-killers are a good idea also depends on his degree of support (namely, repair ships -- and possibly resupply?  I don't recall what happens to supply with a destroyed engine), and how much damage you can inflict before the fleet is repaired.  If you can't take advantage of the (quite possibly temporary) immobilization / slowing down, engine-killers won't be a good idea.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 06 June 2001 17:32
   Originally posted by Taqwus:
   "...I don't recall what happens to supply with a destroyed engine), and how much damage you can inflict before the fleet is repaired..."

   IIRC, a repaired engine (after being a destroyed component) gets no supply directly unless of course you have a QR or Solar Collectors or are at a planet with a Resupply Depot.  Also IIRC, a ship / fleet will be repaired as long as it is in the same sector as a SY or RepairBay and has at least 1 component left intact.  The rate of repair depends on SY's and RB's levels and numbers of them (they do stack).
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 06 June 2001 17:37
   re: plague bomb ships..
   Assuming he doesn't have sensors everywhere, park a cloaked SYS near one of his systems. Now crank out a few cheap, fast DISPOSBLE escorts and send them at the planets, especially planets with no ship defenders.(chances are they wouldn't survive dropping their load no matter what, so..)
<<
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 21:43
   I once ran into a problem where my small three system empire was attacked by a fleet of twenty ships (most of them cruiser or above).
   I sent a small fleet out with this combo:
3 destroyer all shields
2 frigates, all engine killers
   I only got 1 ship but that was enough.  Rather than dropping the movementless ship they kept in the fleet and sat there for ages.  Once their supply ran out and I had emassed a large enough fleet I sent in missile ships and boarding ships, gained a lot of tech.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 07 June 2001 14:28
[Ed: reply to previous]
   This works well against the AI, but a human would sacrifice the movementless ship.  Or at least send a repair ship to rescue it; maybe with a ship or two defending the movementless ship.
<<
>>
dumbluck
Corporal
posted 08 June 2001 09:32
   Originally posted by Mordante:
   "Regarding;
   "crystalline armour and massive guns" - the problem is that the armour doesn't pump the shields until it is damaged (assuming it survives the damage) and since the massive phased polarons are doing 250+ the armour belt is mostly destroyed at the first volley rendering later shield augmentation mimimal. I have seen crystalline armour clad ships work well against low damage organic cannons but not against massive endgame damage."

   I beg to disagree.  It has been shown mathematically that unless you can deal more damage than can be pumped back in by the CA, you can NEVER hurt the CA ship!!!
   Here is the thread that demonstrates it (it's the original post in the thread that you are interested in):
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/001307-3.html
   Hope you find the thread informative.  I did.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 08 June 2001 12:09
[Ed: reply to previous]
   dl,
   I think this would not help just yet. IIRC he is using regular shields and facing PPB's so he might as well not have any shields.
   Once he has phased shields your strategy should work.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 08 June 2001 16:50
   Originally posted by dumbluck:
   "I beg to disagree. It has been shown mathematically that unless you can deal more damage than can be pumped back in by the CA, you can NEVER hurt the CA ship!!!"

   Ah, not quite.
   If you drain the shields, and then hit with a high-damage weapon, you will hurt the ship.
625 shields, tons of Crystal Armor (Ed:=CA).
WMG hit, 300 damage.
325 shields, to CA.
WMG hit.
25 shields to CA.
WMG hit.  275 damage destroys one Crystalline Armor segment.
300 shields to CA minus 1.
   From then on, if you have no shield regenerators, and at least 300 crystal effect points left, then you will not be hurt further.
   The enemy could always refit their ships to alternate shield depleters and Massive PPBs.
   Then the Shield depleter kills your shield, the PPB destroys one crystalline armor while recharging your shields, repeat till death.
   Of course, a shield depleter plus Crystalline shards will not recharge your shields and your armor will be useless.
<<

The orginal thread ends there.  Here is the after-action report:

>>
Mordante
Private First Class
posted 16 June 2001 17:22
    Right Chaps, a while ago I promised a report of the outcome of the clash of fleets envisaged by my "face of the enemy" post and here are some initial thoughts. Despite the various PBEM woes involved in hosting turns with huge fleet battles we have managed to progress 7 turns or so and the war is almost over.

   Background:
   First, the order of battle itself; - at the eve of the war the enemy axis had around 600 ships (supported by no-maintenance or low maintenance economics)
   Around 150 were of the design I originally guessed would be fielded:
"Tyrant mk 3"
1xBridge
5xCrew
5XLifeSupport
2x Quantom Engines (+3 move)
1x Solar Sail3 (+3 move)
1x Combat sensors 3 (+65 attack)
1x ECM 3 (+60 defense)
1x Multiplex Tracking 5
1x Stealth armour (cloak and defense bonus)
1x Emergency Propulsion 5
1x Self destruct device
6x Phased Shield Generator 5
5x Point defense Cannon 5
10x Massive Phased Polaron Beams
   Another 150 were a similar design mounting massive depleted uranium cannons for speed of building.
   Another 150 were smaller hulls (battleships and dreadnaughts) armed with nullspace weapons.
   The remaining 150 ish ships were a mish-mash of smaller designs with a scattering of crystal-equipped battleships fielding multiple cystalline armour units and Phased Polaron Cannons.
   A handful of nullspace baseships completed the enemy order of battle.
   To support all this the enemy Axis had over 300 planets combined between them - a combined mineral income of around 1.2 million, a massive research budget, over 200 base shipyards and assorted mines and fighters and defensive units.
   Enemy fleet doctrine seemed to be based on the concept of massive projection of power around self-healing and supplying fleets; Each large fleet sported multiple repair base ships, mine-sweepers, warp gate openers, warp gate closers, and misc. utility ships. All enemy vessels were equipped with stealth armour for level 1 cloaking, but relatively few of them had been eqipped with quantom reactors for limitless supply.
   Strategically, the enemy axis had constructed a network of artificial warp gates to bring all production systems close together (up to 6 warp points in single sectors) - one system was effectly sealed with 10 warp points. The idea of this was to enable the relatively slow base ship fleets (speed 8) to traverse home space quickly and effectively...
***************************************
   Our side;
   At the beginning of hostilities the allied forces numbered around 500 ships in total. Of these, 100 (the pride of my fleet) were baseships of a design I constructed with ideas and feedback from my earlier post!
"Arkangel Defensive"
1x Master Computer
2x Quantom Engines (+3 move)
1x Solar Sail3 (+3 move)
1x Combat sensors 3 (+65 attack)
1x ECM 3 (+60 defense)
1x Multiplex Tracking 5
1x Stealth armour (cloak and defense bonus)
1x Scattering armour (scan block and defense)
7x Phased Shield Generator 5
2x Point defense Cannon 5
3x Massive Shield Depletors
8x Massive Anti Proton Beams
1x Heavy Energy Dampner 3
   Notes:
   Master computer saves 50k tonnes on the design - I was intending a surprise attack and envisaged first volley kills. I was gambling that large-scale enemy deloyment of computer virus weapons would not occur quickly enough to alter the flow of the war.
   The Stealth and Scattering armour stack (i believe) and the addition +30% defense is critical.
   7 Phased shields for 2625 points of protection allows the ships to survive a first volley from *almost* any set of base ship weapons in the game.
   *Apart from*
   3 Massive Shield Depleters, which in my view are an absolute bargain and critical weapon system.
   8 Anti-protons are (imho) superior to Phased Polarons in the endgame. They are cheaper, and the ability to hit at range 8 makes large groups of ships more effective in strategic combat. I often saw my shorter-ranged opponent vessels failing to navigate their own ship groups to get shots in while my baseships were happy to snipe from behind their own ranks. The analogy I make is the macedonian phalanx with the longer sarrista? (long spear) allowing more men to fight in a smaller front against their enemies with shorter spears. People have (rightly) commented that this is less of an issue in smaller engagements but I was planning from the outset for a big clash of arms in a small region of space.
   Damage-wise the main guns of my baseship can strip away 2,250 points of shields every turn out to range 7, and do 1,800 points of normal damage every turn out to range 8. The damage increases significantly at close range.
   The final sting in the tail of these base ships is the crystalline Heavy Energy Dampner gun - which with a successful strike (practically assured vs large opposing vessels) will delay *all* weapon fire on the target ship for 9 turns - yep! (a sitting duck for 9 turns). At 100 tonnes, this weapon system was destined to be fitted to every vessel in my fleet.
   In retrospect, the base ships didn't make the best use of the energy dampner because there was no combatent they couldn't kill in one shot!
   I didn't include a multiplex tracking system on my base ship because simulated combats made me doubt that it actually works reliably (if at all)
   Few Point defenses because frankly, a no-maintenance opponent will build ships in preference to fighters every time. (Plus; I had a wealth of friendly fighters)
   A final point from a design perspective - when mounting weapons on a design be extremely carefull to add them to the hull in the order you want them to fire in combat. ie. add all the shield depletors before you add conventional weapons - if you fiddle and add and remove things later the chances are that you will end up with ships that fire their main guns before the shield depletors (a farce!)
   During the course of the war the Arkangel design received two minor upgrades; the addition of a light engine destroying beam and the addition of a large repulser beam at the cost of one anti proton mount. The engine killing weapon allowed individual Arkangel ships to be used for impromptu suicide fleet interdiction (see later) - while the repulsor beam worked fairly well at breaking up enemy formations and was admittedly quite amusing!
   The rest of the allied force was equipped as follows;
   Another 200 ships (cruisers, battleships, and dreadnaughts) as null-space attack ships - Heavily Shielded (6 phased shields) -fast (max engines and solar sails) - light pds cover, defensive armour combo (stealth and scattering) - 2-4 nullspace beams of varying sizes, and an energy dampner.
   My ally, (an organic race) had managed a fleet of 200 odd vessels utilising a mix of seeking parasite missile ships, and  projectile dreadnaughts and baseships utilising shield depletion and enveloping acid globules for big hits. The economics of the organic race meant these vessels were cheap! (almost half the cost of my own ships) He was using organic armour in preference to shields and of course the enveloping acid globules are organic heavy in resource cost. The effect was to make the ships a fine balance between minerals and organics, thus cutting down build time.
   The last allied ships were carriers, minesweepers, repair ships and suicide fleet interdictors;
   Between us, my ally and I had around 25 huge carriers packed with fighters. My plan was to use these defensively, moving them to intercept invasions of our space. My own fighters were a peculiarly defensive design, mounting 3 shield units on a heavy frame with a single shard cannon for offense. Combined with the crystalline shield-lending system facility, (constructed in each of my systems) this meant that each of my fighters was protected by 240 points of shielding (proof against 4 pds hits!) Each carrier transported 312 of these fighers - and in the event of invasion, between 4-6 carriers could move to the target system and launch their groups into space as a response to warp point opening. I had calculated that 4 groups of 312 fighters could probably stop 40 base ships in system defense.
   The fleet interdictors were battlecruisers (fast) heavily shielded (7 shields) and armed with only engine-killing beams. These ships were stationed in every vulnerable system and the philosophy was this; that a single fast vessel could close at speed 7 in battle against speed 4 enemy baseships and have a very good chance of firing first at (range 6). It fires; the target base ship loses it's engines and movement, the suicide engine-killer is then obliterated but the damage is done. The entire enemy fleet will stop dead for the strategic turn - buying time for the real defenders to arrive. For the good of my conscience the suicide engine killers were armed with master computers not conventional crew!
   Strategically, I prepared for the war by sealing critical systems with the 10 warp point defence trick. (kindly revealed to me in the previous thread) I used 8 class 5 warp point openers to do the job and had sealed 12 systems before the invasion began.
   My overall fleet doctrine was multiple independence; all ships had quantum reactors for unlimited supply - all ships had some pds defence. Attack fleets had several repair tenders and minesweepers attached. A mix of combat vessels rounded out the fleets; divided roughly evenly between Baseships, Nullspace Dreadnaughts, and smaller combatents. Fleet orders were "wall", "optimum range". My slowest ships were the baseships at speed 9 (an advantage over my non- "propulsion expert" foe that would later serve me well)
   In preparation for the inevitable hostilities I moved the majority of my fleet into position around a fleet and ship training world on the rim of my space and positioned a warp point opener close by.
   My plan was to strike first at a system bordering one of the enemy's central nexus systems (ten warp points) entering via a wormhole that would then be closer than 8 sectors from the warp point to the more critical system. I hoped to engage an enemy half-prepared, and taken by surprise by the directness and speed of my assault. I had faith in the ship designs I was using, simulations showed my baseships defeating the enemy vessels routinely 1 on 1, and often getting kills at 2 to 1 against. I had around 150 top class ships in the first strike and I planned a scourged earth assault to the centre of the enemy power.
   Negative points were the economy; My fleet build up had come close to crippling me. I was paying 2million points per turn in fleet upkeep (a figure than could rise by up to a third when I left the protection of crystalline restructuring facilities) - Assuming no combat losses I would go bankrupt in 4 turns after the invasion.
   Everywhere I scrapped research facilities and built mineral mines on marginal worlds (already having the 30% bonuses from system and planet facilities) - but the truth was that I was loosing the economic war and had to attack now to stand a chance of winning. The no-maintenance economics of the enemy was worth 2million+ points of advantage a turn to him, and with every ship build and fielded, that advantage only grew.
   My best hope was to force an early fleet action and to cause (and receive) some serious casualties... a grim situation.
   Still, the fleet was ready, the strategies were set, my organic ally signalled his readiness to strike elsewhere against the no-maintenance tyrant and I gave the orders to open the warp point to destiny!

   While the opposing fleets prepared for physical conflict and final preparations were made for the various invasion plans another contest was already taking place in the sphere of intelligence operations.
   The long-term ally of the no-maintenance Emphyrian Hive was a race known as the Vaculuums Protectorate; they were unique for combining crystalline technology akin to my own, with a nearly zero-maintenance infrastructure. Unlike the Hive themselves, however, the Vaculuums had ignored the neccessity for resource infrastructure and had concencentrated almost solely on research facilities on their many planets. They were reliant on trade from their larger neighbours in the Hive, and in order to pay the small portion of maintenance they needed on their sizable fleet, the Vacuulums depended on the continuance of partnership status.
   This was a weakness; just how much of a weakness I think came as a surprise to us all.
   My organic tech ally coordinated with my own intelligence operatives and together we began to conduct increasingly serious attempts to disrupt the Vaculumm/Hive partnership. Typically including a single high value attack (puppet politic parties) with several smaller actions (coms intercepts, resource procurements, ship bombs etc), we each concluded with several communications mimics in the effort to deny the Vaculuums the fruits of their alliance with the Hive.
   In the month before the potential invasion date we were successful and the pact was reduced. In fact, later analysis confirms that our success went far beyond simply disrupting the alliance and extended into the realm of planetary destruction and large scale fleet losses. Hive and Vaculuum vessels had been co-existing in the same sectors, and with the communication mimic inspired state of war, a sudden violent convulsion rocked the military forces of once allied powers, leading to the destruction of several worlds and the obliteration of many vessels.  Rioting then ensued, costing the Vaculuums all the worse for the loss of their supportive partnership.
   Then the Vaculuums made potentially the worst single decision of their history in an effort to save the cream of their fleet from abandonment through non-payment of maintenance.
   Orders went out to the Vaculuum fleet to destroy over 50% of its own starship strength. Choosing a form of violent triage in the field, the Vaculuum government wished to sacrifice its older ships to destruction while sparing the newer designs (and perhaps gaining a little combat experience).
   A dozen engagements flared and Vaculuum ships fired on their cousins and comrades in arms. Over a hundred smaller, outclassed, combatant vessels were eliminated and perhaps the Vaculuum protectorate felt saved from resource shortfall and enforced abandonment of its prize vessels.
   This was not to be and in a single decision spelled the end of Vaculuum power.
   The combined effect of so many violent ship losses caused the remaining Vaculuum colonies to riot against the government. Order disappeared and the Protectorate faced a stark future of zero resource income and a fleet that seemed inevitably doomed.
   To their credit perhaps, they decided quickly on the only possible course to preserve the axis military advantage. The Vaculuum Protectorate surrendered entirely to the Hive; placing all colonies, citizens, and warships under the direct control of the Emphyrian Hive.
   Since the Hive never pay maintenance the remnants of the Vaculuum fleet were saved.
   This surrender catapulted the Hive imperial score dangerously clear of the Senate of Shards; marking the formation of an economic and territorial powerhouse of awesome potential. Almost 600 ships under one flag; 300 worlds united; 220 base ship yards and a research budget to put the ancients to shame!
   But it also removed the benefits of trade and racial speciality; the Hive now stood alone against us; weakened in the arena of intelligence operations and awaiting the pure military strike to come.
**************************************
   In essence, the Vaculuum Protectorate Player was punished for operating a fleet beyond his means! Maintenance was being paid through the fruits of a partnership treaty and such things are extremely vulnerable. The communications mimic did a lot of damage and the destroyed planets certainly added to the rioting which followed the destruction of his own ships.
   From one perspective the "fire on own ship" strategy seems a plausable shortcut to reducing ship numbers via the traditional scrap-ship route. But reasonably speaking, I guess the crew gets to leave first when scrapping a ship at a spaceyard while blowing up previously friendly ships in space is really an act of murder (punished accordingly by massive unrest).
   This one decision was of vital importance and it killed a game position 104 turns old over the course of one turn.
   In retrospect the Vaculuum player should have given the old ships to the Hive (since the Hive pays no maintenance) - but such decisions are rarely so clear at the time.
   Anyway, this saw the end of the Vaculuums - on the very eve of the invasion of Hive space.
   Intelligence and misfortune had destroyed one of the axis powers - pure might and clash of arms would be required for the other.
*************************************
   Next time - "first contact - the race to Arklite" when the Senate of Shards mixed fleet encounters a hundred Hive baseships in warp point defence. [Ed: still waiting for the promised follow-up article.]
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 10 September 2001 15:33
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   There are a number of basic ship design strategies; some of these can only be done effectively with a quasi-newtonian propulsion mod.
   Nimble & frail:  Ships are faster than anything else around, and lack any shields or armor.  Theory:  You can't lose if the enemy can't hit you.
   SwarmShips:  Twice the ships, half the size.  Weak offense/defense due to size, but tens to hundreds of ships at a time.  Theory:  Rapid building, safety in numbers, finer control over fleet composition.
   MuscleShips:  All weapons, with token defenses, and moderate speed.  Theory:  You can't lose if the enemy is already dead.
   FortressShips:  All systems organized for defense.  Heavy shields/armor, lots of protection against specialty weapons.  Moderate speed, few weapons.  Theory:  If they can't hurt you, you can't lose.
   I am deeply devoted to the FortressShip.  I've designed and built $100,000 DNs with that goal in mind.
My dad goes for the nimble & frail.  Zero KT of defense, but 13+ movement ships that rarely get hit.
   Which do you fall under?  Or do you have your own style?
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 15:50
   Swarmships all the way.  Swarmer of choice is the Light Cruiser.  10% defense bonus, and large mounts make them pretty viable in the late game (in sufficient numbers of course   ).  Defense comes mainly from stealth/scattering armor, ECM, and ship/fleet experience, combined with a 20% defense bonus.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Major
posted 10 September 2001 16:22
   "I need guns.  Lots of guns."  Well, perhaps not *extremely* so, but for my BBs/DNs I tend to favor firepower and speed.  But then, I play vs. the AI, which doesn't exactly fare well against extensively-trained ships, so being hit isn't that often an issue.
<<
>>
capnq
Major
posted 10 September 2001 16:29
   I guess I'd fit under muscle ships. I've been known to sacrifice an engine or two to fit one more weapon in.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 10 September 2001 16:59
   Max speed, stealth and scattering when they are available, a PD mount, 3-4 shields, sensors, and the guns for me. Occasionally I'll go nuts and make a ship with like 8 shields, but that's ussually when someone pulls out a Null-Space cannon
<<
>>
Neo
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 17:04
   My preferred design so far is kind of a hybrid - Nimble Fortress ships.  They have has many engines and movement enhancers as possible, a goodly amount of defense, and just a few powerful guns, and maybe a couple of missiles on the larger ships for long range planetary bombardment.  I also like to swarm then into large fleets up to about 30-40 ships if I can with support ships - repair, refueler, mine sweepers, and specialized boarding ships with tractor beams and shield, weapon and engine damagers.
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 17:24
   I would say there is another type you missed and that is the balanced ship.
   Good offensive/defensive abilities with decent speed.
   This is the type I useally go for. Especially in solo games.
   Having said that, my ships in multiplayer tend to adapt to what my opponents are using and what I have to work with. I have used all the types in one game or another.
<<
>>
LazarusLong42
Corporal
posted 10 September 2001 17:54
   I'm with Rich04; I go for very balanced ships.  Just like with weapons, each of those ship types has inherent advantages/disadvantages.  Nimble ships can't be easily hit by Fortresses; Swarms are so small they're worthless against Muscle; and so forth.
   A balanced ship has a chance against all other types, I think.
   Of course, my true favorite is a swarm of Fortress and Muscle ships.  Who says you can't have a fleet of 70 DN's?
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 18:52
   When I want balance (which is always) I go for balanced fleets rather than balanced ships.  Because weapons have different ranges/reload times it would just seem to work better that way.
<<
>>
Natsef-Amun
Private First Class
posted 10 September 2001 18:58
   For me it's Nimble & Frail all the way. In my current game I've built only unarmored, unshielded ships with good engines and as many weapons as possible.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 September 2001 20:05
   I'm with Neo all the way nible forts. ( late stages of the game )
<<
>>
God Emperor
Captain
posted 10 September 2001 23:23
   I'm a member of the Balanced Ship brigade. I like my ships fast, well armoured (usually with little shielding), lots of PDC's (to deal with fighters and any missiles) and plenty of weapons. Against humans of course, I adjust the PDC and shield level to reflect the ships I'm fighting. Battlecruisers are my preferred weapons platform (ship).....
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 September 2001 23:33
   I almost always put max engines on my ships, but at the same time I put 8 phased shields V on my DNs. I suppose I'm a shield-heavy player since I don't use a lot of armour, but I do put stealth armour and scattering armour on my ships for the 30% bonus though. As to ships strategy I found a ripper beam-armed DN firing at point blank range is the most successful in my current PBW game.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 10 September 2001 23:46
   quote:  "I like my ships fast, well armoured (usually with little shielding), lots of PDC's (to deal with fighters and any missiles) and plenty of weapons."

   Hey, you can't have it all ways.  Moderate everything is what you've got.
   I should note that in order to have really fast ships (relative to others, of course), you need to be playing under a quasi-newtonian propulsion mod, which forces you to sacrifice large amounts of hull space to engines in order to get high movement.
   EG: P&N v2, A battlecruiser can go 12MP (using 240kT) or can go 6MP and carry 3 more shield generators or Triple-Largemount APBs
<<
>>
Cyrien
Corporal
posted 11 September 2001 00:55
   Balanced... with defense being either armor or shields based on what the enemy has.
   Normally maxed engines with at least 2 shields then special systems and weapons with leftover spots being used for armor.  Always have Stealth and Scattering though.  Unless I am beating you around so much that it doesn't matter if I have them or not.  *EG*
<<
>>
CyC
Private First Class
posted 11 September 2001 02:09
   I fill the ship up with max movement possible (do not play the quasi movement mod)
than place 5 or 6 point defences cannons on depending on the enemy.  Then split the rest up evenly between weapons and shields.
   Favourite Hull is the battleship as I feel it has a good balance between speed and size while still allowing me to have Huge weapon mounts.
   If the enemy has quite a few fighters or missiles I will place a few Point defence ships in my fleets for extra potection. Point defence ships are normally battle cruisers with max movement 3 shields 1 gun and the rest point defence.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 11 September 2001 04:08
   I'd say a Swarm/Muscle hybrid.  Not exactly small ships (BBs, 800kT), but they do better hunting in packs.  Using plain old vanilla tech, I max out engines, put on one, *maybe* two shields, Stealth/Scattering, and 3 Organic or Crystalline (depends which one I have  .  Weapons are 3xH-EAGs (w/ Organic) or ShieldOnly/ArmorSkip combos (w/ Crystalline), 1xH-EngineKiller, 1xH-WeaponKiller, 1xPDC.  A seperate design is devoted completely to PDC, usually retrofitted to the main attack design after attaining substantial experience.
   With quasi-Newtonian movement, I would probably sacrifice a small amount of firepower for increased speed.  Probably have three designs, one ditching a EAG, one ditching the EngineKiller, one ditching the WeaponKiller.  With P&N2, I would probably also get a few fortresses that sit on warps and act as staging points for the the pack fleets, or as flagships for multiple packs invading.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 11 September 2001 04:48
   quote:  "Using plain old vanilla tech, I max out engines, put on one, *maybe* two shields, Stealth/Scattering, and 3 Organic or Crystalline (depends which one I have . Weapons are 3xH-EAGs (w/ Organic) or ShieldOnly/ArmorSkip combos (w/ Crystalline), 1xH-EngineKiller, 1xH-WeaponKiller, 1xPDC."

   Interesting. I've tried that weapon killer beam a number of times and my conclusion was that it is utterly useless. I had a DN filled up with about 6 of those (heavy mount) and in 30 combat turns it wouldn't even kill all the weapons on another DN that didn't fire back (both ships under manual control in simulator)!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 11 September 2001 22:03
   quote:  "I had a DN filled up with about 6 of those (heavy mount) and in 30 combat turns it wouldn't even kill all the weapons on another DN that didn't fire back."

   A specialty weapon does not leave any "excess" damage, so if it cannot destroy a weapon, it does nothing.  You need to use it against smaller-mounted weapons, or at point-blank range (to increase damage).
<<
>>
Saxon
Corporal
posted 11 September 2001 11:45
   Balance is nice, specialization is better.
   Generally, you know who you are fighting and can refit most of your ships to just the right form to fight them.  Then, when you get them to surrender, you choose a new enemy and refit your ships to a new design suited to take them out.  Further, you have improved your technology along the way and were going to do a refit anyway.
   However, if you are facing a couple of wars with different enemy styles, specialization can get you killed very fast.  So, my ship style changes depending on the political situation.  One enemy, specialize ships to kill them.  Several enemies, balanced ships.
   However, I stay away from the swarm as you always lose some ships in each battle.  That amounts to a loss of resources and many games boil down to an economic slugfest, so I hate to waste.
<<
>>
Captin
Private First Class
posted 11 September 2001 15:28
   Put me down for Nimble and Frail.
   My favorite is:
BC
Max Speed
1 or 2 shields
4 Large Mount PBB 5
3 PDC
   Can get to bases, and can stick and move everything else.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 12 September 2001 03:09
   Ya, I normally use tactical, so I can use the weapon killers where they will actually kill weapons.  Like I can have all my ships in range target an enemy PDC ship so any fighters I'm using don't get pulverized.  If it's a ship with only uber-sized guns, I'm not going to waste my firepower on it.
   Sometimes too I'll ditch the weapon killers on my attack ships and just put them on defense ships.  Their purpose is basically to kill if possible, and if not, severely maim, attackers.  Take out repair ships and you effectively kill an invasion while reinforcements arrive.  Would be nice if I could have more control over the combat AI so I could use this strategy in multiplayer (once I figure out what the heck is wrong with my computer   )
<<
>>
Cyrus
Private First Class
posted 12 September 2001 04:31
   I generally perfer high ECM ships.  Usually only one shield generator, stealth and scattering armor, and longer ranged weapons.  The ECM and armor give -90% to Hit and along with my normal racial -25% to Hit allow my ships to last even with a fairly low amount of shields.
<<
>>
dumbluck
Sergeant
posted 12 September 2001 12:03
   Fast/Muscle hybrid.
   "Hit 'em fast and hard, then get the hell out of Dodge," as I like to say.  Tractor/Weapon/Repulsor strategy is mandatory for this philosophy.
<<
>>
CyC
Private First Class
posted 12 September 2001 15:40
   They do not have a tractor beam with a large enough range to be via able.
   Why would you need to drag something only 4 squares away closer ?
   I want something that can bring things in from 20 squares away.
   OK going a bit over board there but you get the point.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 17:48
[Ed: reply to previous]
   What if you are using Ripper Beams with a range of 3 like my close combat class of DNs? In fact if you have two opposing ships each beefed up with over 100% defensive bonus (ECM, stealth/scattering armour, racial points...), that two or three squares in range makes a hugh difference in weapon accuracy.
   By the way, a normal mount tractor beam operates exactly like a massive mount one, so you can forget about anything over a normal mount. That 20kt of space for the tractor combined with a 40kt heavy mount repulser beam (on my DN) is quite well spent in my opinion.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 18:53
   I guess I go for Balanced muscle ships. First LC, then BC's. Skip Cruisers. Max engines and solar sail, speed 10. 5 large PPB, all armor, maybe one shield. ECM etc all standard. Then research Battleships and engines 7, so that the BB get speed 10 too. One PDC on each ship, plus a few dedicated LC PD ships. As weapons I use mostly PPB, later on added some shield depleters, and some null space ships especially against organics.  This is all on PBW , strategic combat. Retrofit all to have MC when you meet a Psychic race, and use SDD because of the low amount of shields you are vulnerable to boarding parties.
<<


* DREADNOUGHT:
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 21:35
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I know everybody has their own preference on ship designs, I mainly use the same basic designs for all my games: (note, I generally don't play with shields, just makes the game more fun and challenging)

Mutha Class:  Dreadnought
Bridge, 3 crew 3 life
4 engine, 2 supply storage, 2 cargo bays
ecm, Combat sensors, Multiplexal tracking
4 point defense cannons
4 meson blasters
3 Quantom torpedoes
10 Fighter Bays
2 Sat bays
2 minelayers
8 armor
... [Ed: split into separate sub-topics to allow grouping of alternate designs]
<<
>>
Isbla
Private First Class
posted 07 June 2001 04:41
   Here is the basic design for my ships once I get Temporal weapons:
Master computer.
max engines, 1000-1500 shields.
multiplex tracking, ecm, combat sensor
Tachyon Projectors. Up to 5 or 6 on my Dreadnoughts.
3 or 4 pdc's.
Solar Sail
Quantum Reactor or Solar Genorators.
Cloaking device.
Some armor.
   These ships, either BB or DN can beat just about anything the comp sends at me. If they are going heavy missile, then I build a flakker. Which is just Engines, shields and pdc's. With the guidance systems.
<<


* BATTLESHIP:
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 21:35
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I know everybody has their own preference on ship designs, I mainly use the same basic designs for all my games: (note, I generally don't play with shields, just makes the game more fun and challenging)
... [Ed: split into separate sub-topics to allow grouping of alternate designs]
Siege class: Battleship
bridge, 2 crew, 2 life
5 eng, 1 ecm, multiplexal tracking
10 plasma missiles (cap ship depending
1 Heavy mount wave motion gun
4 armor
...
<<


* LIGHT CRUISER:
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 07 June 2001 01:53
   The ship I use the most is a LC. I've used this design in almost every game I've played.
Max engines
4 x large PPB's
2 x shields
1 x ECM, Combat Sensor, Multiplex tracking and Solar sail
   I've had great luck with it as my major fleet fighting ship. It's usually good until my opponetns get BB, then it's a little weak.
   My larger ship designs change from game to game so I don't really have a standard design.
<<
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 07 June 2001 06:34
   Marty, I use a similar design when using organic weapons.  I only use this when I use organic because of organic armor (once again I don't like shields) The design is stupendous and can usually take down just about anything if used right.  Once took on an entire minor empire with just one ship!
<<


* DESTROYER:
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 06 June 2001 21:35
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I know everybody has their own preference on ship designs, I mainly use the same basic designs for all my games: (note, I generally don't play with shields, just makes the game more fun and challenging)
... [Ed: split into separate sub-topics to allow grouping of alternate designs]
Destroy class: Destroyer
1 bridge life crew
6 engines
ecm, multiplexal tracking, combat sensors
4 armor
2 quantum torpedoes
2 Meson Blaster
1 point defense cannon
   These are some of my most common designs what are some of yours?
<<


* STARBASES:
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 11 June 2001 14:17
[Ed: this is from a different thread, but applicable.]
   I have been doing tradeoffs for starbases armed with massive mount weapons. Here is the design I plan to use - number of the component to include, name, size, damage, cost in minerals/ organics/ radioactives, then total size/ damage/ costs
1 - Starbase hull when selected 2500/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Combat Sensors III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Multiplex Tracking (5) 10/10 350/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
6 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 180/600 4200/0/1200
8 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 320/320 6400/0/0
9 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 180/180 7650/0/2340
Total non weapons 780/1300 26400/1000/4640
All weapons are Heavy mount.
4 - Anti Proton Beam XII 120/210 1600/0/480 - 480/840 6400/0/1920
5 - Phased Polaron Beam V 120/210 2000/0/1200 - 600/1050 10000/0/6000
8 - Ripper Beam IV 80/140 800/0/640 - 640/1120 6400/0/5120
Total weapons 1720/3010 22800/0/13040
Grand total 46 components at 2500/4310 49200/1000/17680
Ratio nonweapons to weapons 0.45/0.43 - 1.1/all/0.35
   This design is for late in the game when the enemy can be expected to have phased shield generators on ships but will also be attacking with hundreds of fighters. The APB have range 14 so can strike fighter groups on the turn before the fighters get in range. The PPB have range 12 and can blow many fighters away (because they lack phased shields), but are 5/4 the minerals cost of APB at 12 for the same hits per unit space. Unfortunately fighters with max engines and afterburners move 12 in combat, so the PPB get to hit only if the base survives the first round. The RB only have range 9, but the minerals cost per hit is 60% of APB and 44% of PPB. The hits per unit space is 5/4 the APB and 4/3 the PPB. Also the damage value for RB is cheaper minerals per unit - 3/4 the APB and 60% the PPB. So you get both cheaper hits and armor at the cost of lousy range and not being able to shoot fighters. At point blank the Ripper is king. Minerals per hit is 65% APB and 48% PPB. Hits per unit space is 15% greater than APB and 25% greater than PPB. I looked at the other weapons but they were all space wasters per unit hit per turn.  Meson Blasters were a close match for APB at range 12, but lacked the extra range to 14. They were not shield penetrating like PPB and did not have the firepower of RB. Point defense is a waste of space. I will have PD only weapon battle cruisers for missiles and to help with fighters. Also I will have PPB armed fighters to take out fighters, and rocket pod armed fighters to take out missile ships and carriers. All that leaves is baseships and many small stacks of rocket pod armed fighters as a threat. Since I will have seven of these bases backed up by two carriers with 400 fighters and 14 yard bases to do repairs, I do not anticipate any great defeats. Now all I have to do is find the 3.5 million minerals maintenance money - about 20 turns for 50 sphereworlds.....
   Edit - combat simulator shows fighters with max best engines and afterburners move *9* not 12. This base design took out a stack of 100 nicely without a scratch. Unfortunately carriers launch in packs of five, and the base only has nine weapons that can shoot fighters. Thats why you have to back them up with PD ships and your own fighters.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 11 June 2001 14:26
[Ed: reply to previous]
   You may find it difficult to hit those fighters at long range, accuracy goes down 10% per square and they are hard to hit to begin with. You might want to build a bunch of PD sats if you are going to face a lot of fighters or build a training facility to get you base a high level of experiance.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 11 June 2001 14:50
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
   "You may find it difficult to hit those fighters at long range ..."
   I know, that's why I must include PD ships and my own 400 fighters everywhere. I am not really worried about fleets, because I will usually have range on them with massive mounts. But fighters move so fast in combat that they can blow me away with rocket pods if not intercepted. I plan on having all the ships and bases collected into fleets with BASES as the fleet leaders so the ships will stay close to papa.
<<
>>
mottlee
Sergeant
posted 09 June 2001 05:03
   An FYI: in some MOD PACs the PDs do not take out seekers or fighters, they work on mines only.  There are anti-fighter missles (work great too) they have a 2 for reload so fighters do have a chance to get in.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 11:01
[Ed:  Start of a new thread.  This is not deja-vu.  This thread starts eerily similar to the first in this topic, but with a different focus.]
   I have been doing tradeoffs for starbases versus heavy carriers for defending warp points to launch 400 heavy fighters in one turn onto the strategic map. Here is the design I plan to use - number of the component to include, name, size, damage, cost in minerals/ organics/ radioactives, then total size/ damage/ costs.
1 - Starbase hull when selected 2500/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
6 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 180/600 4200/0/1200
8 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 320/320 6400/0/0
9 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 180/180 7650/0/2340
The same as the base I posted in "ripper beams" [Ed: that is the first thread] without the Combat Sensors and Multiplex tracking.
Total non fighter 760/1280 25650/1000/4640
50 - Fighter Bay III 30/30 200/0/0 1500/1500 10000/0/0
Each is 90 cargo launch 1/combat and 4/game. So total is 4500 cargo 50/combat 200/game
12 - Cargo Bay III 20/20 200/0/0 240/240 2400/0/0 total 3000 cargo
Total fighter components 1740/1740 12400/0/0 and 7500 cargo
Grand total 88 components at 2500/3020 38050/1000/4640
Ratio nonfighter to fighter 0.43/0.73 - 2.1/all/all
With heavy fighters at 25 cargo each the base can hold 300 - spare space for attritition.
Shields are 3000 and regenerate 180 per combat turn.

1 - Heavy Carrier hull when selected 600/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
3 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 90/300 2100/0/600
4 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 160/160 3200/0/0
3 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 60/60 2550/0/780
5 - Quantum Engine III 10/20 460/0/80 50/100 2300/0/400
1 - Solar Sail III 20/20 400/0/100 same
1 - Cloaking Device III 40/40 2000/0/700 same
Total non fighter 500/860 18050/1000/3680
20 - Fighter Bay III 30/30 200/0/0 600/600 4000/0/0
Each is 90 cargo launch 1/combat and 4/game. So total is 1800 cargo 20/combat 80/game
5 - Cargo Bay III 20/20 200/0/0 100/100 1000/0/0 total 1250 cargo
Total fighter component 700/700 5000/0/0 and 3050 cargo
Grand total 45 components at 1200/1560 23050/1000/3680
Ratio nonfighter to fighter 0.71/1.23 - 3.6/all/all
With heavy fighters at 25 cargo each the carrier can hold 122 - spare space for attritition.
Shields are 1500 and regenerate 60 per combat turn.
   Two bases launch 100/combat 400/game hold 600 fighters and have 176 components
Five carriers launch 100/combat 400/game hold 610 fighters and have 225 components
Two bases are 6000 shields and 6040 damage. Two bases cost 76100/2000/9280
Five carriers are 7500 shields and 7800 damage. Five carriers cost 115250/5000/18400
   Carriers move 11 on the strategic map. Bases cannot move unless you put an Emergency Propulsion V pod on them, in which case they can move 5.
Carriers cost 151%/250%/198% compared to bases for the same fighter capability.
Total unit cost per hits to kill for carriers is 120%/190%/156% compared to bases.
If damaged but not destroyed, there are 27% more components on the carriers to be repaired.
   My conclusions - for defending a warp point bases make more sense than carriers. Especially since the bases can be refit for other purposes, while carriers require 50% components be fighter bays. Furthermore unless you are doing a long range rampage through enemy territory, it makes more sense to use EPP equipped bases and move forward one system at a time, consolidating your gained territory. A colony can store fighters in cargo facilities and launch 1000 per game turn, so there is no need for carriers at your colonies.
   To summarize - massed carriers are NOT cost effective for ANY purpose.
   Once you have learned Starbases and EPP V of course.....
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 June 2001 12:01
   I agree with you especially if you own a planet in the system. You can fly extra fighters from the planet to reinforce the base if needed. I like that combo, base plus fighters. If you fly the fighters in you can create your own special fighter type group sizes, as they stay grouped like you bring them in.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 13 June 2001 12:45
   Originally posted by LCC:
   "...Bases cannot move unless you put an Emergency Propulsion V pod on them, in which case they can move 5..."
   I thought that was taken out?????  What version are you running???
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 16:09
[Ed: reply to previous]
   V1.35 with TDM-Modpack - one is fine, I just checked. But if you try to add more it says you can only have one. That's fine with me since one is all I need. Warps and crosses a system in three game turns. It probably takes longer than three turns to consolidate a newly conquered system. Once you have warped through, you can launch your fighters on the strategic map and have them rejoin you when you are ready to warp to the next system down the road. Mobile bases HAH!
   If you replace all the fighter bays by cargo on the design for a third base then your cargo is 21750 holding 870 spare fighters. Costs 43050 0 4640 versus 661200 0 6090 for the rocket pod equipped fighters. In other words the fighters cost 15 times the cargo base cost. Build LOTS of space yard space stations to build fighters. To build 870 fighters in 20 turns you need 22 yards for another 200200 22000 33000 initial investment. If you start building the bases on the turn all your yard stations are built, then the fighters will be ready by the time the bases are built. Of course if you have plenty of idle colonies you could have them build fighters instead of using stations - they do not even need a yard....
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 16:47
   Originally posted by Nitram Draw:
   "Sounds like a bug but could be a neat feature! A mobile defense unit."

   NOT A BUG! It is just a big (2500 vs 1500)slow (0+5 vs 8+5) baseship. At least I hope MM sees it that way....
   Arrgh! I just thought, with no engines would you be unable to WARP? A fatal flaw in the plan if so...
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 13 June 2001 16:50
  Originally posted by LCC:
   "NOT A BUG! It is just a big (2500 vs 1500)slow (0+5 vs 8+5) baseship. At least I hope MM sees it that way..."
   Definitely a bug.
   Just goto Shipsizes.txt, and change "base" to "ship", and make them ten engines per move.  Instant mobile base mod.
   Plus, you can force players to transport supplies to their bases, or just limit the amount of suppies from "unlimited" to whatever amount you give the hull.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 18:42
   It would be a really good idea to repair the glowing wreckage of warp point battle in one turn. For this a repair base would be very nice. Here is the design I plan to use - number of the component to include, name, size, damage, cost in minerals/ organics/ radioactives, then total size/ damage/ costs.
1 - Starbase hull when selected 2500/0/0
1 - Master Computer III 20/20 4000/1000/1000 same
1 - ECM III 10/10 400/0/0 same
1 - Scattering Armor III 50/150 500/0/100 same
6 - Stealth Armor III 30/100 700/0/200 - 180/600 4200/0/1200
8 - Phased Shield Generator V 40/40 800/0/0 - 320/320 6400/0/0
9 - Shield Regenerator IV (not V) 20/20 850/0/260 180/180 7650/0/2340
The same as the fighter base except no fighter bays and more cargo bays.
Total non repair 760/1280 25650/1000/4640
1 - Space Yard III 400/200 4000/0/500 same
8 - Repair Bay III 150/150 300/0/10 1200/1200 2400/0/80
7 - Cargo Bay III 20/20 200/0/0 140/140 1400/0/0
Total repair components  1740/1540  7800/0/580 repairs 8+64 and 1750 cargo
Grand total 42 components at 2500/2820 33450/1000/5220
Ratio nonrepair to repair 0.43/0.83 - 3.2/all/8.0
With a yard on, you can build more bases. The cargo bays are useful filler.
Shields are 3000 and regenerate 180 per combat turn.
   IMPORTANT - against the AI, do NOT put a single weapon on this base (or the fighter base either). If you omit weapons, then the attacking fleet will break its teeth on the fighters and the ripper beam bases first until they have no weapons. Of course if you were playing a human, his first priority would probably be to blow your repair base to rubble.....
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 19:13
   I just checked with a high tech game. You can put an EPP on the base. You can pop it. But they took away all the buttons such as drop cargo remotely that were allowing bases to move. So Carriers DO make sense for invading enemy systems where you have no colony, but NOT for colony or warp point defense....
If you have plenty of units in space slots, you do not need bases, but I have 27 warp points in my home space boundaries. With 5000/27 = 185 slots minus mines there are not enough to keep significant numbers of fighters on the map.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 June 2001 19:18
   Put a Sat with a high level sensor on the other side of the WP. Keep your fighters on the planets until you see someone coming then launch them.
   Also, later in the game when the AI has a lot of minesweepers you may find that mines lose their effectiveness, you can replace the mines with fighters.
<<


* CARRIERS:
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Private First Class
posted 17 October 2000 19:37
   The best configuration for a user-controlled carrier is vital stuff(engines, etc.), enough fighter bays so the requirement goes away, any extras (ECM, shields weapons), and fill the rest up with cargo bays (they hold more than fighter bays). You wont be able to launch all your fighters in one combat turn, but your carrier can hold many more fighters. I had a light carrier with about 150 light fighters. And you can still launch them all in one strategic turn.
   Note: light carriers can use heavy weapon mounts
<<
>>
Private First Class
posted 17 October 2000 20:14
   That's interesting.....Cargo Bays you say.....Hehehe A Large Transport could suddenly become Rather Deadly!
   LOL! Use Large Transports as your carriers....create HAVOC in Multi-player games as Hordes of Escorts Die at the hands of the Fighters!!
<<
>>
Instar
First Lieutenant
posted 17 October 2000 21:47
   Sorry to dump on your strategy, but those ships will not be able to launch fighters very fast -- as in you can only launch so many fighters at a time in combat (you can launch all fighters in the regular view)
This was fixed a while back.
   You can make carriers like that, but their combat usefullness drops.
<<
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Private First Class
posted 17 October 2000 22:28
   This is most useful if you want to launch fighters strategically, but I find it effective in combat. I have my carriers built so that I can launch about 15 fighters per combat turn. I find that to be enough. In most cases the sides start far enough apart to be able to have anywhere from 25-75 fighters in the air by the time the two meet in combat. The volume of fighters more than makes up for the advantage of point defense. Sometimes I back up these carriers with missile frigates. If an enemy w/ pt defense fires on the seekers, they have to deal with the fighters and vice-versa.
<<
>>
Richard
Advisor
posted 17 October 2000 23:11
   Actually he is right and HISTORICALLY it makes sense.  Most people who think carriers suck are using them wrong.  Unless you have a VERY fast ship, or get lucky and land in the middle of the task force, by the time you reach a carrier he will normally have had 4-6 turns (at least) to launch fighters.  Once they form up they can be devastating.
   Most folks put too many fighters bays and then skimp on fighters.  For a carrier to make sense it should be able to carry more fighters than it can launch (many more).  In fact some of those should be specialized.  I send out assault fighters and bombers to the target and then have slow fighters with tons of weopons as CAP to defend the carrier.
<<
>>
wingte
Corporal
posted 18 October 2000 00:07
   Well, the early launch strategy is only useful if the enemy is coming after your fleet and you are out gunned.
   When I am chasing down an enemy I prefer to keep the fighters in the bays until my carriers are close enough that when I launch the fighters,, they can immediately fire without moving so they don't activate the enemy PD weapons.
   I am currently using a carrier as an exploration ship when I play a High Tech start game.
   Carrier--- Master computer, quantum reactor, max engines, 14 fighter bays, repair pod, 2 organic armor, 1 shield, 2 PD cannons, 1 Ionic disperser, combat sensor, and a long range scanner.
   The 28 fighters have are armed with shield depleter and electric discharge.
<<
>>
Cyrien
Private First Class
posted 18 October 2000 00:55
   Well... here is my carrier design (max tech for demo)... and I also use a mix of specialized fighters.
Master Computer 3
Quantum Engine 3 x 6
Fighter Bay x 15
ECM 3
Quantum Reactor
Storage Bay 3 x 3
Phased Shield Gen 5
Wave Motion Gun 3 (Heavy Mount - Not Large but Heavy)
   This gives me 80 fighters (40 assault 20 bomber and then whatever else I want, depending on what the carrier is doing) and a carrier more than capable of taking out those running away freighters all by its lonesome.  No PD you say?  That is what those escorting Frigates are for isn't it?  IRL carriers go with Cruiser support and destroyer support.  This is the modern navy and I find it works rather nicely in SE4 as well without the massive behemoth Battleships and Dreadnoughts which are notably missing from modern navies and my SE4 armadas.  And with 480 damage every third round at range 8 I don't worry about weak transports.  Don't even bother with fighters on those guys.
<<
>>
wingte
Corporal
posted 18 October 2000 02:22
   Hmnn, well I primarily use a 4 ship fleet with 3 designs. 1 Explorer, one of Ship 2 and 2 of ship 3.
Ship one is the explorer.
   Ship 2 is another carrier.
Master Computer
Quantum reactor
6 engines
14 fighter bays
2 organic armor
1 shield generator
2 PDs
1 heavy mount ionic disperser R6 120
(should take out 6 engines per shot)
1 heavy mount hyper-plasmic bolt Rg 8 150/90
combat sensors
ECM
   28 of the same fighters as on the explorer
1 shield depleter Range 2 15X14=210
1 Electric discharge Range 3 20X14=280

   Ship 3 is a cruiser
Master computer
Quantum reactor
6 engines
2 organic armor
2 shield gen
3 PDs
multiplex tracking
combat sensors
1 large mount shield depleter R7 300
(1 large mount ionic disperser R6 80
(should take out 4 engines per shot)
1 large mount hyper-plasmic bolt R8 100/60
1 large mount enveloping acid globe R8 200
   The first 3 are fire rate 1. The acid thing is fire rate 2 and very effective against planets.
<<
>>
Instar
First Lieutenant
posted 19 October 2000 01:57
   I have to totally agree with you, fighter capacity is very important.  But, if you can only launch like three fighters a turn, it wont be too long before they get over to you, and you wont have much of a fighter group (By the way, Ive gotten fighters with 9 moves, and well armed.  So in a carrier vs carrier, I could launch a lot of fighters fast, while you launch 2 or 3 at a time.  I would zoom over, and pound you easily)  Of course, Im assuming that all fighters are in the hangars before combat begins.
   My goal with carriers is to balance launching capabilities with cargo, I try to be able to launch 15-20 fighters a turn or better, and that leaves enough room for Cargo Bays.
   Also, I forget about CAPs.  Having a group of fighters patrolling with the carrier would be a good defense idea (but fighters cannot go through warp points!  so your carrier would have to recover fighters, go through the point, and relaunch)
<<
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Private First Class
posted 19 October 2000 05:29
   It's also good to have a group of fighters in the same fleet outside of the carrier. "On patrol" if you will. Also, you can't have a carrier that launches only 3 fighters per combat turn. All carriers must be at least 50% fighter bays. With level 1 bays on a light carrier you can launch about 14 fighters per turn(1 per bay). You can launch 2 per fighter bay at level 3 doubling your launch capacity at higher techs.
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 19 October 2000 20:32
   Carriers are an important part (some would say core) of any combat fleet.  The demo reduces their effect because of the limitation on fighter research level.  They can be expected to play a larger role in the full version and most multiplayer games.  As to design, defense of the carrier is extremely important.  A carrier's most dangerous opponent will be fighters from opponent carriers.  Remember the Battle of Midway. Point-def is a must, along with shields.  A carrier should not have to carry any large weapons (maybe a meson blaster if you have 30kt left).  Fighters also should be used as interceptors, not last line defenders for the carrier.  Destroyers should fill this role, while you send the fighters and LC's into the thick of it. Again, remember the battle of Midway.  If you don't recall it, read about it!
<<
>>
Instar
First Lieutenant
posted 20 October 2000 00:14
   Yes, you have to arm carriers, or else they die real fast!  I usually put some PDs on, and maybe a few regular weapons
   You have to have good fighter weapons and stuff too.  You can make all kinds of fighters now, bombers, etc.
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 20 October 2000 15:40
   Instar,
   I agree that PDs are needed.  In my post I said the PDs are a MUST.  I would not consider PDs an offensive weapon.  My point is that the fighters need to be used as the weapons for carriers.  Use the space you would use for other weapons for more cargo/fighter bays and shields/PDs.
I would qualify my statements by pointing out they have only been used in tactical combat.
<<
>>
Instar
First Lieutenant
posted 20 October 2000 22:04
   Well, I know that I shouldnt put weapons on my carriers.  When I do, I never use them anyway.
   Hey here's a question:
   How many fighters should be on CAP?  Maybe 1/4?  I think that should be enough.  When you're near to enemy areas I figure that you should increase it.  Since I never used CAP I'd like to hear what you think?
<<
>>
wingte
Corporal
posted 21 October 2000 03:14
   Hmnnn, I always put the biggest Ionic Disperser I can on my carriers. Let's me slow down the enemy capital ships so I can keep the carrier out of heavy weapon range. That has also always been an asset of sea going carriers. As a last resort they launched every plane they had and ran like hell and most carriers could outrun almost everything except destroyers.
   In space it makes sense for Carriers and all other ships to have the same speed, so, to me it makes sense to put an engine damaging weapon on the carrier and be able to regain the old seagoing advantage.
<<
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Private First Class
posted 22 October 2000 21:45
   I usually back up my carriers with Point Defense frigates.
<<
>>
T
Private First Class
posted 23 October 2000 02:32
   Here's a Question for the Beta Testers....can you take a LARGE Transport...Deck it out with Fighter Bays (say 10?) and with its mandatory Cargo bay requiremnt....then add whatever you think should go in....and then.....does that make a Good Strategic Carrier?
   Because if it does a Carrier GROUP could be led by one Heavy Carrier with 1-2 Support Carriers (which can also transport Population in emergencies)
   This would allow even some of our Smaller Fleets to be equipped out with a Modified Transport Carrier ... Rebels did it in Star Wars!
   It could also be used as a "Mopping up carrier" to deal with problem sectors from Enemy raids....2 AMS vessels with a few Destroyers and Badabing badaboom! a Small Strike Carrier group equally as good in Attack and Defence....and possibly at a lower maintainence cost!?
   Could that be tried for me please? [Ed: at this point only the demo was available.]
<<
>>
MaxOMan
Private First Class
posted 23 October 2000 06:39
   Actually, even a medium transport makes a pretty decent auxiliary carrier.  Since the "aux CV" doesn't need to be used in combat, it only needs a very few fighter bays (to launch fighters in case it gets trapped into combat).
   Otherwise, just max out on cargo bays and you can carry A LOT of extra fighters.  These make for quick resupply of your carriers after a battle, especially if the carriers are in a forward area fighting away from your planets.  Thus the "aux CVs" can be used as excellent ferries to move replacement fighters to the front, keeping the carriers on the front lines.
   Makes for kind of a WWII feeling with supply lines and all.  I kind of like it myself.
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 27 October 2000 21:12
   While defending a warp point I had a combat the other day with a carrier/fighter using AI.  The enemy fleet contained the carrier (about 40 fighters) and 2 LCs. The carrier had 1200 shield points but NO weapons.  The AI chose to launch all fighters and sent them to attack (good) but also sent both LCs (bad).  My fleet of 2 LC's with CSM and DU, and a heavily shielded destroyer with  marines (used in previous combat and on way to repair)and 1 repulsor.  The AI focused on destroyer (because of relative shield strength??) letting my LCs circle the battle and take out the carrier.  I lost a specialized destroyer but by taking out the carrier I eliminated the fighters' ability to warp.  I then backed my LCs through the warp hole waited for their LCs to come through and defeated them.  Upon arrivial of a anti-fighter/CSM destroyer I re-entered the warp point and cleared the fighters.
   The lesson: Carriers must have PD, and be protected during combat.
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 27 October 2000 22:01
   The only problem with using cargo carriers as fighter carries is they are limited in the amount of fighters they can launch at a time. So the Star wars use of them isn't really practical.
<<

* FIGHTERS:
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 10 June 2001 13:30
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   All the fighter designs mentioned here assume large fighters with cockpit, life support, shield, max best engine, afterburners, ecm, sensors, which leaves 6 space left over.
   1) I think the best defense against fighters when attacking is battle cruisers full of PD since the BC is the biggest ship that can have max engines. Of course if you are defending a fixed position then a starbase with lots of PD would work too. But sometimes it may come down to fighters versus fighters. In that case would the best fighter weapon to have be ppb ? The damage is puny, but not much is needed when the nonphased fighter shields are bypassed...
   2) When fighter versus ships armed heavily with pd is expected then is the best weapon rocket pods ? I need to know if fighters will run to the corners after expending their rp, or do they just stay in place getting slaughtered?
   3) If not so much pd is expected, then wouldn't the best bet be to trade two engines to get the space for small antimatter torpedos? The 35 every two combat turns beats 50 once only if the fighter survives to make a second shot.
   4) If a cloaked carrier on station engages an attacking carrier to launch its fighters, then does that make it decloak?  If decloaked, is there a way to recloak during combat? If it stays cloaked and refuses to engage, does that mean that the opposing fighters cannot shoot it?  That would be REALLY nice!
   5) Of course if you see the fleet coming and units in space slots are available, then the fighters can be launched on the strategic map before the enemy arrives and the carrier can be cloaked when combat begins. In that case does it stay cloaked during combat, and if so, does that mean that enemy fighters cannot attack it? If the attacking fleet has sensors, do they let all units see and attack cloaked ships?
   6) A smart enemy would launch a recon satellite in the system to reveal all cloaked ships before entering the sector for combat. Is the AI that smart? This is obviously not a problem for warp points, but most of the places I will be defending are planets, not WP.
   7) Many of my colonies will be in enemy home systems. Once hostilities begin, my first priority is to shoot every satellite in orbit. Does the AI keep recon satellites in cargo as a reserve?
   8) For shooting down satellites, would the best bet be a battle cruiser split 50/50 between shields and pd?
   9) One of the threads I read suggested launching missile satellites in tactical just in range of the planet, then pounding it until all the weapon platforms were gone. Does the AI put pd on its weapon platforms to negate this trick? I have never seen it, but that was with the standard AI, so the modpack may have smarter designs. When I build wp, my weapon space is split half pd then the other half either beams or seekers.
   That's all I can think of for now. If anybody else has related questions post them on this thread so it can be made a faq.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 10 June 2001 15:43
   It seems unlikely, but is worth checking. I assume a mothballed ship cannot move in combat. But :
   1) Can a mothballed base/ship fire its weapons against attacking ships/fighters ?
   2) Do its shields/shield regenerators and armor work, or is it a sitting duck with only its components damage resistance ?
   If mothballed can defend itself, then there is no limit to how much you can build for defenses since they do not count toward the score determining MEE and cost no maintenance !
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 10 June 2001 15:55
   I have had great success using a LC as my PD ship so a BC would probably be very effective. Even using an LC, if my fleet has two I never worry about fighters or seekers, they are effectively removed from the game.
See above. PD is to effective in the standard game.
   If you expect to meet some PD I like fighters with 2 shields and the rest weapons and armor. I try to design a fighter that takes 2 hits to destroy. I like DUC's as my weapon because they are cheap.
Don't know about the rest.
<<
>>
ZeroAdunn
Private First Class
posted 13 June 2001 19:34
[Ed: posted in a different thread]
   What's the deal with fighters being launched with no movement?  That really kills the idea of using fighters for system wide defense, they should launch with movement equall to the object that launched them, or in the case of a base or planet, full movement.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 13 June 2001 19:51
   Could be because of simultaneous movement. In turn based movement it would be possible to launch and move the fighters at once, but not with simultaneous movement as the fighters won't be there to be given move orders until the next turn. So to keep things equal they can't move after launch in turn based either.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 13 June 2001 23:55
   Which is why you keep one fighter over a planet.  Once you launch the rest, they have all their movement.
<<


* SATELLITES:
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 14:42
   I want to start a little discussion on satellites. What do you think is the best weapon to put on one? It seems to me that if you are using them to defend a warp point, the allegiance subverter is the absolute best choice.
   One more question: If you put 2 combat sensors on a ship will you get a 120% bonus?
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:01
   Only one combat sensor or ECM is effective per vehicle, so the answer is NO.
   And the best weapon to put on one??
   Maybe the Null-space projector, but then you'll get a pretty expensive satellite. I generally don't use sats. or mines, or any unit that I can't move.
   I love moving things.
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:10
   Hmmm, now you got me thinking about satellite designing damnit.
   Well, here are my thoughts,
   Since satellites don't move, I think a long range/high damage weapon would be very effective.
Allegiance subverter could work, but what if it fails, then you're sats are defenseless.
   And if I'm not mistaken, there should be a multiplex trackong component on each of the sats in a stack, or else you can only fire on one ship at a time.
   Before phased shields are being used, you could also fill them with phased-polaron beams, but those sats will eventually become obsolete.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 15:21
   I rather like "disposable" things. Just hope that I don't get a ticket for littering in space some day!   Once I deploy the satellites they are simply forgotten, especially since they don't cost anything to maintain. A simple small satellite with a combat sensor and an allegiance converter is very cheap at 1050 minerals and 80 radioactives each, and I can pay for 2 of them for a turn worth of maintenance for a cruiser. More than that, what's better than fighting the enemy with his own weapons? (Sorry girls! All of my computer game opponents are males somehow. I'd love to change that though!) By the way, what does the Null-space projector do? It is not in the demo.
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:28
   Null-space projector skips armor and shields, and does reasonable damage, but the reload rate is 3
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 15:32
   Just some more of my thoughts on satellite employment... I think satellites are useless beyond the first round unless you have some ships to cover them, since they can't move and your opponent can avoid them, but then satellites exist because ships are expensive. This is not to say that they are exclusive of each other, as satellites can be very effective force multipliers IF you have ships too. However I prefer the no-brainer-low-management approach and use them like mines (AND grab my ship support locally from the enemy!   ).
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 15 June 2001 15:32
   Plasma missile satellites appeal to me -- PMs are fast, do decent damage, and have long range, while incoming missiles can't even target satellites let alone hurt them.
   Of course, they don't hit fighters and can be beaten by PD, so you can't use them as the ONLY defense, but they're handy.
   FWIW, 'tho, most of the satellites I've built are recon satellites -- sensors, long-range scanner, and cloak.  Sprinkle throughout your own and adjacent systems, distributed to get good scanner coverage and some redundancy (since a clueful opponent with a scanner may notice and target recon satellites, and I don't recall being able to fit a scanner jammer on the satellite).
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 15:38
   Unless you're playing 'Devnull' mod or similar, sats are only really useful on warp points, in which case you want high damage weapons. Since range isn't initially an issue at warp points and you can't pursue the target with sats, you have to hit it as hard as you can on the first combat turn. Screw range, stuff reload times, you want to twat it on the first shot. Once you've crippled it you might need something longer range / more frequent fire rate to finish off your enemy, so throw in a few beam weapon sats or something.
   I usually design a long range and a short range sat and deploy them more or less equally. In my current vs AI game (devnullmod, 1.35) I used warp sats to fend off the crysonlite for about 50 turns even though their weapon tech was way ahead of mine: I was escort, they were cruiser. I was DUC II, they were Shard cannon X. They had PDC, shields; the works, but about a dozen small external CSM sats with a few DUCs thrown in kicked their arses royale, turn after turn. OK, that's against an AI, but it was still well worth investing my surplus resources in=-)
   Design lots of different sats and pile them up on warp points. The more you have, the more chance of killing something and the less chance of being destroyed.
   Basically, variety and mass is the key. Sats have no maintenance so you can just keep on building more whenever you have a resource surplus. CSM I might be a crap weapon but if you're firing 30 of them in one combat turn at range 5 then you're looking at some serious damage.
   Unless you have several armed space stations or the sat mounts of devnullmod, then they're not much good over planets, but for warp points (until you develop fighters anyway), sats are my favourite defence.
   Of course eventually you'll hit the max units in space limit but that's another story...
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 17:17
   In early game, my sats have PPB's exclusively.  In later games, I mix PPB's with WMG's and a few dedicated shield sat's.  (I don't know why, but if I throw in 1 Large sat with all shields / armor per 10 Weapons sats, my groups last a h@!! of a lot longer.)  Sometimes I'll throw in a few Null Space but their range is only 5.  I seem to have much better success even with PPB's range 6.  It doesn't sound like a lot, but that extra 1 space seems to be very important most times.
   I use sats almost exclusively at Warp Points.  (Against the AI) I don't use mines or missles 'cause the AI still has difficulties with them and AI seems to do a lot better against sat's.
   Lemmy, you CAN move sat's...  I'll generally move my sat groups towards the WP's on the outside of my reign.  I'll usually keep a few groups at strategic choke points within the bouderies of my empire.  Sure takes care of any ships I miss or any that get hit by the spacial anomoly and end up behind lines.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 15 June 2001 17:23
...
   Missiles have an inherent accuracy of 100% if they survive.
   The only reasons why you would put a sensor on a missile ship are:
a) You want more accuracy on your PDCs
b) You have some beam weapons too.
c) You have space and money to burn
   Originally posted by rdouglass:
   "Lemmy, you CAN move sat's"

   You do have to carry them in a ship (with sat bays) though.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 15 June 2001 18:23
   I disagree that sat's are only good for warp point defense. In fact I think they are more useful for planetary defense then they are for wp def.
   Against an enemy that knows what they are doing, you get one shot in warppoint d, then the ships that are not damaged scatter, and you can't persue. Unless you have a LOT of sat's, or the enemy has very few ships coming through, it won't do much good.
   But as planetary defense they are very good, even early on. A small sat can hold one CSM and one PDC. That's a good combo to handle ships or fighters. Plus you can put heavier coverage on a tiny planet than you can with weapons platforms. This is good for small, but strategically important planets. And if the enemy wants to get at the planet, they have to come in range of the sat's, unless you are way out matched in weapon's tech levels.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 20:20
   Personally, I never said they were only good for WP's.  I said I only used 'em for WP's.  And AFAIK, sat's will still clump together as 1 group and usually end up on the wrong side of the planet to do any good.  Against that same enemy (that knows what they're doing), the enemy ships will just move to the other side of your planet, glass the planet, and ignore the sats.  (Unless 0f course, they've fixed the sat grouping issue)...
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 15 June 2001 21:04
   I tend to use satellites as early-warning stations in as many border systems I can find. If I have them I put a cloak, anti-cloak sensor and a scanner on board so I can get readings on what's coming at me.
   If the AI is doing the usual with mines (nothing) then I send a cloaked ship to drop a few satellites in every system I can reach.
<<
>>
jc173
Second Lieutenant
posted 16 June 2001 09:26
   Originally posted by LemmyM:
      "Originally posted by CW:
          "One more question: If you put 2 combat sensors on a ship will you get a 120% bonus?"
   "Only one combat sensor or ECM is effective per vehicle, so the answer is NO."

   Actually I've been fooling around with components in my mod, and I've found you can make the combat to hit plus effects stack if you have different' components with bonuses.  It doesn't work if the components have the same family numbers, but otherwise you can stack the effects.

Personally I haven't had much success with using sats for planetary defense.  The grouping problem is the main issue.  Even the AI seems to know to ignore sats that are deployed on the wrong side of the planet and hit the planet first instead.  On occasion my sats have done some good, but I've come to rely on mines and use my sats mostly as sensor buoys.
<<
>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 16 June 2001 16:27
   Originally posted by jc173:
   "Even the AI seems to know to ignore sats that are deployed on the wrong side of the planet and hit the planet first instead."

   The AI is probably using Nearest in its targeting priorities. If it's using Strongest, as well, any Weapon Platforms on the planet should be targetted before any orbiting sats, regardless of where they are.
<<

* Underappreciated Weapons

>>
Deathstalker
First Lieutenant
posted 04 July 2001 08:40
   They are in every game, from Moo1, Diablo, to SE4, weapons that at first glance seem useless or just not used.
   These are my top 5 underappreciated weapons.
   1: Ionic Disperser (engine damage, not blocked by shields or armor, combined with Ripper Beams it rocks!!)
   2: Ripper Beam (Major damage, but close range, combine with Trac beam).
   3: Tractor Beam or Repulser Beam, both have there uses.(combo:  Trac/Ripper/Repulse!)
   4: Wormhole Beam:  Rocks!!  Hit 'em and then send them to the far side of the map!
   5: tie: Meason Blaster/DUC damage that is not reduced by range!
  (6: honorable mention:  Tach Projection Canon, take out weapons without damaging the rest of the ship!).
   Anyone else have some suggestions for weapons that rock at second glance??
<<
>>
Puke
Captain
posted 04 July 2001 10:15
   I think the electron discharge should go here.  it's sort of poopey as a ship weapon, but it is one of the most efficient fighter / troop weapons in the game.  I think the APB is a under-rated weapon.  In the end-game, it is a better weapon than the PPB since everyone should have phased shields anyhow.
   Also, smartbombs are great.  You can often disable the entire resource production of a system by taking out a spaceport.  You can shutdown production by taking out a shipyard, then muster forces for invasion.  Unless you are the Nausea Heap, in which case you would have a tendency to reduce your ground combat effectiveness to nothing in favor of techno-industrial superiority (and I don't mean music).
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 04 July 2001 12:50
   Those Ionic Disperser are definitely not under-appreciated by me, after I researched completely, I put one on each ship. I disable it's engine and leave it there for my escort size ships with Allegiance Subverter to capture them.
   I'm currently also researching Tach Projection Cannon, and I'm planning to use it.
   I think the best thing about it is that they penetrate shields. I could research PPB, but they will eventually be obselete, but I can always use my ID and TPC. don't know if they skip armor also...would be great if they did, or else also put some Crystalline weapon on the ship...
   [edit] looks like they do skip armor.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 04 July 2001 19:42
   Heh.  In my present game (current goal:  *trying* to get some form of lasting peace between allies w/o resorting to mass genocide...), I've got both APB and ID designs.
   "Long"-range DN:  something like 1x Heavy Shield Depleter and 7x Heavy APB XII.  Combined with training (for a 40% hit/def bonus; both fleet and ship experience), racial bonuses (10% attack, 10% defense), ECM/Sensors, and both "special" armor (scattering/stealth -- another +30% def), they're great at standing off at range 7-8.  *Especially* against ships that rely on shields due to the 450-pt depleter, and units (WPs, for instance, can't get the experience bonuses...).
   Medium-range BC:  older design with PPBs.  Useful for finishing off crippled foes, not expected to hold the line.
   Short-range DN: 1x Heavy Ionic Disrupter (120 pts -> 6 engines), 3x Heavy Null-Space Projector (180 ea., ignore armor/shield), 1x Heavy PPB, 1x Heavy Repulsor Beam.  Great for crippling enemy ships and hurling out of their formation, but really needs the APB ships for their better range and ROF.  And immobile ships are sitting ducks for the other DNs and BCs.
<<
>>
Sinapus
First Lieutenant
posted 04 July 2001 22:06
   Originally posted by Deathstalker:
   "5: tie: Meason Blaster/DUC damage that is not reduced by range!"

   Actually, the Meson Blaster V and VI edges out the DUC V. DUC costs less research, though, so my usual strategy is to research to DUC V, then switch to Meson Blasters V and VI when I manage to research them.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 05 July 2001 03:37
   I tend to put wormhole beams on my "Fleet Auxiliary" class of multi-purpose transports. This single class of ships do everything from laying mines/satellites to transporting population/troops to carrying out emergency repair/resupply on crippled ships and curing level 5 plagues, so I expect them to spend quite a bit of time travelling by themselves. A wormhole beam, a combat sensor plus high speed make them virtually uncatchable, by the AI at least.
   A side note on the ship: all the extra gadgets cut the cargo capacity to the bare minimum, but nothing is stopping me from taking *two* ships to do a job right? This all-in-one approach helps cut down the micro-management down a lot. You might want to try it yourselves.
<<


CLOSE COMBAT WEAPONS:
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 11 August 2001 17:14
   Say you are designing a ship for close combat (let the other guy take it in the face!), assuming that you have max tech, what would you think is the best combination of weapons?
   Other than the Allegiance Subverter, which in my opinion is THE best weapon in the game, it seems that the Ripper Beam is next best thing, even though it is somehow marked as obsolete by the time you have max tech. A shield depleter is a bargain too, if your opponent is not leaning heavily on armour. A PDC is standard and I probably would add in either a Phrased Polaroid Beam or a Telekinetic Projector for some extra firepower against fighters. Null Space Projector looks tempting but my recent simulator tests said it loses to the PPB and other quick-reloading weapons most of the time. So what is your opinion?
<<
>>
Dragonswrd
Private First Class
posted 11 August 2001 17:21
   I think you get a good bang for your buck with telekensis projector. Without any mods that and the allegiance subverter are all I put on my ships.
<<
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Corporal
posted 11 August 2001 17:40
   Use engine killers as a secondary weapon. That way your opponent can't escape if you can move in fast enough.
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 11 August 2001 19:55
   Shield Depleter/Boarding Party combonation, especially if your ships are small and cheap, and the enemies' are big, expensive, and have a self-destruct component...
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 11 August 2001 20:19
   The null-space performs best if your opponent likes to use lots and lots of shields and/or armor. Especially if he uses regenerators.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 11 August 2001 21:32
   As you can see, CW, there are as many opinions as weapons. I do tend to favor the Phased Polaron Beam since it's so cool to just skip shields and start damaging the enemy immediately. In the default game this advantage goes away when phased shields are available, though. I've modded my files to include a new weapon after the PPB that skips ALL shields. It's larger and more expensive both to construct and to use (more supply usage) but it lets me keep the same basic strategy and I think makes the Sergetti as dangerous in the late game as the early/mid-game where they've just got their PPBs and phased shields haven't appeared yet.
   The Ripper Beam is a very nice weapon but hard to get quickly. You need level 7 propulsion before you can even begin to research it. If you're playing max-tech, then what the heck. Put a tractor beam or two on your ship (extra in case of a miss) then a bunch of Rippers, then a repulsor beam. This makes a wicked, nasty brawler that sucks the enemy it, pounds it with very high damage and then repulses it out of range if there's anything left. If the target is of similar or smaller size there usually is not anything left to be repulsed away. The Ripper has a very high damage/size ratio. But then if it's larger you cannot pull it in with the tractor beam.
   The Null-space Cannon is certainly not something you want to rely on completely because of the slow reload, but it can be a good "auxillary" weapon that lets your ships start damaging the enemy immediately. Just one NSC in a ship with otherwise normal weapons, for example. Using a Tractor/NSC/Repulsor combo might be even nastier than the Ripper setup. You can use the repulsor to keep the enemy away while you are waiting for that reload, too. And the NSC makes a great ambush weapon to put on Sats guarding a warp point.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Private First Class
posted 12 August 2001 00:45
   For close range I use combined ship classes.
   Say a fleet of 10 ships
   3 ships which have computer 3, aux command, max engines, ecm, combat sensor and q.reactor. One weapon the tachyon projection cannon and the rest filled with organic armour. set to point blank strag.
   2 ships with the same up front stuff and then 10 pd's, 1 tachyon projection cannon and one shield depletor ( in opposite order ) and the rest armour/ shields.
   3 ships with the same up front and as many enveloping acid globes and set to max. range, and round it off with some armour
   2 close assault ships with the same up front and then in this order. 2 tractor beams, shield depletors and tachyon projection cannons and 2 repulsor beams and some armour
   1 ship maxed out with missles ( seeking parasite ) and everthing up front.
   Always make the armour ships the biggest size you got and the rest can be any size.
   The armour ships close with the pd ships ( due to the one weapon one them ( that way they don't fight in the famous SEIV X Formation ( yep rip one right to the best cornor on the map ))) , the missle ship backs off and starts firing. The other ships close to a max range and start firing while the close assault ships disable shields and weapons.
   Kind of cheating on the close assalt ship but, when in doubt fight with combined forces.
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 12 August 2001 09:08
   I would go for only weapon killers, and one APB to finish him off. in my latest game, which i haven't played for weeks i'm trying the special weapons like engine killers, shield depleters and shield destroyers. Once you find the right balance between these weapons and normal weapons, you can really make one mean design.
<<
>>
golf_prez
Private First Class
posted 12 August 2001 20:05
   Originally posted by tesco samoa:
   "The armour ships close with the pd ships ( due to the one weapon one them ( that way they don't fight in the famous SEIV X Formation ( yep rip one right to the best cornor on the map ))) , the missle ship backs off and starts firing. The other ships close to a max range and start firing while the close assault ships disable shields and weapons."

   Please can you expand on this Famous SEIV X formation (problem??)
   Are these ships used in Tactical Combat or in Strategic Combat ???
   Any suggestions for Strategic ??
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 12 August 2001 21:31
[Reply to previous]
   I think he's referring to the tendency of 'unarmed' ships to run for the corners of the map. Ships with only PDC are regarded as "unarmed" by the AI and get excluded from formations and sent off to the corners of the map where they cannot help protect other ships from missiles or fighters. So, he puts one weapon in them to keep them in the formation. That's the 'Strategic' formation issue. In Tactical mode a ship with only PDCs stays in the formation and you can move it along with the others.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Private First Class
posted 13 August 2001 01:50
   Yep it is the computer controls all. I always use the Stragetic combat. Since you cannot fight in PBEM games any other way.
   I have not really played around with tatical combat that much. Just for testing new ships or upgrades against current enemy designs or if I Intel some new designs. Even then I put it on auto and let it go. I arm everything.
   You should try the mostly armour or mostly shield ships. They can take a pounding and they will break up the enemy formations.
   My only suggestions for stragetic formation is to create specialized ships and max them out on that specialization.
   Shield attacking ships, weapon attacking ships, armour or shield ships. Mix up the point blank ships with the longer range ones and pick a good formation. (I find the X and wall formations just get ships bouncing into each other ). If the enemy counters with all armour ships then mothball the shield attacking ships until thier needed again.
   I believe that closing on the enemy fast is the number one prority of the fleet. 2 is disable the ships ability to fire, move and command. 3. clean up.
   Since you have to close quickly max out the engines. Weapon damage is very important. But you need the ship to have a good reload time. Organic weapons fit this style.
   Since ships never fight one on one a short range brawler type ship will not last very long when they are fighting armour ships supported by missle ships and pd ships.
   I would like to hear some other styles?
   Or perhaps I should join some email games and learn by experience what everyone else is doing.
<<
>>
golf_prez
Private First Class
posted 13 August 2001 21:42
{Reply to previous]
Originally posted by tesco samoa:
   "Shield attacking ships, weapon attacking ships, armour or shield ships. Mix up the point blank ships with the longer range ones and pick a good formation. (I find the X and wall formations just get ships bouncing into each other ).  If the enemy counters with all armour ships then mothball the shield attacking ships until thier needed again."

   I am gleaning some excellent info here thankyou!  Tesco, you indicate some BAD formations do you some favorites you could share??  [I know this isn't the original intent of this thread, but I have to ask  ]
   I am really trying to ramp up my strategic knowledge to deal with the PBW games
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Private First Class
posted 14 August 2001 17:04
[Reply to previous]
   Formations I like to use (from the default formations ) are:
   For the combined assalt fleet:  Butterfly or bull.
   For Planet assalt fleets I like to use the Dome formation.
   Less than 10 ships then arrow.
   Escorting damaged ships or fleets on escort duty ( say around a planet killer, warp creator etc... ): Diamond.

   The order of the ships in the fleet is very very important.  Just like the weapons placement.  ( I could be wrong on that but ) I am assuming that from the formations text file.
   I have also created a few other formations for my combined fleets which I will be keeping to my self since the pbem players read these forums as well.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 13 August 2001 04:05
   My favorite design so far, is the BlackHole class Combat Fortress. Not exactly a close range combat ship, since it fights at range six-plus, but getting closer wouldn't help this ship in any way.
   Completely invisible to the naked eye of most races (+108% defense), Six talisman powered Heavy Polaron Beams, 1350 shields, with 170 regeneration per turn, 1470 armor, 6000 internal armor, MC plus biological crew backups.
   Enough Whoop-Ass to survive a counter-attack from 6 undamaged max-tech Phong Dreadnaughts, solo, and crippling the enemy force before 30 rounds run out.
   The purchase price is a staggering $100,000, but maintenance can be as low as 5K minerals. (free in SE4 v1.35 )
<<
>>
Hotfoot
Private First Class
posted 13 August 2001 04:47
   So far, my "magic combination" has been dual-mounted Null-Space Projectors backed up by either Meson Blasters (for tactical advantages and low tonnage) or Phased-Polaron Beams.  The Null-Space weapons get first billing, so that my ships stand a decent chance of knocking out something important right off the bat (I never assume that PPBs can bypass shields by the time I get them), preferably shield generators, weapons, or the bridge.  Meanwhile, my massive PPB arrays pound away at the shields/armor of the ships, every so often letting the knockout punch of Null-Space Projectors slip through to tear everything to shreds from the inside out.
   Lately, however, I'm learning the bonuses of torpedoes.  Sure, they only fire once every two turns, but they have damage comparable to missiles, can't be shot down by PDC, and can be massive mounted.  Of course, it still pays to be using APB or PPB arrays to continue a continuous barrage against the enemy.
   The "ultimate" melee, however, would be a ship that would be as hard as possible to hit, armed with explosive warheads and a small amount of PDC to avoid incoming missiles.  Get in as close as possible and then, BOOM!
   Oh, and perhaps some shield depleters in order to make the job just that much easier.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 13 August 2001 15:54
   For a high-tech close-combat dreadnought, I've used the following combo:
   (All heavy-mount... except maybe for ionic disperser.  It only needs to do 120 pts per hit, don't recall what mount that is.)
   1x Ionic Disperser beam
   3x Null-Space Projector
   1x Repulsor Beam
   It's mostly used for crippling ships and flinging them away before they can counter with remaining weapons.  Killing tends to be done with other ships with a shield depleter and APBs, or sometimes with retrofitted LCs/CAs/BCs.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Private First Class
posted 13 August 2001 17:06
[Reply to previous]
Hey Taqwus
   That is one little nasty ship design.  I think I will try them out.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 13 August 2001 16:50
   Although this is a military secret, but you guys are so willing to share, I will break the rule once and release my latest design. This is the result after 2 hours in the wind tunnel... err I mean the simulator of cause !
Close Combat DN 5 class (Code named Cerium Ce class in my PBW game)
-----------------------
1x Master Computer
4x Quantum engines
1x Solar sail
1x Organic armour
1x Stealth armour
1x Scattering armour
7x Phrased shield generators
1x Quantum reactor
1x Combat Sensor
1x Multiplex tracker
1x ECM
1x (Heavy mount) Shield disrupter
1x (Heavy mount) Shield depleter
2x Point Defense Cannon
7x (Heavy mount) Ripper beams
1x (Heavy mount) Repulser beam
   I welcome challenges and feedbacks!
   PS. Wonder why I have a shield disrupter AND a shield depleter? That's because this ship is designed to engage more than one ship in a fight. A lot of the designs I have seen could deal out a pretty mighty first salvo, but then they have to sit and wait 2 or 3 turns for their guns to recharge, plenty of time to take fatal hits! A heavy mount shield depleter is a bargian at 40kt, takes out 750 shield points in one shot, and 1 turn recharge time - too tempting to leave out!
   If there is a weak point in this ship it would be the vulnerability to virus and fighter/missile attacks, but then self-containability for deep enemy airspace penetration is not in this ship's mission profile. If I need lone patrol ships I have cheap cruisers armed with virus packages and allegiance subverters; if I want survivable scouts I have a specially designed DN with minesweepers, an ionic disperser and a worm hole beam (kill his engines, throw him out, then get out of the way!).
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 13 August 2001 22:31
[Reply to previous]
Originally posted by "CW":
   "I welcome challenges and feedbacks"

   I'm just wondering why you have a single organic armor piece.  You get no organic regen unless you lose a segment and still have others remaining.
   You could put in a B/LS/CQ combo instead, thus rendering your ship invulnerable to computer virus attacks.  Psy races would still be able to capture your ship after destroying the MC, but others would not be able to disable your ship with a single shot.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 14 August 2001 03:53
[Reply to previous]
Originally posted by "":
   "I'm just wondering why you have a single organic armor piece.  You get no organic regen unless you lose a segment and still have others remaining.
   You could put in a B/LS/CQ combo instead, thus rendering your ship invulnerable to computer virus attacks.  Psy races would still be able to capture your ship after destroying the MC, but others would not be able to disable your ship with a single shot."

   The organic armour is just there to fill up space really. I had 30kt of space to fill up, so it went to the armour plate.
   What's B/LS/CQ?
<<
>>
Will
Sergeant
posted 14 August 2001 04:05
   Bridge/Life Support/Crew Quarters.  B/LS/CQ.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 14 August 2001 04:19
[Reply to previous]
   oic. I ruled that out because it takes too much space on a DN and it is even more vulnerable to allegiance subverters (my favorite weapon) than the MC to virus. I was wondering, if you have a MC and a bridge (or reserve bridge) without any life support or crew quarters, and your MC gets taken out, will you ship still move at full speed in that combat round? what about on the star map?
   Just figured out that if I put a single bridge, a crew quarter and a life support on a ship it will continue to operate normally in combat even if the MC is taken out, and this is true for a ship of any size. Don't know about moving on the star map though, since this is just a skeleton crew.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 14 August 2001 16:14
   The rules are:
1) you can't design a ship unless it has the requested number of LS/CQ, or a MC
2) ships lose movement if they have ZERO lifesupports or crewquarters remaining.
3)ships lose movement if they have no intact bridge or aux con.
4)any ship with an intact MC is exempt from rules 2 & 3.
   One each of B/LS/CQ is enough to fly the ship normally, but you can't save that design unless you have an MC (or are designing a ship < 450KT in size).
<<
>>
Tampa_Gamer
Major
posted 23 August 2001 13:01
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   Recently I started playing some games in the later end of the research tree and after some experimenting am a little perplexed about the Shield Disruptor.  Does anyone else find it a little strange that it would require the shields to be down in order to destroy the shield generators?  I guess as an advacement of the shield depleter, I assumed that it would tunnel through the shields and specifically target the generators.  Once the shields are down, what is the use of blowing away the shield generators?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 23 August 2001 13:37
   I don't know how you got that impression, but there are some quirks to the operation of these weapons:
- Shields can be over maximum; when you destroy a generator via disruptor or null-space, the shield max goes down but the current strength does not.
- Shields beyond maximum will drop to maximum on the next hit.
- Ion, Tachyon, & Disruptor damage is an all-or-nothing thing:  If the damage you do is less than the component's hitpoints, it does nothing.
   Perhaps your disruptor was too weak (level 1 disruptor? long range attack?), but once the shields were down, the "extra damage" you did when the shields collapsed was enough to take out a generator.
Extra/Leftover damage gets added onto the next attack, and is the same damage type as the next attack.  So, you probably pulled 20 damage out of the armor and added it to the shield disruptor's attack.
<<


ARMOR, SHIELDS, AND DAMAGE:

   Armor is physical, passive, and takes up a specific amount of space and provides resistance to a specific amount of damage.  Shields are generated energy fields, active (not always on), consume supplies, take up a specific amount of space for the generator, and provide resistance to a specific amount of damage greater than that of armor.  Some weapons and natural phenomenon can by-pass shields or armor.  Understanding how damage is applied against armor, shields, and ship components is important to your success.
   
>>
PurpleRhino
Private First Class
posted 07 December 2000 00:18
   Does Emissive Armor stack? ie. You have two lv III emissives on a ship... does it take 60 to even damage the ship?
<<
>>
LintMan
Sergeant
posted 07 December 2000 01:57
   I don't think emissive armor stacks.  It actually seems to be quite worthless...
   I did a simulation of a ship with a bunch of Emissive Armor III (30 pt resistance), vs a bunch of fighters, all armed with a 15 pt and a 10 pt damage weapon.  (25 total damage pts)
   Using a single fighter, it didn't do any damage to the ship's armor.  But when I had a group of those fighters, and made them attack from a range where only the 15 point weapon would fire, they easily damaged and destroyed the ship, as if all the separate 15 point attacks were one combined high-damage attack.
   So unless your enemy is only attacking you with groups of single fighters, emissive armor is pretty much worthless, unfortunately.
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 December 2000 02:59
   Yup, I pulled it in my Data Set and simply made the higher tech armors have a better damage/size ratio. I think its overcompensation from SE3 where EmArmor was EXTREMELY powerful..at least IMO.
   Still, I'm thinking that you could make a component like 'Armor Belt' that has a large size and damage Ratio (takes 250 spaces and has a 1200 damage resist?) and then give that a '50-70' or so EmArmor rating...in essence, a ship carrying this wouldnt be able to hurt by weapons that arent Large Mount. Its big enough that only 'Capital Ships' would realistically carry it. Of course this is only a rough idea, but one I've been batting around for a while now.
   But overall, the CURRENT EmArmors in SE4 seem kind of pointless...along with the Scattering Armor...crappy ratio, VERY expensive, and only blocks Scans...not overly impressive either IMO.
   Once again, the true beauty of SE4 shows itself though...you can always change it!
<<
>>
[K126]Mephisto
First Lieutenant
posted 07 December 2000 08:47
   LintMan is right I have noticed the same. I don't know if emissive armor is stacking but one thing is for sure: the emissive factor is compared to the damage of the WHOLE salvo! Fire one weapon a time and it can hold if the weapon is small enough. Fire a salvo (and all fighter groups do this) the whole salvo is compared against the emissive factor, i.e. the armor stands no chance.
   Best armor ratio is still good all titanium armor (or organic and crystallide...).
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 07 December 2000 15:41
   On a related note, the 'stealth' armor enables the cloak/decloak commands... surprised me the first time I saw it.  I assume that means the "block Level x Scans" function of the stealth armor only works when the ship is cloaked.
   BTW - the main reason I use the Stealth and/or Scattering armor is the 5/10/15% defense bonus in combat.  Which does seem to "stack" with ECM.  Nothing like watching the enemies' Shard Cannons completely miss, even at short range...
<<
>>
Grognard
Private First Class
posted 07 January 2001 16:19
[Ed: part of a different thread]
   Just did a test in the simulator.
   36 planes with two DUC III's, 30 damage combined per plane, quit attacking the emissive armored ship once they reached the emissive armor.
   36 planes equipped with four DUC III's, 60 damage combined per plane, totally destroyed the emissive-armor equipped ship in two volleys.
   In conclusion, at least in the simulator, the game is comparing the damage resistance of 30 with the damage inflicted per plane.
   Editted: Forget what I just said.  The above results used auto-combat in the simulator. When I tried it using manual combat, the planes with 30 damage apiece destroyed the ship.  So with differing results between auto- and manual control, nothing conclusive can be determined. My only conclusion is the lack of consistency brings the validity of any simulator results into question.
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 07 January 2001 20:09
   Guys, when the group of fighters fire on a ship the damage is cumulative. However, AI is NOT aware of that, so when he is supposed to fire on a ship with emissive armor he doesn't fire because he 'thinks' that he can't do any damage while in reality he could. This is why, if you turn on auto-combat, the fighters don't fire (auto-combat is controlled by AI).
   I hope this explains something.
   I remember somebody made a post about this cumulative damage for fighters and missiles saying that is should be calculated one by one instead of the whole group at once, and I agree completely.
<<
>>
Noble713
Sergeant
posted 07 January 2001 23:10
   Stealth armor is NOT useless.
   Don't think of it as armor, but as a cheap, low-level cloaking device. In several games I've designed battlecruisers with 1 Stealth Armor and some extra supplies and these things can wreak havoc in the enemy's rear areas.
   I agree, though, that Scattering Armor is crap.
<<
>>
Puke
First Lieutenant
posted 08 January 2001 01:35
   Originally posted by Noble713:
   "Stealth armor is NOT useless. ...
   I agree, though, that Scattering Armor is crap."

   Not at all.  Late in the game, everyone will have sensors that can easily detect ships with stealth armor, so it loses its value quickly.  Think of scattering armor as armor plus scanner jammer.  I put a scanner jammer on every ship, and when you figure that every ship needs armor too, one piece of armor and one scanner jammer is only 10 units smaller than the scattering armor, AND the scattering gives you the defensive bonus.
  It's definitly worth carrying one point of scattering if your enemies already have scanning devices that can detect level-2 cloaks.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 08 January 2001 05:20
   I made Scattering Armor useful by adding Emissive Armor ability to it. So, it's a Scanner Jammer, it boosts your defenses (or would if the game calculated properly) a bit, and it's just as good or better at deflecting a certain amount of damage from your ship. Why not? Isn't it "a highly reflective material"?   Also, the AI is not real bright about cloaked ships so the stealth armor an also be very useful, especially early in the game.
<<
>>
igoblin
Private First Class
posted 12 January 2001 15:12
   The game manaul seems to be lacking in accurate descriptions of a lot of things.
   How does emissive armor work?
   Does it subtract X damage from each hit.
   Or does it just totally negate any damage of X or less and do nothing against higher damage values?
   I am thinking the first one would make sense as small emissive armor stops 3kT damage and no weapon deals 3 or less damage.
   I'm pretty sure it is not cumulative like in SEIII.
<<
>>
evader
Private First Class
posted 12 January 2001 15:23
   If the componet resist damage of 10.  Then if your opponent hits you with 10 or less then no damage is done at all.  The effect is not cumlitive.  So, if on turn one your opponent hits you with a 9 then on turn two it hits you with a another 9: no damage is done.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 12 January 2001 18:23
    ... and, since by the time Emissive III comes around practically all weapons in use will be doing more than 30 pts (Including fighter stacks!  At least as of the first patch [haven't tested in the second], each volley counts as one BIG attack), it appears to be completely useless.
   The small variant appears to be just as useless (3 pts.  Hrm.  There aren't that many weapons which do less than 4 pts of damage...).
   You may still want to research the tree, however, even if you have organic or crystalline, to get the Stealth and/or Scattering armor, for one piece per ship.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 12 January 2001 22:24
   I've finally figured out the main advantage of stealth and/or scattering armor over regular armor (well, besides the (small) defense bonus & (minor) cloaking ability of Stealth Armor (scattering armor blocks long-range scanners, but who really uses long range scanners?)) : it's only ONE component for repair!  Yeah, this sounds obvious at first, but there was a whole thread on the fact that Armor III provides more protection per kT than Stealth or Scattering Armor.  BUT, if you're trying to repair that ship after the armor has been damaged, it's much faster to repair one Stealth Armor (with it's 100 pts. damage resistance, IIRC) than three Armor III's (with 40 pts. damage resistance each).  Especially if the ship has taken more than just armor damage...
   Unfortunately, I agree about the emissive armor - it's just not worth it, since it's too easy to overload the damage resistance.
<<
>>
Zanthis
Corporal
posted 05 February 2001 19:32
   In order to better understand how damage is dealt, I did some extensive testing with the simulator.  Here are my results, in FAQ format:
   1. How is damage assigned?
   First, ignore shields for now (see Question #2).  Now, every time you hit a ship, a random component is selected on the target.  If the target still has armor, the random component will be a piece of armor.  Now, if the amount of damage you've done with that hit equals or exceeds the damage resistance of the component, it is destroyed.  If you have left-over damage, another component is randomly selected.  Repeat until a component is selected for which not enough damage remains to destroy.  This extra damage is stored by the target for use later.
   Now, next time the target is hit, the first thing that happens is any extra damage (from previous hits) is added to your weapon's damage.  Then, the selecting of components to be destroyed occurs as described in the above paragraph.
   As you can see, this means components do not have "damage done to them."  I have not been able to verify it, but it is likey that when a component is randomly selected and not destroyed, it is remembered and automatically selected in the future until destroyed.  This would give the appearance of a single component taking damage.  However, I do know that if you change damage types (say from normal to armor skipping) a new component is randomly selected.
   That means, if you modify Armor III to take 400 (instead of 40) damage to destroy and change the Shard Cannon to do only 1 damage (it skips armor) and then hit a ship with one Armor III for 300 normal damage (which cannot destroy the piece of Armor III and so sits around as extra damage) and then hit the target for only 1 point of damage with the Shard Cannon, 301 damage will be randomly targeted at components inside the target's armor!!!  This is why Shard Cannons and Null-Space Projectors sometimes really gut ships, especially those using high-resistant armor (Organic, Crystaline, etc).
   Of course, the reverse is also true.  If you hit with armor skipping damage but fail to destroy a component, you just generate extra damage.  Future hits may apply that extra damage toward armor, even though it originally skipped armor.
   2. Ok, so how do shields fit into this?
   I'm glad you asked.  First, don't mix phased and non-phased generating components.  If you do, you get non-phased shields.  That is, until all the non-phased shield generating components are destroyed; then suddenly, in the middle of battle, your shields will become phased.
   Ok, otherwise, shields work just like you expect.  Damage from weapons gets taken off your shields first.  However, remember above where I told you extra damage is added to your weapon's damage before being applied?  That happens before your weapon's damage is applied to shields.  That means, hit a ship with normal shields and some Armor III with a PPB (skips non-phased shields) for 35 damage (not enough to destroy a piece of armor) and then with a Meson Blaster (normal damage) for 30 and the extra damage (35 from the PPB) is added to the Meson's 30 for a total of 65 damage delt to the target's non-phased shields!!!
   This gets even more fun with shield regeneration.  See, if you get some damage passed their shields without destroying components (so it's still extra damage), but the regenerators bring the shields back up, that damage you got passed their shields gets pulled back out and has to go through the shields again next time the ship gets hit.
   As an added bonus, destroying a shield generating component drops your current shield value to your maximum shield value (assuming your current value was greater than max value) but it does this before the component is destroyed!  This means, with 3 Shield V (900 shields), if you get hit by a PPB that kills one of the generators, your shields will be 900 out of 600!  If a second hit kills another generator, your shields will be 600 out of 300.
   3. Um, I'm afraid to ask, but how the @#$!% does Organic Armor work?
   Ready for this?  You're not, but I'll tell you anyway.  Each ship with organic armor regenerates constantly.  Every turn.  Even if you take no damage.  With no cap.  Put 10 Orgnaic Armor III (30pt regen/turn each) and every turn it gets credit for 300 points of regeneration!!!  By the end of turn 5, it has 1500 points stored up with which to repair organic armor.  That means, on turn 6, if you deal 1500 damage, you'd destroy all 10 of his Organic Armor III's.  Then, before turn 7 begins, all 10 would be completely repaired!!!  The repair would cost all 1500 points stored up so far, though.
   This is why organic armor seems so incredible at first, then suddenly seems to give out without warning.  You are coasting on the built up regeneration for the rounds of combat while you were closing range.
   The good news is, destroyed organic armor does not contribute toward this regeneration total.  So, in the example above, where all the organic armor was destroyed, no regeneration would be built up at the end of turn 6, because all the organic armor is destroyed.  That means, on turn 7, if the ships takes another 1500 damage, destroying all its organic armor again, that's it.  It used up all its regeneration pool to repair the first time, and hasn't been able to build up any more, so you're out of luck for the rest of the fight.
   Also note that only destroyed organic armor is repaired.  Regeneration is never spent on partially damaged armor, because, as you recall from Question #1, components cannot be partially damaged, only destroyed.
   4. Do I really want to know how Crystalline Armor works?
   No, you really, really don't.  But here it is.  Let's do this by example.  Assume a ship with 0/300 shields and 4 Crystalline Armor III (150 damage resistance each , 15 dmg converted to shields each) and no damage inside shields yet.  This ship is hit by a Meson Blaster (normal damage) for 30.  The CA regenerates the target's shields by 30 (it could have done up to 60, but the weapon damage was only 30).  This shield regeneration is done after the weapon damage is applied against shields, so it doesn't block this hit.  Now, the 30 weapon damage becomes extra damage since it cannot kill the armor (that takes 150).  So, we now have 30/300 shields and 30 extra damage.
   The target is hit again for another 30 damage.  First, we added extra damage to this, so we get a hit doing 60 damage (see Question #1 if you've forgot about that   ).  Now, the shield blocks 30, so 30 damage is left which causes the CA to regen another 30 shields and the ships extra damage to be set to 30, again.  So, we now have 30/300 shields and 30 extra damage.  Look familar?
   That's right, if you cannot, in a single hit, do either 150 damage OR more damage than the CA can convert to shields, you will NEVER hurt the ship without armor skipping weapons (see Question #1 for how much fun you can have sneaking non-armor skipping damage inside a ship with armor-skipping weapons).
   Don't believe me?  Ok, example continued, but doing 60 damage this time.  Adding extra damage makes it 90, shield blocks 30, 60 points of shields regen'd and 60 points to extra damage.  Now we have 60/300 shields and 60 extra damage.  Hit again for 60, plus extra damage is 120, shields block 60, 60 left, regen shield 60 and extra damage becomes 60, leaving us with 60/300 shields and 60 extra damage?  Fun, isn't it?
   Again, 65 damage though.  Add extra damage, 125, shield blocks 60, 65 left, regen shield 60 (max for 4 CA-III) and extra damage set to 65.  Hit again for 65.  Add extra damage, 130, shield blocks 60, 70 left, regen shield 60 and extra damage set to 70.  Hit again for 65.  Add extra damage, 135, shield blocks 60, 75 left, regen shield 60 and extra damage set to 75.  As you can see, the extra damage slowly creeps up, and once it hits 150, it will kill a piece of CA.  At which point only 45 damage can be converted to shields and doing 65 a hit, the ship will begin to die faster.
   Now, here is the scary part.  We're 60/300 shields with 75 extra damage and no CA destroyed yet.  You've been slowly chipping away with 65 damage weapons.  Guess what happens if you hit is for 60 or less damage?  Hit for 40.  Add extra damage, 115, shield blocks 60, 55 left, regen shield 55 and extra damage set to 55.  Now we're at 55/300 and 55 extra damage.  That's right, the ship has effectively healed 20!!!
   Moral of the story, once you've got his shield almost down, fire *only* weapons that do more damage than he can convert to shields (or do 150+ damage).  If you must use lower damaging weapons, fire only your highest low-damage weapon until his shields equal the damage that that weapon does.  Then, switch to your big guns.  This maximizes the amount of damage applied to his components.  If your "big gun" happens to be armor skipping, even better.  This will suck the extra damage from your weaker weapons right past his armor into his internals.  Also, armor skipping also does not trigger CA's shield regeneration.  This makes it the ability of choice for taking out crystalline armored ships.
[Ed: Same author, later in the thread]
   5. And how do fighters fit into all this?
   First off, a lone fighter works exactly the same as a ship...almost.  You cannot fire only one of multiple identical weapons.  All DUC-III's on a single fighter fire at once or not at all.  In fact, you must unhighlight all of them or they all fire.
   Further, all identical items are combined into a single super-weapon.  DUC-III normally do 15 damage each.  Mount four on a fighter and you almost have one weapon doing 60 damage.  I say almost, because there is a separate roll to hit for each weapon.  So if you have only a 50% to hit, your quad-DUC3's will normally behave like a single weapon dealing 30 damage, although it could do either 0 (all four miss) or up to 60.
   Incidentally, DUC-III and DUC-II count as different weapons and do not combine in the above described manner.  Also, this combining effect is not bad, and can be good.  That means you normally don't want to mix weapons on your fighters.
   Once you start grouping them, things get more confusing.  Like lone fighters, all weapons of the same type combine, but across the entire group.  To avoid firing your DUC3's in a squad of fighters, you must unhighlight all of them.  Leave even one highlighted and ever fighter will fire their DUC3's.
   It should not be surprising that this means larger fighter groups rip up crystalline armor easier, not to mention help you bypass emmisive armor.  Of course, larger groups are easier to kill due to damage streaming.
   If it weren't for how crystalline armor currently works, I'd say the combining effect of fighters is unimportant.  It doesn't really effect how things play out.  But with CA the way it stands, you might want to consider using larger groups when dealing with ships protected by lots of CA.
<<
>>
Tomgs
Captain
posted 05 February 2001 21:45
[Ed: reply to previous]
   You did mention about attacking a normal shield ship with phased weapons and normal weapons. But it seems stranger than what you stated. The phased damage will be transfered to the shields by the first hit of a non phased weapon. The destroyed components inside will not be restored but the damage points from inside will be transfered to the shield. It seems that more damage points than just the "leftover" damage is transfered. It actually looks like the damage to the ship is "healed" and this damage transfered to the shields. However this healing is only cosmetic and will not restore destroyed components.
   Also another questain about organic armor. You state that destroyed armor does not regenerate but what about when you have 10 pieces of armor and 3 are destroyed. It seems then that the 3 pieces do contribute to the regeneration but I could have been decieved by the effect of storage of regeneration that I did not know before.
<<
>>
Zanthis
Corporal
posted 05 February 2001 22:24
... [Ed: reply to first question in previous]
   The damage listed when you right-click on a ship, and it says 120/1150 or whatever, is a total of two values: The first is the damage resistance of all destroyed components.  I have *never* seen it fall below that value (I've figured it out by hand many times).  The second is the extra damage on the ship.  This is the value that can frequently be reduced via strange shield interactions.  So, if you see 120/1150 and you're using organic armor, all 120 is likely to be extra damage, and subject to loss against shields.  If you only have Armor III, it probably means 3 Armor III components have been destroyed, and no amount of funky shield stuff is gonna get the damage "undone."
... [Ed: reply to organic armor question in previous]
   If you have 10 pieces and 3 are destroyed, 7 are still helping you regenerate.  If they are OA-III, they are building up 210 points per turn.  So, if you lose 3 OA in one shot, and next turn all 3 are fine, you're using up stockpiled regeneration.  If only one or two are repaired, you've run out of extra regeneration.  However, as long as you have at least five, you will get one OA repaired every turn.  If you got reduced to only one OA-III, it would take five turns to repair one OA.
   The easiest way to see that damaged components don't contribute is when all of your OA is destroyed.  Do it enough times and eventually it just won't come back.
<<
>>
Zanthis
Corporal
posted 07 February 2001 20:38
[Ed: Posted in a different but related thread]
   I just noticed some odd behaviour from Organic Armor while testing mines and discovered something interesting.  So, here is a correction on how Organic Armor works followed by a brief note on emissive armor.
   Organic Armor Correction
   It works pretty much as I stated before, however, once an organic armor component is destroyed, it stops generating points toward regeneration for the remainder of the battle.  That means, if you have 10 piece of OA-III (30pt regen/turn) and 9 are destroyed, from that point on you only generate 30 points of regeneration!  So, once you run out of built-up regeneration, it will take 5 turns to repair each component   .
   Also, Organic Armor is not automatically repaired outside of combat (although it should be).  In fact, I find it very amusing, assuming I have at least 1 OA remaining, to engage colony ships and such and just sit in place will my OA repairs itself.  Repeat until all your OA is back.  I think OA should auto-repair at the beginning of each turn, but hey, that's just me.
   Emissive Armor
   Ok, works pretty much just like you'd expect.  It is not cumulative.  It is triggered before damage is dealt to your ship (but not before it hits shields).  This means if you have 1 EA-III and 10 OA, no weapon doing 30 or less damage has any effect.
   However, remember how extra damage to your ship gets added to future weapon attacks?  That's right, this can let weaker weapons piggy-back past emissive armor.  As if it wasn't worthless enough.  So, if you have a Meson Blaster (30 damage) and a APB (35 damage say), fire the APB first then the MB and you'll get 65 damage on the target instead of the 35 you get by firing the MB first.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 08 June 2001 14:03
   A recent addition to the damage info:
-Small/Weak armor segments will be hit FIRST, 9 times out of 10, with the occasional large segment dying before a small.
-Large/Tough internals will be hit first, most of the time, but most internals tend to be similar size/strength, so its more randomized.  Heavy-mount weapons are still the most likely to be hit first.
   The more extreme the difference in strength/size the more the above observations hold.
   Ie. 1kT vs 10kT armor may be hit first 90% of the time, but 5kT armor vs 10kT armor may only be hit 65% of the time.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 16:41
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   Does anyone happen to know any details about the following Temporal Technology Weapons:
   1.  Does a Shield Accelerator (I-V), which "causes a targets shields to burn out" work against phased shields as well as regular shields?  I would think so... but you never know, the descriptions are kind of vague.
   2.  Just what the heck does the Time Distortion Burst (I-V) do?  The description says "a vehicle hit will take 4x damage to shields, plus normal damage."
   ...4x the damage of what? Normal damage from what?... and to the shields or ship?
   Anyone ever get a good luck at how these things work?
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 16:46
   1. phased shields and normal shield, works like a normal shield depleter, but with more damage i think
   2. if your target has shields, the shields will take 4 times the damage listed for the weapon, if it has no shields, it will do only the damage listed.
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 17:03
   I usually always play temporal. I like it the best of the techs.  The time distortion i use a lot. They are good not only against ships but against ftrs, sats & planets as well. No good against seekers tho. I put the shield weapon first followed by the distortion weapon on my lighter ships. with BB's & DN's,i put the shield depleater or 2 followed by 1 distortion and rest the highest temporal beam weapon, (can't think of name right now).
   I also design a BC & a Dn with all time distortion weapons and use them to escort my fleets. They devestate any ftrs thrown at you and cover the fleet until your main weapon comes back on line. (I believe it fires every 2nd turn. hwoever, do put a few pd's on yur ships or have several pd ships, usually heavy CA's to take out seekers if you are fighting one of those races. The distorion does 4x damage to shields & reg damage against armor. Also get the Temp shipyard and Temp pacification centers. They are more effective and efficient then the regular ones. Replace your reg shipyards with the Temporal ones when you get them. I also put the distortion weapon on my ftrs as well as mix them up with rockets or torpedos depending on size of ftr. I feel they do a lot more damage then some of the other weapons and they fire each turn.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 17:55
...
   Mac- A pain in the butt thing is that you can't upgrade regular construction yards to Temporal.  Gotta spend several years constructing them on your good planets (takes about 10 turns in general).  That's alot of off time!
   But I think I like Temporal as well.  Lot's of neat stuff... especially the system facilities.
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 19:12
   I know it takes time, the best way I found to replace them is if you have a good number of shipyards and 2 or more in a system, only dismantel 1 per system  at a time (depending on how many you have) and build 1 temporal yard per system at a time. This way you still have the other yards for production until you eventually replace all the old ones. On new planets just go right to the temporal yards, don't even bother with the regular ones. If you have a lot of yards in a system then you could do more, but don't dismantle all of them at the same time or you won't be able to produce or repair in that system.  Good luck and enjoy.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 15 June 2001 20:02
   Just wanted to echo everyone else's comments.  Temporal tech rocks!  The Distortion Burst is almost as good as a shield depleter, with the added bonus of doing regular damage once the shields are gone.  The Shield Accelerators mean I don't have to bother researching shield depleters, and the Tachyon Cannon is a good heavy weapon; fire every other turn, nice damage, good range (max. 7, IIRC).  The  Temporal Shifter is a mediocre subsitute for the Null-Space Cannon; the damage and range for the Shifter are a little less, but since you're already researching Temporal Weapons, the Shifter can save you having to research the Null-Space area.
   And the Temporal facilities are amazing; the increased production of the Temporal Space Yard is very helpful (although I agree it's a pain that you can't upgrade a standard Yard to a Temporal Yard).  And the first facility I build in any system is a Temporal Vacation Service.  With 2x the happiness bonus of the Psych Center, plus the fact that I don't have to research Psychology and then the area that gives the Psych Center (or whatever the standard happiness facility is), the Vacation Service is really nice.  I've only used the Events Predictor in a couple systems, since it's really only useful in border systems (at least against the AI; humans are more likely to attack core systems, so the Events Predictor may be more useful against human opponents).
   Finally, the only addition I'd make is a Temporal Space Yard component that can go on a ship...
<<
>>
jc173
Second Lieutenant
posted 16 June 2001 09:57
   You can mod the facilities file so you upgrade from a normal shipyard to a temporal shipyard.  Not sure if that's really plausible, but then again temporal tech in general may not be plausible.  Just swap them to the same family and give the temporal shipyards higher roman numerals.  I did this primarily so that the AI can utilize them since from what I've seen it won't scrap a normal shipyard and build a temporal one.  I'm using a mod that borrows the advanced shipyard and advanced temporal shipyard from an older mod (Dman's mod I think).  I put all the shipyards in the same facility family and you can upgrade up the whole chain.
<<
>>
Q
Captain
posted 16 June 2001 14:45
   I think that's the way it should be! Did you propose this modification to MM for inclusion to the next patch?
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
12: Do phased shields stop normal damage as well, or ONLY damage from phased weapons?
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 05:28
...
12. Phased shield stop all damage. BTW, at one time there was a bug in the game that disabled the 'phased' effectiveness of phased shields if you also had a normal shield in the mix.
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 20 June 2001 09:15
...
12: Phased shields stop everything, except things like engine damagers and Wave motion Guns which skip all shields.
<<
>>
Zarix
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 15:25
   Wave motion guns do normal damage. Null-Space Weapons skip shields and armor.
<<


INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE:

   Intelligence projects are offensive.  Counter-Intelligence projects are defensive.  How they work is discussed below (A LOT).  Observations indicated actual behaviour is at variance with official statements.
   Note: Player developed "Mods" have been created since some of this early discussion which improve the AI use of Intelligence projects.  (See the section on "Mods and Mod Packs" for a general description of those terms.)

From the MM site Q&A web page:
With the Counter-Intelligence projects, when it says that you have succeeded in preventing attacks against X empire:
Q 79. What kinds of intelligence activites are you protected from at a given level?
A. Intelligence Defense projects merely provide points which are used to defend against enemy projects. The higher the level, the more points you can put into the project (cost), and the better they will protect you. The specific type of the offensive intelligence activity does not matter. Defense projects defend against them all.
Q 80. Is this a lasting condition? i.e., will you have to do the same level counter-intelligence project over again in the future to maintain protection?
A. Defense intelligence projects will have their points depleted (the points you are paying in to complete them) as they defend against attacks. Once a defensive project expires, you will have to start it again to continue your protection. The more projects you have going, the better your protection will be. However, if you have a defensive intelligence project, and you are not spending any points towards it, it will not provide any protection.
Q 81. If it says that you are protected against X empire, are you also protected against Y & Z empire? Also, if you are, what about empires you haven't met yet? Does that protection extend to them?
A. A defensive project protects against all enemy empires that attack you will intelligence actions. When you choose a defensive project, you do not choose which empire it is directed towards. It is merely general defense against all aggressors. An empire that you haven't met yet cannot perform intelligence yet. An empire must show in your Empires window for them to be able to attack your with intelligence projects.
Q 87. Every time I add a Counter -Intelligence Project to the Intelligence Project list everything 
seems fine, the project is 'working', the time is counting down every round until there is only 0.1 left. And then next round it should create the Defense Counter, but I always get the message (in the log) that the project has lacked or failed. Everytime. 
A. When your counter-intelligence project is in operation, it is preventing attacks. If it completes, then it says that it failed because it did not actually prevent any attacks.
Q 89. When you capture an enemy vessel with components based on tech you do not have is it possible to learn something from analyzing the vessel? Or do you only gain insights on tech fields you already know of but are not as advanced as the components you are analyzing.
   Can you use an intelligence project to steal a tech field you do not have? (ie If you do not have Organic Engineering at all, can you specify to steal it?)
   Other than the the above two methods is it possible to gain unknown tech fields in a game? (Other than choosing a race trait or colonizing a ancient ruin planet.)
A. The only way to learn something from a captured vessel is to use the Deconstruct and Analyze order (in the Scrap window). You will gain research for all of the components that you do not currently possess.
   Yes, you can use intelligence to steal technology from another player. If you select the setting "Any" for the tech area to steal, its possible to steal technology from areas unknown to you.
   You can also gain technology by capturing enemy planets. Any facilities which you capture give you a bonus towards learning that technology.
   There is one restriction on all of this. You cannot obtain unique or racial technology from another player (if you don't already have it). For example, if you capture a ship with organic technology, but you do not possess the racial trait of Organic Engineering, they you will not be able to gain any knowledge from organic components. The same goes for stealing technology as well.
Q 89. When you capture an enemy vessel with components based on tech you do not have is it possible to learn something from analyzing the vessel? Or do you only gain insights on tech fields you already know of but are not as advanced as the components you are analyzing?
   Can you use an intelligence project to steal a tech field you do not have? (ie If you do not have Organic Engineering at all, can you specify to steal it?)
   Other than the the above two methods is it possible to gain unknown tech fields in a game? (Other than choosing a race trait or colonizing a ancient ruin planet.)
A. The only way to learn something from a captured vessel is to use the Deconstruct and Analyze order (in the Scrap window). You will gain research for all of the components that you do not currently possess.
   Yes, you can use intelligence to steal technology from another player. If you select the setting "Any" for the tech area to steal, its possible to steal technology from areas unknown to you.
   You can also gain technology by capturing enemy planets. Any facilities which you capture give you a bonus towards learning that technology.
   There is one restriction on all of this. You cannot obtain unique or racial technology from another player (if you don't already have it). For example, if you capture a ship with organic technology, but you do not possess the racial trait of Organic Engineering, they you will not be able to gain any knowledge from organic components. The same goes for stealing technology as well.

>>
Bowden Russell
Private First Class
posted 10 December 2000 06:50
   Where is the screen that allows me to allocate intelligence points (I have the technology to do so)?
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 10 December 2000 10:52
   In the diplomacy screen there's a button that say's intelligence to the right. That's where you assign intelligence projects.
<<
>>
[K126]Mephisto
First Lieutenant
posted 15 January 2001 08:41
[Ed: posted in a separate thread]
   It's not a bug the way I understand it.
   Daynarr, you are somewhat in an error IMHO. You don't need to finish a project to work. A project runs as long it is not finished and has a chance to stall enemy actions each turn.
   You run a counter-project:
Turn 1: 300.000 points left to do
Turn 2: 250.000 points left to do
Enemy sabotage a success. Damn, they slipped by.
Turn 3: The counter-project stalls an enemy project, counter-project finished as it was a success
Turn 4: Repeat project is enabled, counter-project is begun. Luckily, we get another enemy action.
Turn 5: See turn 4. Wau, 3 enemy projects stalled in 5 turns.
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 15 January 2001 10:26
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Well, this was the situation: About 200000 points, running 10 lvl 3 counter-intel projects, 2 offensive intel projects, divide points evenly, repeat projects turned on. There ware no 'slipping' enemy projects coming through while my counter-intel was in progress. When these projects finished, I was getting hit by about 7-8 enemy intel projects. Next turn, although all my counter-intel projects started from beginning last turn, they would be finished again (2 times in a row). On the same turn I get hit by enemy intel again. After that, my counter projects would be running normally till they get finished again. NO 'slipping' enemy projects while my counter-intel was running because I was having much more intel points then enemy (the strongert one had about 37000 points, and I had contact with about 5 races that time starting from corner).

   2 thing are wrong here:
1st- Finishing counter-intel opens a window for enemy intel on that turn. That means that if you have more intel points, you get them finished more often and get hit by enemy intel more often. That is not right IMO.
2nd- Finishing counter-intel projects again next turn is a bug. There were not nearly enough points to finish them all in 1 turn.
   Also, this started to happen only after I got a large number of intel points. Before that, it was working like it was supposed or at least it seams so (still happening that 1 turn window).
   All this was having no effect on my offensive projects, as they were running normally.
   I must note that I haven't seen any points subtracted from my offensive intel projects by enemy counter-intel during their progress as I should have (I was MEE at the time).
<<
>>
[K126]Mephisto
First Lieutenant
posted 15 January 2001 12:29
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Daynarr, this not a bug. CI is NOT!!!! a normal project. It is NOT finished when you get enough points, it is finished when:
a) You got enough points to finish it
or!
b) you stall an enemy project NO MATTER HOW MUCH POINTS YOU HAVE INVESTED!  You can stall an enemy project with your CI3 in the first turn, in the middle, at the end or don't at all, anytime. It doesn't matter. All you have to do is to spend some points into a project to keep it going.
<<
>>
General Hawkwing
Sergeant
posted 15 January 2001 15:52
   It is possible for the AI to have intel work against you even if you have mega intel points and are running CI3 on all 12 slots, with divide evenly and repeat projects turned on.  HOW?  There are more than 12 AI intel projects finishing against you in that turn or more points spent by the AI against you than you have, I'm not sure which.
   Don't forget the "other" CI [project].  Find the AI colonies with intel facilities and clear/take them.
<<
>>
raynor
Sergeant
posted 01 February 2001 19:22
   Do you think the AI uses intel to its maximum effect? Below is a list of stuff that happened to me during my last game when one empire was spending 200,000 intel points per turn against my 40,000 defensive intel points:
   They successfully damaged several planet's conditions, did food contamination, made colonies unhappy. They stole a couple of battle cruisers inside my system--one of which had stellar manipulation components which had just been built. They disrupted research projects that had been going for 5 turns. The worst one they did was to mess with a 20% trade treaty that was bringing in 100,000 minerals per turn. That one stung a little bit. They also cost ships supplies or messed up the orders of ships.
   My opinion is that once your empire grows to a certain size, you aren't going to feel the effects of these minor intel projects that strongly. But what would have happened to me if the AI had been spending all its points on Puppet Political Parties [Ed: = PPPs]? With 200,000 intel points, couldn't the EA have grabbed hold of a couple of my planets every turn?
   Also, any thoughts from those of you who have used intel yourself to bring the AI to its knees?
<<
>>
rdouglass
Sergeant
posted 01 February 2001 19:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I definitely don't think the Ai uses intel very well (just like many other areas).  I don't think that the AI altering the orders of one of my transports or colony ships for 1 turn hurts me a bit, large or small.  I've never even had a Crew Insurrection against me.  However, if the AI WAS intelling PPPs or Crew Insurrection, I definitely would be spending a much larger portion of my intel points towards Counter Intel.
   Unfortunately, the AI does not...  If it did, there would be far more discussions about the importance of Intel.  Now as it stands, many people feel Intel is a waste.
   Raynor, are you using any specific Mods, 'cause I'd love to get into a heavy Intel Battle with an AI...  Yes, as it stands now, I CAN bring down any AI I've been up against with Intel operations after about 100 turns.  Of course, I'm usually producing 250 - 300,000 Intel points....
<<
>>
raynor
Sergeant
posted 01 February 2001 20:23
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Wow! Doesn't that massive investment in intel put you behind on research?
   Next time you load up a game, could you please check and see how many enemy planets you can PPP away from him per year? I would be really interested in hearing the results of a very different way of playing the game. It sounds like you are having some serious fun with intel!
<<
>>
rdouglass
Sergeant
posted 01 February 2001 20:50
[Ed: reply to previous]
   > Raynor, yes it does require a big investment in intel facilities. However, there are many areas that I don't have to research BECAUSE of my intel strategies. For instance, I never research propulsion 'cause I Crew Insurrect an AI ship, get it to a "mobile" Ship Yard (or get the SY to it) and analyse the ship. That gives me the techs (alas in 1 tech level increments). Same goes for Colony techs, etc. I usually just research my racial techs (usually organic - I LOVE the Enveloping Acid Globules), Shields, Stellar Manip, Intel, Ship Construction, Point Defense, and Stellar Harnessing. Everything else I steal.  Sure does reduce the amount of research facilities I need.
   As to the PPP thing, when I'm cranking out intel points, I try to PPP 1 planet every other turn, 1 ship to Crew Insurrection per turn, and the rest to various Counter Intel. Crew Insurrect seems to work every time while as PPP works about 75% of the time.
   I also play huge galaxy, low tech games so it gives me a few turns to get my intel act together before I encounter another AI. The only downfall is if I meet an AI early. Then I have to do some scrambling - usually resort to mines or missiles - and go heavy on the defense.
   Yes, it does definitely put a cool twist on the game. IMO that (Intel) is a HUGE improvement over SE3. You should try that strategy once and see how you like it.
   > The way I understand intel and counter-intel is this: Your intel points for intelligence operation gets negated by any counter-intel points spent by the target for that level.
   For instance, Player A has 100,000 points of intel and has 4 projects running.  Project 1 has 25,000 points towards Crew Insurrection (an Intel Level II project) of player B, Project 2 is Order Snafu (Intel Level I) toward player C for 25,000 points, Project 3 & 4 are both 25,000 points toward Counter-Intel II.
   Player B has 60,000 points and uses them for 2 Projects: 30,000 toward Crew
Insuurect toward Player A, and 30,000 in Counter Intel II.
   Player C has 60,000 points and 3 projects: 20,000 toward Order Snafu on Player A; 20,000 toward Counter-Intel I, and 20,000 toward Counter-Intel II.
   Now here's where the confusion usually begins:
   Player A Project 1 NEVER is sucessful 'cause Player B puts 30,000 toward
Counter-Intel II: 25,000 - 30,000 = -5,000.
   Player A Project 2 is sucessful (I think at a reduced percentage) since 25,000 - 20,000 = 5,000. Remember Player C had 20,000 toward Counter Intel II.
   Player B Project 1 Works at a reduced percentage: 30,000 (from B) - 25,000 (A CI II)= 5,000.
   Player C Project 1 almost ALWAYS sucessful since Player A has NO Counter Intel I projects.
   I'm sure I missed some details...maybe others can fill in the blanks and / or correct me.
<<
>>
raynor
Sergeant
posted 02 February 2001 16:01
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Thanks, rdouglas!
   I think my main question concerns the efficacy of having multiple counter-intel projects going at once vs. just one big one.
   It sounds like most folks think you are better off having 12 counter-intel projects going at once instead of just one big one?
<<
>>
Tomgs
First Lieutenant
posted 02 February 2001 18:09
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Actually each counter intel project will only work against one intel project. Even though it looks like it takes a lot of points to run a counter intel project as soon as you have put enough points into it to counter that first intel project it stops and gives you a message that it stopped that project. That is why you need more than one counter intel project running at once. Your project could look like it will take 4 or 5 turns to complete but all of a sudden it will be over once it counters an opponents project and you are left without counter intel. So if multiple projects are run against you then you have to run multiple counter intel. You will know when you need it especially on those turns that 5 or 6 projects go off against you all at once.  The AI seems to run a lot of projects simultaniously so a lot can hit you at once. The worst is when you have 3 or more AI targeting you at once with intel (Mega-Evil Empire time again).
<<
>>
rdouglass
Sergeant
posted 02 February 2001 18:32
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Thanks for clarifying. I did take that into account in my explaination (hence the 2 C-Intel projects), but was not at all clear about it. I need to remember to read my posts from a different perspective...but, yes, you are exactly right.  However, I think the key is if the Intel Project is putting more points per turn than the Counter Intel (ON A 1 TO 1 BASIS - project for project), then it will succeed with respect to percentages. If the opposite is true, C-Intel more than Intel per turn, then it will fail.
   Yeah, and when I'm MEE, I usually have 8 Counter Intel projects running at the same time. However, 1 or 2 always slip thru. I think on average, the AI has at least 3 offensive Intel projects runnung against you when at war.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 05 April 2001 18:59
[Ed: Posted in a different but related thread]
   Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
   "Counter-intelligence operations are expensive because it is YOUR spending against the ATTACKER's spending. If the counter-intelligence operation costs less than the attacking operation, it cannot neutralize it."
   Very good; a concise explanation that is completely correct.
   "That's why the "Puppet Political Parties" operation is so hard to counter. You need counter-intel level three and the points to match the attackers spending."
   Well, actually, PPP costs 100,000 Intel points.  Counter-Intelligence level I costs... 100,000 Intel points.  So level 1 could (if you spend more points per turn on it than the opponent, and the CI doesn't block another Intel op in the meantime) block a PPP attack.  Especially if the "Counter-Intel Bonus" setting in Settings.txt is working.  The benefit to using a higher-level CI project is that you're more likely to have a high amount of CI points built up when an attack comes through.
   As I said earlier, the only project that costs MORE than a level 1 CI project is Technological Espionage, at 150,000 points.
<<
>>
raynor
Captain
posted 05 March 2001 18:30
[Ed: reply to a different thread on a proposed mod to intel projects]
   From reading other topics, here is my understanding of how intel works:
   It takes a certain amount of points in a counter-intel project to defend against an enemy intel project. All enemy intel projects "battle" your counter-intel projects on a one-to-one basis. So, if your enemy is running two intel projects against your one counter-intel project, one of them is possibly going to succeed.
   When a counter-intel project accumulates enough points to defeat an intel project, the counter-intel project is terminated.
   The higher level counter-intel projects allow a single project to accumulate more intel points and thus be capable of stopping larger intel projects.
   An empire with a small amount of intel points should run a small number of counter-intel projects in order to insure that each one will accumulate enough points fast enough to stop enemy projects. An empire with a large amount of intel should run the max number of counter-intel projects to stop as many intel projects as possible.
   I agree with Triumvir Emphy about the higher level CI projects. Their purpose is to counter intel projects that cost more. The premise here is that if you don't have CI 2 or CI 3, then you can't counter those higher level projects--not because you don't have that level project running but because your CI 1 project will NEVER accumulate enough points to stop it.
   The main problem with spending so much on intel and accumulating a million points in a CI project is that all those points are going to be wasted when your CI project counters a tiny little 10,000 point enemy intel project.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
First Lieutenant
posted 05 March 2001 20:55
   I also used to think that you needed CI level 2 or 3 to counter Intel level 2 or 3; but then I checked the Q&A on the MM website and discovered that ANY CI project can indeed block any Intel project, assuming the CI project has accumulated enough points.  Another interesting point is that the only Intel project that costs more than the CI level 1 (100,000 points) is "Steal Technology" (or whatever it's called) at 150,000 points.
   So it seems the only real benefit to the higher-level CI projects is blocking the "Steal Technology" project (which is fairly minor in comparison to others, since you don't actually lose something, the enemy merely gains the benefit of your research).  The other good thing is that the higher-level projects are less likely to complete "unsuccessfully" just because it takes longer to spend the full number of points, which makes it more likely that an enemy will finish an intel project against you before you spend the full number of points. (hope that last sentence made sense...)
   As for multiple intel projects completing at the same time, I think two things are happening:
   1) the enemy's intel projects are synching up because they cost about the same amount
   2) there's a "domino effect" occurring.  The AI is, of course, running counter-intel ops of its own.  As those counter-intel ops are completed, unspent points (if any) are used to make the following intel ops complete, and so everything completes at the same time.
<<
[Ed: The following is included because it provides further illustrations of how intel projects work and some of the differences seen in PBEM (Play-By-EMail) "simultaneous" games, even though it is about an apparent bug.]
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 06 March 2001 16:01
   The intel system is definitely broken, at least in PBEM simaltaneous games.
   After reading about how it is supposed to work, I have been confounded as to what the heck is going on in my current game.  I have been running intel projects against my opponent for about 12 turns:
   My base intel: 45-50K
   His Defense Intel: 8-12K
   Not ONE operation has succeeded.  I asked him how he defended my attacks, and he has been running nothing but defense (counter Intel II with repeat).  He had intel tech for only an estimate of 30 turns.  Let's say that according to these numbers, he should have 30 X 10K = 300,000 possible counter intel project points.
   BAFFLING PART:  He currently has three level II projects near completion!  That's about 700,000 defense points!  Not to mention the (estimated) 45,000 X 12 turns = 540,000 offensive intel operation points that should have reduced his defense.  It should not even be close.
   The only other thing I can think of is that he is in a partnership with another player with about a 50K intel base.  I doubt this is causing this effect.
   IF intel worked the way it was supposed to, it would be a HUGE factor in games against other humans.  But according to our experiences, there seems to be a problem or something we could have missed... It's just lame to discover that Intel is useless after you have been playing for 80 turns.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
First Lieutenant
posted 06 March 2001 20:26
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   By "near completion", I assume you mean ending next turn.  That does NOT mean he has spent the full cost of a Counter Intel II project.  It ONLY means he has spent enough to counter an Intel operation.  Which could be as little as 4000 points.  (Assuming that the setting in "Settings.txt" that gives Counter-Intel a 20% bonus against Intel is working).  3 * 4000 is only 12,000; his entire output at this time.
   Now, Partners share Intel points.  So he could be getting 20% of 50k, which is 10k; giving him 22,000 points per turn to spend on Counter-Intel.  Still not quite enough (even with a bonus for CI vs. I) to negate all your attacks.  Especially if you complete more than 3 ops per turn, and all are being countered.  It is possible (though yet to be verified by anyone) that multiples of the same project are treated as one project; i.e., three Crew Insurrections against the same empire MIGHT be blocked by a single CI op.  I forget where we discussed that idea, but you might want to pursue it; if that IS the case, MM needs to fix it.
   Finally, IIRC, there's a chance for Intel projects to fail on their own.  Particularly if you target a specific item (ship/planet) rather than "any ship/planet" in the target empire.
   BTW [Ed: = By The Way] - it took me a while to get Intel to work on one of the AI opponents; so it works in some cases.  Just not certain how many cases or how well.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 08 March 2001 16:24
[Ed: Reply to previous]
   No, that's not what I mean... I am familiar with the bar counter for projects, and when I relayed what my friend described, I meant he had multiple projects completed or near completed(green bar filled up).
   Upon further investigation (we stopped playing the game and took screen caps of his intel for the last 7 turns) we are definitely experiencing something quite erratic.  We have sent the game files and screen caps to Malfador, it certainly looks like a bug.
   With repeat projects on, and devide points evenly, he is literally completing a full Level 2 CI proj a turn.  Every other turn, his points are completely depleted!?! then return, with even more CI points.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Private First Class
posted 13 April 2001 09:34
   My observations to CI:
   -CI points don't stack/accumulate every turn, this is not like an Intel project or research project
   -so the maximum possible CI value is the same as the Intel-points you produce every turn
   -I have checked this: Empire A has a CI-level III project, 25000 points, which means it can counter intel for this amount every turn (see above),
Empire B ran 4 small intel projects (5000 to 15000 points), all four projects completed in the same turn and all projects failed due to the one CI project of Empire A
   I have tested this with two empires against one CI-level 3 project also, with same results, so don't waste your Intel-slots, one huge CI-level 3 project will do it, unless you produce more than 500000 points each turn, then you should divide projects. This makes sense to me.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 13 April 2001 15:04
[Ed: reply to previous]
   PsychoTechFreak: your testing appears to be the opposite of what Malfador has stated about Counter-Intel.
...   [Ed: quotes from the Malfador website Q&A #80.  See beginning of this topic for the text.]
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Captain
posted 13 April 2001 15:06
...
   Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
   "My observations to CI:
   -CI points don't stack/accumulate every turn, this is not like an Intel project or research project"
   This has not been my experience at all.  I've had up to 12 CI operations running at one time, with about 4k points per turn for each operation, and still been able to block enemy intel ops.  There aren't many Intel ops that only cost 4k points...
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Private First Class
posted 14 April 2001 09:44
   Well, what I have done is just to check if one single CI project would protect against multiple Intel attacks, and it does (even against multiple races !). Ok, it's not a bad idea to have multiple CI projects, but just because my single CI project expires if it is needed to counter intel attacks in a single turn (I can see an attack in the turn before I receive the message, CI project will complete in 1 turn !) ...
   What have I meant with accumulation/stack ?: e.g. if you run one single CI project, you won't see the points increasing every turn until it reaches 100K or so like in normal intel or research projects. In every peaceful turn (w/o intel attacks) it will show you exactly the amount of produced intel points if you have no other projects running.
   P.S.: As long as I produce less than 500K points I have two CI level 3 projects (if one completes due to intel attacks, you have another one for the rest of the points); and the repeat project button set to active, so I don't need to observe my CI every turn.
<<
>>
raynor
Major
posted 14 April 2001 11:21
[Ed: reply in same thread]
   I just ran a test.
   Empire Alpha - 6,000 intel points spent on 5,000 point attack that should finish every turn.
   Empire Beta - 8800 intel points on CI-3 that shouldn't finisih for 57 turns.
   Here are the turn by turn results:
1. Empire A fails; Empire B's CI project has 5.4 years to go
2. Empire A fails; Empire B's CI project has 4.3 years to go
3. Empire A fails; Empire B's CI project has .4 years to go
4. Empire A fails; Empire B's CI project has 0 years to go
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Private First Class
posted 14 April 2001 18:42
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yep, intel attacks seem to add points to CI projects (and yes, points which are not used to counter intel attacks accumulate to your CI projects too, sorry , it seems I had testet this with almost equal amounts of attack to counter-points, so they have been eaten up) , but something smells fishy, which needs some declaration from a god-like Intel user (anyone out there ?)
   I've got another one for you:
   - 12 CI level 3 projects, 10000 produced intel points which are divided evenly to each project, so every project gets something like completed in 5 to 6 years
   -let the other empire repeat a small project (5000 to 10000 points) and watch your CI projects (the bar at the bottom)
   - some projects will nearly complete the next turn (they counter the attack) and some will be at 80% or 90%
   -now secure one of the 90% slots: uncheck the divide points evenly button and put this valuable CI project to the end of the chain (it seems to be 450.000 points worth, although you haven't produced that much points in this short period)
   -will this 90% CI 3 project protect you against 450000 attack points ? You bet ! Let the other empire run three Tech Espionage projects run against it (must be ready in the same turn), they will fail most likely, I have tried this 3 times
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Second Lieutenant
posted 14 April 2001 22:25
   Maybe it is subtracting a fixed amount of points from the cost of the CI operation, therebye making it complete faster.
   I must say that from this and other threads we all could use a good explanation of how intel works from MM cause it certainly doesn't seem to work like the manual or Q&A explains.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Private First Class
posted 15 April 2001 01:23
   To me it looks like a bug. With this "strategy" from my last post you can defeat severe intel attacks (multiple 150 K points Tech Espionage for example) just with some 100 points of counter intel !
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
5: Intelligence: if you have level 3 counterintelligence, why can you still choose levels 1 and 2? This is implemented weirdly. It seems initially to be similar to research, but is very different. You need to have a counterintel project running at all times. If you run level 1, you are still vulnerable to level 2 and 3 attacks, so always use the highest one. You don't "get" anything when you complete the project...it just has to be there. Run your own intel offenses alongside the counterintel. (use "divide points evenly"). And if your current counterintel project succesfully blocks an attack, it suddenly jumps to 1 turn from completeness...why?!
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 15:45
...
   (#5) I have to say that Intelligence & CI still is unreliable (and NOT explained) in PBEM or Strategic multiplayer games.  I have heard no official clarification since we posted questions and sent a potential bug in to Malfador several months ago.
   If you go to the thread(s) [Ed: above], you will only find debates among members (some quite excellent), but certainly no final word.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 15:59
   I guess I should bite my tongue:
   Posted with the new patch (6): {Ed: v1.41]
   8. Fixed - Successful intelligence defense would sometimes result in you having intel defense projects more accomplished than when they started.
<<


AI BEHAVIOUR:
This is very much subject to change.  MM is apparently concentrating on improving the AI as first priority after fixing bugs.  In addition, these are conclusions based upon observed behavior (generally of the default races one supposes).  Note the dates carefully as there have definitely been patches since some were posted.

The following Races Chart (as of v1.41) may prove useful:      Personality
Race           Racial Trait (2K pts)  Culture        Demeanor     Group  Planet     Atmosphere
----           ---------------------  -------        --------     -----  ------     ----------
Abbidon        Psychic                Artisan        Neutral       0     Gas Giant  Carbon Dioxide
Amonkrie       none                   Xenophobes     Honorable     4     Ice        Methane
Cryslonite     Crystallurgy           Berzerkers     Psychotic     2     Gas Giant  Hydrogen 
CueCappa       Psychic                Merchants      Honorable     1     Rock       Oxygen
Drushocka      Mechanoids             Workers        Impulsive     3     Rock       Methane
Eee            Ancient Race           Scientists     Friendly      1     Gas Giant  Carbon Dioxide
Fazrah         Lucky                  Renegades      Violent       2     Rock       Oxygen
Jraenar        none                   Warriors       Aggressive    2     Rock       Hydrogen
Krill          Hardy Industrialists   Berzerkers     Violent       2     Rock       Carbon Dioxide
Norak          Deeply Religious       Zealots        Impulsive     3     Rock       Oxygen
Phong          Crystallurgy           Workers        Honorable     1     Rock       Carbon Dioxide
Piundon        Crystallurgy           Berzerkers     Violent       2     Rock       Oxygen
Praetorian     none                   Engineers      Serene        1     Rock       Oxygen
Sallega        Temporal Knowledge     Politicians    Neutral       3     Rock       Oxygen
Sergetti       Propulsion Experts     Xenophobes     Aggressive    4     Ice        Oxygen
Terran         none                   Merchants      Aggressive    3     Rock       Oxygen
Toltayan       Hardy Industrialists   Engineers      Serene        1     Rock       Hydrogen
UrkaTal        Organic Manipulation   Politicians    Serene        1     Ice        Methane
Xiati          Temporal Knowledge     Schemers       Aggressive    2     Rock       Oxygen
Xi'Chung       Organic Manipulation   Berzerkers     Psychotic     2     Rock       Methane
TDM ModPack v1.75 Races:
Colonial       Adv Pwr Conservation   Warriors       Honorable     3     Rock       Oxygen
Darlok         Ancient Race           Schemers       Impulsive     2     Gas Giant  Carbon Dioxide
EarthAlliance  Natural Merchants      Traders        Impulsive     1     Rock       Oxygen
Klingon        Natural Merchants      Warriors       Aggressive    2     Rock       Oxygen
Narn Regime    Deeply Religious       Zealots        Impulsive     2     Rock       Oxygen
Norak          Deeply Religious       Zealots        Impulsive     3     Rock       Oxygen
Pyrochette     Temporal Knowledge     Artisans       Bloodthirsty  1     Rock       Hydrogen
Rage           Propulsion Experts     Warriors       Bloodthirsty  4     Rock       None
Romulan        Natural Merchants      Schemers       Aggressive    2     Rock       Oxygen
Sergetti       Propulsion Experts     Xenophobes     Aggressive    4     Ice        Oxygen
Shadows        Organic Manipulation   Schemers       Friendly      2     Rock       Oxygen
Toron          Advanced Storage       Traders        Impulsive     3     Rock       Hydrogen
Xi'Chung       Organic Manipulation   Berzerkers     Psychotic     2     Rock       Methane

              Score % for:  Get Angry over:      Anger Over Receiving Message Type:
              Demand  Plead   Colonizable              Propose     Give Accept    Remove        Stop
Race           Tone   Tone  Allied  Enemy  General  Treaty  Trade  Gift  Gift  Ships  Colonies  Spying
----           ----   ----  ------  -----  -------  ------  -----  ----  ----  -----  --------  ------
Abbidon        80     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Amonkrie       80     120   True    False  0        10      10     -3    0     10     10        10
Cryslonite     70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
CueCappa       60     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Drushocka      80     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Eee            60     120   False   False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Fazrah         70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Jraenar        70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Krill          70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Norak          80     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Phong          60     120   False   False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Piundon        70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Praetorian     60     120   False   False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Sallega        80     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Sergetti       80     120   True    False  0        10      10     -3    0     10     10        10
Terran         80     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Toltayan       60     120   False   False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
UrkaTal        60     120   True    False  0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Xiati          70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Xichung        70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
TDM ModPack v1.75 Races:
Colonial       60     120   False   True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Darlok         70     150   False   True   -1       0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
EarthAlliance  70     130   False   True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         5
Klingon        70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      10        0
Narn Regime    70     130   False   True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Norak          60     100   True    False  1        0       1      -3    -1    10     20        1
Pyrochette     60     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    -5    15     15        0
Rage           80     120   False   True   2        5       10     3     0     10     10        10
Romulan        70     150   True    True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      15        0
Sergetti       80     120   True    True   0        5       10     -3    0     10     10        10
Shadows        70     120   False   True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Toron          70     130   False   True   0        0       0      -3    0     5      5         0
Xi'Chung       70     110   True    True   5        1       5      -3    0     10     10        5

From the '<RaceName>_AI_Politics.txt' file description: "Score Percent:  This is the percentage of the target player's score to ours. So if we have a score of 10000, and they have a score of 15000, this percentage would be 150%."  

Therefore, "Score %" column is percentage of target player's score (typically you the player) to the race specified's for THAT RACE to adopt that tone.

Personality Group:  Each Personality Group has a specific percentage chance to be chosen for 'Generate random computer controlled Empires' game setup, set in the 'Settings.txt' file.  This value determines which Group this race belongs to, and thus the chance of it being randomly selected.  '0' indicates a 'Neutral' personality group, selected when the 'Generate random computer controlled Neutral Empires' game setup option is chosen.


From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 88. How does the setting of difficulty for the computer player work?. What is the distinction between them, is starting resources or better AI? Is lower setting analagous to easier?
A. AI Difficulty settings:
   Low - The AI is quite dumb and will not use fleets. They should be pretty easy to engage and destroy. There is more of a chance for peaceful AI races in the galaxy.
   Medium - The AI is of moderate intelligence. They will use fleets and all of the ministers in the game.
   High - The AI uses all of its capabilities to destroy you. They also receive some bonuses in resources to help them along. There is a higher chance for aggressive AIs when starting a new game.

>>
UmberGryphon
Private First Class
posted 23 December 2000 00:45
   Well, here's version 1.1 of AI_Analysis.txt, which now covers the Politics and Settings files in addition to its specialty, the Anger files. [Ed: version 1.0 published on 21 Dec 2000]
...
   Well, since nobody else has done it I decided I needed to go into the various AI behavior files and describe how the various computer players now differ.
   Most of the analysis below is of the AI_Anger files, and is relative to Default_AI_Anger.txt.  I think there are some variables that aren't shown there, as I have caused a race to go to war with me just by flying a scout through their space before I had a treaty with them (even though that race had "Per No Treaty Ship" set to 0).  Also, having a system claimed by both you and them seems to cause anger, but that isn't shown either.
   The things that show up in the files that make a default AI race angry (in order of how angry it makes them) are: being Mega Evil, demanding their surrender, declaring war, beating them in combat, refusing/breaking treaties, asking for gifts/tributes, surrendering (?), doing intelligence projects against them, refusing trades/gifts/tributes/demands, demanding that they remove ships/colonies, demanding that they leave planets, asking them to end wars or break treaties with others, losing to them in combat (!), and having planets they want.  A combat ending in stalemate does not make them angrier, even though winning and losing both do, so if you want peace, go for the stalemate.  The things that make them happy are: granting independence to colonies (?), accepting demands, accepting treaties, and giving gifts/tributes.
   In addition to the AI_Anger files, there are also some interesting settings in the AI_Settings and AI_Politics files.  Outside of the two Xenophobic races, the AI_Politics files are more or less identical, so I'll discuss them mostly in general terms.  Note: when I say "stronger" or "weaker", I am referring to the Score as it is available from a button on the Diplomacy screen.
   When an AI is considering whether or not they will accept/propose/break a treaty, they consider: how happy they are with the other player, how big a treaty it is (they practically have to be Brotherly to accept a Partnership, but they'll accept a Trade Alliance at a much lower level), how many wars they're currently in, and whether the other player is significantly stronger or weaker than them (they are much more likely to accept treaties from those with 150% their score, and much less likely to accept treaties from those at half their score).  On top of all that, they are slightly more likely to accept/propose treaties in the first 50 turns.
   If you have 150% of a computer player's score, you can get them to say they'll obey most of your requests/demands -- but as others have noted, telling them to get their ships out of a system (for example) doesn't usually work even if they say they're leaving.  If you have six times their score, you can make them a Protectorate; if you have eight times their score, you can Subjugate them; if you have ten times their score and are not allied with them, you can get them to Surrender.
   The two fields that vary the most between one AI_Setting file and another are "Percentage of Allied Planets to consider as Attack Locations for Anger" and "Percentage of Enemy Planets to consider as Attack Locations for Anger".  Those are just really long to type, so from here on out I refer to a planet that is "considered as an Attack Location for Anger" as a `coveted' planet.  Don't ask me exactly what it means for an AI to covet a planet; you now know as much as I do about it.  Presumably the AIs get angrier with you the more of your planets they covet.
   If a race is Forgiving, they get less angry 4 steps per turn, anger from combat is slightly lower than normal, they wait 12 turns from the last war before even considering a friendly treaty, and they do not covet enemy planets.
   If a race is Neutral, they get less angry 3 steps per turn, they wait 15 turns from the last war before even considering a friendly treaty, and they covet 10% of enemy planets.
   If a race is Angry, they get less angry 2 steps per turn, "no-treaty" ships make them angry, anger from combat is about 50% higher, anger from refusing treaties is doubled, they wait 20 turns from the last war before even considering a friendly treaty, and they covet 20% of enemy planets unless otherwise stated.
   However, if an Angry race is also Xenophobic, they only covet 10% of enemy planets (I guess it's lower 'cause they think the planets have been contaminated by those unholy aliens?), "no-treaty" ships make them furious, and anger from combat is doubled.  Not only do Xenophobic races hate being communicated with in almost any way, but they need to be happier with you to accept treaties, they are one-third as likely to propose treaties as the other races, you need to have FIFTY TIMES their score before they will surrender, and they are 50% to 300% harder to intimidate with all other threats and demands.

Abbidon: Neutral race.  Covets 25% of allied planets.
Amonkrie: Angry xenophobic race.  Covets 20% of allied planets.
Cryslonite: Angry race.  Covets 30% of allied planets.
CueCappa: Forgiving race.  Covets 10% of allied planets.
Drushocka: Neutral race.  Covets 30% of allied planets.
Eee: Forgiving race.  Covets NO allied planets.
Fazrah: Angry race.  Covets 30% of allied planets.
Jraenar: Angry race.  Covets 30% of allied planets.
Krill: Angry race.  Covets 40% of allied planets.
Norak: Neutral race.  Covets 20% of allied planets.
Phong: Forgiving race.  Covets NO allied planets.
Piundon: Angry race.  Covets 30% of allied planets.
Praetorian: Forgiving race.  Covets NO allied planets.
Sallega: Neutral race.  Covets 20% of allied planets.
Sergetti: Angry xenophobic race.  Covets 20% of allied planets.
Terran: Neutral race.  Covets 25% of allied planets.
Toltayan: Forgiving race.  Covets NO allied planets.
UkraTal: Forgiving race.  Covets 10% of allied planets.
XiChung: Angry race.  Covets 40% of allied and enemy planets.
Xiati: Angry race.  Covets 50% of allied planets and 10% of enemy planets.
<<
>>
mafia
Private First Class
posted 21 December 2000 22:14
   I accept demands all the time and don't follow through. Mainly they ask me to break a treaty with their "...most hated enemy." I accept their demand in writing but don't break the treaty. They seem to stay brotherly alot longer than if you deny their demand. Seems like blatantly lying to them should produce more anger than refusing.
   Do general messages produce happiness?
<<
>>
UmberGryphon
Private First Class
posted 21 December 2000 23:20
   "Do general messages produce happiness?"
   No.  "Receive General Message" has straight zeros across the board.  You could reduce anger with small gifts, though--even the xenophobes like gifts.
<<
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 22 December 2000 03:11
   mafia:
   Yes, what you are experiencing is a problem that needs to be addressed IMO. There is NO enforcement of agreements etc. ... not even diplomatic penalties for reneging. IMO, if you agree to something, you should be bound to it or else face SEVERE penalties from the other races as someone who cannot be trusted.
   The same problem also occurs if you simply don't respond at all. There is no penalty assessed for that but a rather hefty one for a 'refusal'.
   Note that this is something known to MM (or at least the playtesters) so I hope it will be addressed in the next patch. [Ed: not yet] For now, I just make sure I: 1) always respond to all the enemy messages with either a definate 'Yes' or 'No' answer and 2) I always honor all agreements made. If I SAY I'm breaking a Treaty, I do it ... otherwise I tell them to go bugger off.
   It's a MUCH better game when you enforce these rules as well. The AI actually seems to come to life a bit more and definately is far more hostile when its demands are continuously rebuffed. I HIGHLY recommend playing this way as so as not to exploit another weakness in the AI.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 23 December 2000 02:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
   That's funny, the Eee literally went to war against me for simply breaking a treaty... that's not a penalty?  It took them a long time to cool down, too, because they kept sending ships into my minefields and getting a ship destroyed is an increase in anger even though it's not technically a "battle" as far as I can tell. Also, there does seem to be a negative reaction to no answer for a treaty request. It's just less than the penalty for an outright refusal.
<<
>>
Talenn
Second Lieutenant
posted 23 December 2000 05:41
   Baron:
   Oh if you break treaties etc. there is DEFINATELY a penalty.   What I was refering to was when Race 'x' comes and tells you to break a treaty with Race 'y'. You agree to do so, but then don't actually go through and break the treaty. A few turns later, Race 'X' simply asks again. And the REALLY twisted thing is you get the GOOD modifier for 'agree with demand'. That is a definately problem IMO. Not only is there no penalty for reneging on a deal, there is a BENEFIT.
   Now perhaps I am reading the file incorrectly (its a bit cryptic at times), but from what it appears and from game experience, that's the way it works out. And I have yet to see an AI go more unfriendly from simply ignoring their requests. If you refuse a Treaty or request directly you can see their happiness decrease instantly next turn. If you simply don't respond to the message, there is usually little or no change ... although once in a while the 'default decrease/turn' kicks in and their happiness with you INCREASES. It's very odd.
<<
>>
warp nine
Private First Class
posted 29 December 2000 15:54
   A note on AI coveting your planets: they only covet a percentage of the planets they KNOW about. Which is why you have to be careful with treaties: upon forming a Partnership treaty, both sides exchange system maps. Then a coveting race will see how many planets you really have and immediately get angry at you. How angry they get is specified in the file, and within 2 turns of forming a Partnership you may find yourself at war with an empire that knows EXACTLY where all your planets, resupply, spaceports, shipyards, etc. are. So when your Military ally offers a Partnership, sometimes a polite 'no-thank-you' is best!
<<
>>
warp nine
Private First Class
posted 22 December 2000 20:57
   You can change the anger setting for 'receive general message' to anything you want. I wish there was a setting for 'receive NO response'.
   My Ferengi race gets insulted if you refuse a gift, but MAD if you accept it!
<<
>>
Daynarr
Captain
posted 08 April 2001 23:22
[Ed: reply to a question about AI not taking advantage of modder improvements.]
   Jason, judging from your description that was Xi'Chung defense fleet. This is how AI uses defense fleets:
- they always move only within the systems that AI has claimed
- they always hunt enemy ships, not colonies
- they will attack enemy colony only if enemy ship is orbiting that colony
- if there are no enemy ships in that system, they will just sit (effectively blocking it) on warp point until AI detects enemy ships somewhere within his territory or they run out of supplies.
   To take out colonies, AI uses attack fleets. I guess in your case that AI had his attack fleet busy somewhere else.
   Unfortunately, as a modder, there is nothing I can do to change it. I can make AI build effective ships, I can make AI produce those ships, but I can't tell AI what to do with those ships. It is hard coded behavior and it is not as bad as it seems. I have seen AI do some very complex things on both strategic and tactical levels and I must say that it is much, much, MUCH better than any previous version. Of course, there are times that AI looks just plain stupid, but that is the case with ALL games (including chess games).
<<
>>
Dracus
Sergeant
posted 06 January 2001 15:37
   In SE3 I would make a treaty with a race, send in a builder ship and build starbases around their homeworlds. Then attack and capture homeworlds.
   The AI just pulled this trick on me for the first time ever.
   In a conflict with another race my ally, while attacking the enemy, sent a huge fleet to my homeworld to refuel. Since I had asked them to attack a planet in the next system and they said they would.
   I figured the fleet was for that attack.
   As it turns out as soon as they resupplied off my planet they sent in a small set of ships to attack the target planet.  They then broke the treaty with me and took my homeworld.
I was taken by complete suprise, I had not seen the AI pull this before until I got SE4.
But they only did this after I had pulled the same trick in the game earlier on the race we were fighting.
<<
>>
Dracus
Sergeant
posted 06 January 2001 15:43
   Another surpise from the AI.
   While expanding in a new game, I had just finish colinizing and getting my space yard and depot build when a AI race entered my system as a new contact.
   They had a fleet of 3 destoryer ships.
   [They] Sent a miltary treaty. I accepted. 2 turns later they resupplied at my depot dropped the treaty, declared war. The next turn they took my planet.
   This war is now on 4 days of play and neither I or the AI seems to be able to gain any ground.
Best AI fight I have had so far.
<<
>>
TaloFinn
Private First Class
posted 06 January 2001 21:13
  The AI has acted in a similar manner several times in my games. In fact, it has gotten to the point where I assume that they will be declaring war on me when a fleet parks over one of my worlds.
<<
>>
Blue Lord
Corporal
posted 07 January 2001 19:08
   The same thing almost happened to me. In the early stage of game, I just colonize and build defensive satellites. No warship is constructed before the first contact unless there's no contact for the first 40-50 turns or so. 
...
   Now, due to the lack of [my] ships the Toyltoan (or whatever they're called) were in first place. And my partnership comrades.  Now, when 12 of their ships entered a newly taken low defended system (at least not defended to take 12 ships!) I got a little worried.  BUT what saved me was that ALL my Starship contructing worlds made a light cruiser design in 1 turn each (Emergency build and SY II) This resulted in my going from 5th to 1st in 3 turns(!) He withdraw his fleet like nothing happened. 
...
<<

Ed: Sometimes the AI doesn't seem to get started.  Here are some things to check:

>>
Grognard
Private First Class
posted 30 May 2001 23:02
   I've played several games where the AI does not leave its home planet. What am I doing wrong in the game set-up?
<<
>>
Kimball
Sergeant
posted 30 May 2001 23:09
   The computer player is likely a neutral race.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Second Lieutenant
posted 30 May 2001 23:22
   If the AI is doing absolutely NOTHING, no building ships, sending messages, colonizing etc then you probally forgot to check the 'controlled by computer' when you set up the game.  Just go to the players menu within the current game, de-select that player, then turn on the full AI under ministers and then re-select the player for computer control.  Should work fine from there.
   Also when setting up a race to add to your game be sure to check the 'use race' for the AI defaults, not 'aggressive, defensive or neutral', then the Ai will use its own files vs. the defaults.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 31 May 2001 17:01
   What mods are you using? There could be an error in the AI files. I accidently prevented all my AIs from building colony ships once.   So, they at there in their original systems with only a few ships.
<<

Ed: Here are several questions about how the AI behaves:

>>
CtrlAltDel
Private First Class
posted 31 May 2001 22:43
   Ok, I have a bunch of newbie questions I am too lazy to experiment with. Please will someone just answer them, I don't want any newbie-hating stuff....
1 What governs the amount of pop on a planet?
2 Can it be increased?
3 What governs the amount of facil on a planet?
4 Can that be increased?
5 What happens when a star collapses?
6 What does it mean that the storms are opaque to sensors?
   I'll have more later...if anyone who has the time could give me some good beginning strategies I'd be grateful...the manual is sparse in this sense.
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 May 2001 22:59
   There are five sizes of planets: tiny, small, medium, large and huge with corresponding max population for each: 500, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 million and corresponding max facilties: 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25. You only get the max facilities if your colonists breathe the same atmosphere as on the planet. Otherwise, you have a domed colony and only get 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 facilities respectively.
   You can convert a domed colony into an un-domed colony and get the full use of the planet if you either replace all the colonists with ones that can breathe that atmosphere or research, build and wait 20-30 turns for a Atmosphere Converter to convert the atmosphere to one that is breathable.
   I forget... I believe when a star collapses, everything in the system is destroyed. The star goes away, and all the planets are converted to asteroids.
   If you place a ship in a storm, then other ships must have sensors greater than the opacity of the storm in order to see your ship.
<<
>>
Baal
Private First Class
posted 31 May 2001 23:00
...
4. Converting the planet's atmosphere will increase the amount of facilities it has by 5x.  Or you can replace the race on that planet with a race that can breath that atmosphere.
5. It explodes and takes everything in the system with it.  If a star has a little note on it when you click on its sector that says its unstable no need to worry, that 'trigger' has not been implimented yet.  If you get a message at the beginning of your turn that says a star is going to explode in X amount of turns, then pack your transports with your population and run.
6. It means that it gives a level of cloak to what ever is in it ship or base.  To see what is in an opague storm if anything you will need to research some sort of detection sensor (tachyon, hyper-optic, temporal, etc.).
   You can't convert the atmosphere of a 'None' atmosphere planet.  You have to blow it up and rebuild it so that it has an atmosphere to work with.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 31 May 2001 23:01
1.  You mean the maximum population?  Two factors:  planet size and breathability.
   The planet sizes are Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, and Huge.  But even on a huge world, you won't be able to hold THAT many people unless they can breathe the atmosphere.  Incidentally, this is a great use of population from other races that breathe other atmospheres, which you can get if you capture or are given a colony, colony ship or pop transport.  Well, there's also a racial trait that influences it -- Advanced Storage Techniques gives a +20% bonus, IIRC.
2.  If the population can't breathe the atmosphere, you can swap it for one that does (if one's available), or you can convert the atmosphere (with high enough tech -- Level 7 Planet Utilization, which comes after Planetary Engineering IIRC).
3.  Same two factors.  For instance, non-breathable worlds hold 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 facilities according to size (T/S/M/L/H).  Multiply by *5* for a breathable world.   And Advanced Storage Techniques multiplies 1.2x.
   Breathing is very, very important for the facilities.  Having more space for facilities arguably matter far more than the population bonuses, which don't scale up as much.
4.  Again, swap populations or convert the atmosphere.  The 5x increase is worth the effort.
5.  If it's like the Nucleonic Thresher Torpedo, it'll destroy everything in the entire system and replace with a nebula, IIRC.
6.  Everything in the system is cloaked, basically.  You need good Sensor components (and therefore good technology) on-board to be able to detect your rivals' vessels.
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 31 May 2001 23:33
   Originally posted by Baal:
   "You can't convert the atmosphere of a None atmosphere planet. You have to blow it up and rebuild it so that it has an atmosphere to work with."

   If this is true it is definatly something new. I used to convert non-aptmosphere moons all the time. It's been a while since I have done it in a game so I guess it's possible it has been patched out, although I can't imagine why.
   One thing you can't do is convert a Gas giant planet to a none aptmosphere. That is the only restriction I know of.
<<
>>
Phier
Private First Class
posted 31 May 2001 23:50
   I've been happily converting none into hydrogen planets in my current 1.35 game.
<<

Ed: While specifically about 'Ripper Beams', this thread illustrates some other aspects of the AI building process:

>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 09 June 2001 22:38
[Ed: start of a new thread]
I just noticed something. I wanted to check all weapons using a high tech start. But when I got to ship design there were no ripper beams! I know they are there because in my game I already researched them and see them in the design screen. Why are they not present in high tech, which has everything researched ???
<<
>>
Omega
Private First Class
posted 09 June 2001 22:58
   They are in fact there. You need to turn off the only latest option in order to see them. They are in the same weapon family as the wave motion gun. The incinerator beam is the same way.
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 09 June 2001 22:59
   For some reasons, ripper beams (and incinirator beams) are "made obsolete" by Wave Motion Guns. Switch off "only latest" view and you'll find the rippers.
...
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 10 June 2001 02:46
   This is frustrating in AI design, since ripper beams and WMGs have significantly different characteristics, but you can't tell the AI to use ripper beams or incinerator beams on a design once you have WMGs, and conversly, you can't tell the AI to use some other long range weapon until you have WMGs researched.  At least unless someone else has figured out something I haven't.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 10 June 2001 04:53
   You should be able to split them up fairly easily. I think the reason they don't show up at higher levels is because they all have the same family and weapons family numbers. These numbers determine what shows up as a component when using "only latest" and which weapons the aI puts on ships.
I think if these numbers were different for each weapon you could get the AI to include all the types of weapons.
<<
>>
jc173
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 June 2001 10:11
   I think Marty hit the nail on the head. Easiest thing to do is to give incinerator beams, ripper beams, and WMG's different family and weapon numbers.  That way the WMG won't automatically replace the ripper beam when the AI decides to upgrade/build new designs.  This would leave the research queues intact, all you would have to do is swap weapon numbers in the AI's design creation files.  I suppose if you wanted to you could even design ships with a primary armament of ripper beams backed up by one or two WMG's which might be kind of interesting.  I'm about 85% sure it should work just fine.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 10 June 2001 18:38
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yep, changed the family of the Ripper beam a long time ago in my techs. It's a completely different weapon than the Incinerator or Wave-motion gun. That tactic of putting tractor, then rippers, and then a repulsor beam worked great in SE3. Chew 'em up & spit 'em out right!   Haven't tried it yet in SE4. I guess it's just natural to try the new stuff rather than what you already know.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 10 June 2001 13:55
   Originally posted by jc173:
   "I suppose if you wanted to you could even design ships with a primary armament of ripper beams backed up by one or two WMG's which might be kind of interesting.  I'm about 85% sure it should work just fine."
   My plans for starbases include most of the weapons space rippers plus just a couple of wmg in case a heavily armored ship engages. I have been using ppb in my previous low tech one medium planet start games. But those ended before the AI had researched phased shields. In my game with a ten good planet start the phased shields are already being researched at turn 45, and I expect peace until turn 100+. So there is no point to using ppb at all. It seems the rippers are the smallest and cheapest per unit damage, while the wmg bypassing armor is their only advantage.
   Now I have another question. Do engine, weapon, and shield destroying weapons bypass shields, or do you have to beat the shields down first ? If they do not bypass shields, then the only use I see for them is precision hits when you plan on capturing the ship with boarding parties to get tech. In that case you want to be careful not to destroy the very thing you want to capture. But in my game all the tech will be researched by the time hostilities begin. So if they bypass shields I will put weapon and engine destroying weapons on my bases just in case I want to capture a hulk for retrofit/repair.
   That brings up another question. Suppose you capture an enemy ship which is legendary experience. Does it remain legendary for you, or start out from scratch ? I will have enough yards to build more ships than I can afford to maintain, but if I can capture ships with high experience then boarding parties may be worth using. Otherwise not since no tech would be captured.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 10 June 2001 16:01
   I don't know about bypassing the shields and armor but someone suggested a long time ago that a great use for the engine destroying weapons was to disable ships and make your opponent pay mainenance for them. As long as you can prevent a repair vessel from getting to the a huge fleet of immobile DN would cost a pretty penny and be pretty useless!
<<
>>
capnq
Second Lieutenant
posted 10 June 2001 16:35
   Originally posted by LCC:
   "Do engine, weapon, and shield destroying weapons bypass shields, or do you have to beat the shields down first?"
   All the X-destroying weapons only affect X-type components, and completely ignore any other components on the ship.
<<

Ed: Wondering about how effective the "Ministers" are?  Here are some opinions:

>>
Commander G
Private First Class
posted 05 December 2000 17:35
   Does anyone have any advise to share on using Ministers in the game?  I hardly use them, but I could probably run my turns much faster if I did. I'd be interested in know what works well, then I'd consider using them in those areas.
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 05 December 2000 18:55
   I use them for transports only currently. It really up to you. Turns may be faster but less control.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 05 December 2000 20:02
   I usually toggle on colonization (after a certain point), transports, mines/satellites, resupply, repair, and occasionally exploration.
   But the only ships that ever get the minister toggled on are transports (including mine/sat layers), colony ships (after the early phases), and occasionally a couple of warships w/ solar panels on a long-term exploration mission.  This lets me focus on, say, starting massive 4-way wars and fighting them.
   In particular, planting minefields and shuttling population are dull, repetitive tasks... although I'll often grab a minelayer and override it if it's near a un-mined warp point that I think should be mined.
I'd never toggle on the ship design (because a human can do much better, especially when fleets are concerned), nor politics (!), research et al.
<<
>>
Emperor Zodd
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 24 January 2001 23:48
   I never use ministers.
<<
>>
Aub
Private First Class
posted 25 January 2001 00:21
   Ministers are really good for tasks that are no more than a chore. From this point of view, only the "Resupply" minister makes much sense.
   The computer can calculate how much supplies it will take to get to the closest depot, and turn the ship back just in time. If I have to do it, I spend more time but arrive at the same result. Ther is no way I can do a worse or a better job -- therefore, automating this task makes sense.
   I use other ministers occasionally to make sure I do not forget a planet or a ship. The ones like "Colonization" will leave your orders alone if you did supply them. If you have left a colony ship without orders however it will fill it up for you, and I find it convenient.
<<
>>
igoblin
Private First Class
posted 25 January 2001 16:21
   I really like ministers and I used them a lot in SE III to handle all the colonization and facility building later in the game when I had too many colonies.  In SE IV I haven't really used them because I had some bad experiences with them.  The population minister drained all of population off of my homeworld reducing it to 1M pop instead of balancing the population between all my planets.  And the minelaying minister would put minefields between two systems that you controlled instead of on the borders and I had to constantly change what systems to avoid to stop my colony ships from setting up colonies in enemy territory.  I also wasn't able to use the resupply minister just for specific ships.  I would order a fleet to take over a planet with a resupply depot but they would turn back before they got there even though the fleet wasn't under minister control.
   By the way you can customize what your ministers do by giving your race custom AI files.  But I haven't really looked at them enough to know whether or not I can fix these problems.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 February 2001 17:17
   I did a search for threads about ministers, and most of what I could find dealt with ai race problems. I am still very fuzzy about how to get the ministers to do specific tasks.
   My gut feeling is that once you turn on a minister that it follows the ai txt settings for the race you are using. Is that correct? If so how would you change that?
   Specifically what I am trying to do is I have a game going where I have a lot of space yards. It gets very tedious going through each space yard and assigning tasks to the queue. I turned on the global construction minister, and turned on all individual ministers and waited a few turns. It doesn't appear that my minister is building anything.
   Any suggestions?
<<
>>
Lucifer Domine
Private First Class
posted 07 February 2001 20:10
   You need to check the race you are using to see if it uses Minister style selected (meaning the generics Aggressive, Defensive, Neutral) or uses the racial style (meaning the AI files in the race's picture folder).
   It's pretty easy to rewrite the AI files, I've rewritten my research AI to research what I want in the order I want so I don't need to manually mess with that. I'm also working on the production AI for new planet colonization now. All you need to do is open up the AI files and examine them to see how the AI works.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 February 2001 20:28
   Ok, so the answer is in rewriting the AI files that my race is using? I was afraid of that. I was hoping there was something during the game that could be done. I guess they just don't work that way.
   I wan't to be able to tell it "Build 6 cruisers" or "Colonize Ghedron VI" and have it do the work. Maybe in SEV? We can hope.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Sergeant
posted 03 March 2001 14:51
   I have only used them to move population, explore and resupply. They do a pretty good job of this, but watch out if you build to many population moving ships. I had my homeworld practically emptied by them in one game. I guess a few of the others would be helpful, I just never tried them.
<<
>>
Taqwus
First Lieutenant
posted 03 March 2001 19:54
   I mostly use population, colonization (after a short while into the game), and occasionally mines (only in the rare instance that I bother with them)...
   In my most recent game, I also added stellar manipulation and automated planet creation (as in asteroids, not SWs) and nebula destruction.
<<
>>
capnq
Corporal
posted 03 March 2001 21:07
   I've only tried resupply, explore, and mines, and didn't like any of the results. I'm happy micromanaging everything myself.
<<
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 19 March 2001 09:49
   I built several population transports and gave them all over to minister control.  They don't seem to be doing much though I have many planets that could use more population.
   Am I doing something wrong or does the AI just plain suck?
<<
>>
dumbluck
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 09:57
   Did you turn on the Transport minister (under the Empire button, under the Ministers button?)
<<
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 19 March 2001 10:18
   Yep, I turned on transport ministers...
   At first it seemed as if the minsister was making good use of the transports, but now it appears they're all just sitting there.
   I think on occasion they pick up a bunch of population and proceed to drop it off right where they picked it up from....
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 19 March 2001 12:17
   I use Population mininster all the time and occasionally the transports get stuck in one place. Try leaving the minister on but give the transport orders to move where you want some population. This may unstick it.
<<
>>
Richard
Advisor
posted 19 March 2001 15:44
   The minister was tweaked to not suck planets dry as the old minister had a habit of doing.
   This way you do get the minister moving folks but not at the expense of your old colonies.
<<
>>
Arralen
Private First Class
posted 19 March 2001 18:18
   Think there's still a problem with the pop transport
   - at first I notice that the minister always fills the pop transport, no matter what cap it has, thus taking away some 240M from a planet that has only 2000M pop (this could be fixed making pop take 50kt/1M instead of 5kt/1M, though)
   - second the transports sometimes do get "stuck" .. tested with cargo pods set to 80kt cap. instead of 150kt once, and it seemingly got worse .. I could put all transports on minister control, and not one of them moved if it arrived at the planet last turn with 0 movement left .. got loaded, but never left in the next turn. (making the cargo cap 80kt was a bad idea, by the way, as the AI mixed up all components that had that cargo cap .. used sat.bays on all transports   )
   Maybe things would work better if the cargo cap of the pop transports where lower .. ?
<<
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 19 March 2001 19:02
   I agree.  The pop transports under minister control are definatley getting stuck.
   Some how they got unstuck either when I took them all off minister control, fiddled with them, and put them back on
   Or, when I just saved and restarted?
   Not sure...
<<
>>
Aussie Gamer
Sergeant
posted 20 March 2001 05:39
   I have used the ministers for Pop moving and they are pretty stupid.
   They removal a lot of population from the homeworlds sometimes taking them done below 2000.
They only do one thing per turn, eg move to a planet, next turn unload, next turn move again.
They basically take the population to the closest planet and fill it up forst, leaving no room for natural growth.
   I feel that they are a waste of time and don't work properly.
   DON'T USE THEM
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
First Lieutenant
posted 20 March 2001 12:26
   Later in the game when you have lots of conlonies the minister comes in handy. It is a real chore moving population around when you have 50-60 planets.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 04:42
[Ed: relevant part of a general question thread which has been split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
6: There is no class for a Remote Mining ship, so I had to make one myself. But the AI Minister does not know how to deal with it. I typically park the miner on an asteroid field and put him on Sentry duty, so I can forget about him. But he won't go to resupply fuel when necessary...Is there any way to solve this?
...
<<
>>
raynor
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 20 June 2001 05:28
...
6. I think remote mining is a *huge* waste of resources. You are much better off building a colony ship and colonizing the planet. If you can't colonize it now, you'll eventually be able to colonize it. It has to be a very good planet (probably with moons) to be cost effective for very long.
...
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 22:33
...
6: I strongly suggest you to disable all ministers! Currently, the AI makes a mess with anything it handles (especially when you miss a turn in a PBeM)
<<

The following may seem to be directed at "modders", but it really concerns how the "build minister" picks which ships to design.

>>
Deathstalker
First Lieutenant
posted 29 June 2001 08:04
   I have been wondering this for a long time.  I will have created an AI that has 3 ship 'classes' for attack or defense and only 1 of them seems to get built, the odd other one will.  Recently I discovered why (maybe the various modders already know this, but I didn't, and I know a few others didn't as well, so here's my story)
   The game builds the ships exactly the same as it selects weapons in the ship designs.  That is to say the most recently discovered is used exclusively.  (This means the FIRST one in the file!!)  So if you build an AI that has 3 attack classes listed as 10-300, 301 to 600 and 601 to 1500 in size listed from the 10 down to the 601 and with all carrying redundant weapons (ie. all have say, weapons listed as torp/apb/duc) then only the size 300 will be built as it is the first one the AI comes to in the design file that meets its non-obsolete criteria when new tech is discovered.
   How to get around this:  build backwards!
   List the Heavy attack ship first in the AI file, then the medium, then the light.  This goes for all other ships as well (and bases).   This way has been tested and works.  Another way to do this (if not seperated by size) is by weapons (this has not been tested, don't know if it works since engines etc are being discovered all the time as well).  List the most 'advanced' model first, and DO NOT include lower weapons like DUC's or ABP, just the 'advanced' weapon (pick 1) that it will use (ie, list the Null-space ship before the DUC ship).  (The duc ship will be obsolete and the null space will be 'new tech')  At least it should work this way.
   If anyone has comments/corrections please post them here, I know the first part works, but would dearly like to know if the 2nd does without completely re-vamping a shipset for testing.
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 29 June 2001 11:20
   I think it may be more than just that.  I've seen one of my AI's building a combat support ship I had put in it's design file over it's normal attack ship - when I tried to figure out why, the only thing that I could come up with was that the AI must evaluate the designs against each other in a solo duel using the ship strategies - thus it chose to build a fleet tender (attack ship with repair, and 1 cap missile 3 - maximum/don't get hurt) over the normal attack ship (2 plasma 1, 2 DUC3, optimal/short) because the tender would be able to beat down the attack ship at the long ranges.
   As a related question - has anyone else noticed that the AI will occasionally lose it and start designing ships with 1 primary weapon, 1 secondary weapon, additional abbilities, and then fill up on the primary weapon regardless of how many primary and secondary weapons it is suppose to place on the design?
<<
>>
Tampa_Gamer
Major
posted 29 June 2001 12:10
   Deathstalker-
   I can confirm this behavior.  Early on (11/00) most of the modders tried to have a multitude of different ships/classes/sizes but the only thing that consistently worked the way we wanted to list the ships in the order you describe.  The designs for my races and some of Daynarr's are setup in this way.  The only drawback to this method is that the AI sometimes will have identical designs which still causes the AI to try and upgrade identical designs and thus hang.  I think MM tried to fix this a few patches ago, but I do not think all of the kinks are ironed out.
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 29 June 2001 14:28
   Miss-read post first time -
   1st part - yes I have observed that.
   2nd part - as my earlier post - when AI has ships with different weapons combinations it seems to evaluate them in some way because it does not neccessarily build the first one in the list, or the most recently designed/newest tech one - in the attack ship/tender example I stated previously, when I switched the tender strategy to optimal/short - the AI switched to building the attack ship although the tender was both a newer design, and had newer technology components on it, while the attack ship came before the tender in the design file.
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 29 June 2001 15:25
   I get quite a bit confused by how this works.  For fighters, I usually set up two designs, one for "guns" and one for rocket pods.  The designs seem to toggle back and forth between the two and I get a decent mix.  When I tried adding a third design only the one in the middle got built.
   With attack ships, I wanted to get a mix of sizes, so I set up a class that goes up to battle cruiser first, then a second that is battleship only, and a third that is dreadnought only, with the smaller designs listed first.  When I played a full tech game, I got a mix of the sizes (after I had played enough turns to get past the size limits at the start of the game.)  Then, the low tech game I was playing finally got to the point where the larger sizes are available (and show up in the design screen), but so far, only the smaller class is being built.
   I think that the construction minister somehow cycles through the list of available designs on a periodic basis whether it needs to start building one or not.  Then when one needs to be built, it grabs the one it is currently looking at.
   I do know that if you list the larger designs in the file first, it typically won't even create new designs for the smaller ships once the larger designs are available.
<<
>>
Urendi Maleldil
Private First Class
posted 29 June 2001 20:48
   I think I have figured it out.
   The design minister creates a new design for a ship if there are new components available that that ship uses.
   The build minister builds the newest available ship design of that type. (attack, etc.)
   If you have a missile attack ship and a PPB attack ship, the AI builds whichever design is the newest. If you just gained tech in missiles, the design minister will have designed a new missile attack ship and made the older PPB ship obsolete. Likewise if you just gained PPB tech, the PPB design is newest. The build minister then cues shipyards to build the newest available design. If two designs are updated simultaneously (like if you gained engine tech), the most recent design is the one on the top of the list.
   What this means is that the mix of ships and the number of different classes of a given ship type designed and constructed is actually controlled by the research minister!
   Try a full tech game and you will see that the AI builds only one class of ship of any given type. (nothing to research)
   I've only tried this with two different classes of ships of a given type (not 3)
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 29 June 2001 22:02
   Urendi Maleldil said:
   "Try a full tech game and you will see that the AI builds only one class of ship of any given type. (nothing to research)"

   I must disaggree 100% with you here.
   I did two attack ships models for the Pyrochette race, but the second model, only to be used in games with full tech or long games (the Ship2 only can be BB or DN).
   The AI was building both of them, but in the way that Alpha Kodiak said: usually send to build a group of Attack ships model-1. After some time, the AI send to build the group of ships model-2, in a cyclic way.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 29 June 2001 22:55
   MB,
   How long did you run your test? I noticed you have ship size restrictions in place for a certain number of turns. My observations are that most AI only build one type of ship in a high tech game. If the default ship size limits are in place they will build 3 types.
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 30 June 2001 00:41
[Ed: reply to previous]
   In my high-tech game, I definitely saw more than one size of ship being built, well after the size limits had expired.  I have not been able to determine a pattern to the build though.
   I'm going to try to experiment a little over the weekend (assuming that real life allows it   ), so maybe I can get some idea of what is going on.
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 30 June 2001 01:28
   Originally posted by Marty Ward:
   "MB,
   How long did you run your test? I noticed you have ship size restrictions in place for a certain number of turns. My observations are that most AI only build one type of ship in a high tech game. If the default ship size limits are in place they will build 3 types."

   I did several high tech games, and always the AI constructed both attack ships. I saw the first two ships, near the turn 20 or 30. But I believe that will depend of the number of starting planets.
<<
>>
Marty Ward
Captain
posted 30 June 2001 02:16
   On turn one they will design an attack ship. On turn 20 they will design a new attack ship. On turn 40 they will design a new attack ship. On turn 60 they will design a new attack ship. After that I don't think they will design a new one. At least that's what I would expect from looking at the settings file. Maybe your design creation file causing the additional ships to be designed but I would test them a little longer in a high tech game. I know they build different types of attack ships in low and medium tech games, having been on the short end of the stick with them a lot.
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 30 June 2001 04:23
   Okay, I'm getting a little bit of a picture, but it's still confusing.  I set up the contruction vehicle file to require 10 attack ships before anything else in all situations.  I set the ship size limits in the settings file to allow any size ship from the beginning.  I then created a high tech game in a large quadrant with only this race (under computer control) and one other (which I started under human control).  There are 3 attack ship designs in the design creation file.  The first is set for 10 - 600 kt.  The second is set for 601 - 999 kt.  The third design is set for 1000 - 5000 kt.
   After the game was under way, I switched my experimental race to human control and set complete AI on in the ministers section.  I then let the AI run and just observed.
   In the first 10 turns, 2 of the first design were created and another was started.  On turn 11 the second and third designs were made obsolete and new identical designs were created.  In the build queue (which was still building the third copy of the first design), one of the second design was added.  In the next few turns the first design completed, the second design completed and another of the second design started.
   On turn 20, the obsolete versions of the second and third designs were removed from the design screen.  This is apparently the "garbage cleaning" routine to remove unused designs from the design screen.  I assume that it is run every 10 turns.
   On turn 21, the third design was made obsolete and a new, identical design was created.  This new design was added to the build queue after the copy of the second design that was under construction.
   On turn 30, all obsolete designs disappeared as expected.  On turn 31, all three designs had new, identical designs created.
   Now for the squirrely part (no offense to squirrels intended).  Throughout this process, whenever a new ship would come off the construction line, the AI would send one of the ships that was exploring back to the home world to be scrapped.  This sometimes resulted in one ship being scrapped at the same time and place that the exact same ship was being built.  I finally concluded that this was caused by the now working maintenance limit.  Once a ship was constructed, the maintenance (in radioactives) was over the 80% of income limit.
   In my test, after turn 31, no ship appeared in the build queue until turn 36, when the designated ship made it back to the homeworld to be scrapped.  At that time, 2 copies of the first (smallest) design were placed in the build queue.
   I am concluding this test at this time due to baby duty.  I want to next spend a little time investigating the maintenance limit and the aggressive scrapping of vessels that the AI seems to enjoy currently.
<<
>>
Alpha Kodiak
Sergeant
posted 14 July 2001 16:23
   Well so much for the "Best laid plans of mice and men..."
   The pattern I saw earlier works great in a high-tech game where there are no changes to technology during the 10 turn cycle.
   In a game where technology is changing, new designs are generated in each size class.  This seems to cause the AI to always build the first entry in the queue.
<<
>>
justjake73
Private First Class
posted 24 July 2001 23:12
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I have been in contact with a race for 10 game years.  Our relations are "warm" yet they refuse every single treaty I propose. We are not at war but have no "peace" treaty either. I set the "victory conditions" to be 3 years of peace applicable after 30 years game time.  The date is 2414, but the "conditions met" board still says it's 30 years until my victory conditions can start to take effect!! Huh?!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 24 July 2001 23:21
   "30 years until conditions can be met"
-this probably never changes.  It means when the date hits 2430.0, then conditions will activate.

quote:
   "I have been in contact with a race for 10 game years. Our relations are "warm" yet they refuse every single treaty I propose. We are not at war but have no "peace" treaty either. I set the "victory conditions" to be 3 years of peace applicable after 30 years game time."

   Is that the only race in the game?
   "None" treaties, and races you haven't met do not count as at peace.
Because of this, I never bother using a "only after x years" condition when I have the peace victory enabled.
   PS, 30 years is 300 game turns, just so you know.  You'll be playing a long time.
<<
>>
justjake73
Private First Class
posted 24 July 2001 23:27
   I want to play a long time!    I want to be able to build a Ringworld then maybe a Sphereworld.  Then I'll start building troopships, invade enemy territory in five places at once and have a great big slugfest!!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 24 July 2001 23:37
   I'm just saying that "peace for x years" never means a short game.
   Every race has to meet and be allied with every other race.
   Making peace with every AI is tough enough, but then you have to get all the AIs to make peace with each other too.
   Eventually, you just have to declare war on the violent species and wipe them out for your AI friends.
   The "does not apply for x years" has no effect on an allied victory game.
<<
>>
CW
Corporal
posted 05 August 2001 11:33
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I have never encountered it before, but usually how much warning do you get for a star that is about to explode?
<<
>>
Quikngruvn
Sergeant
posted 05 August 2001 14:58
   Three years. Hopefully enough time to evacuate!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 29 August 2001 07:49
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I couldn't find anything on this topic by searching the forum, so here we go.
   Let's see what we can figure out about how turns are processed; what order things happen in.
   Things may be different between sequential & simultaneous, so be sure to indicate which one you're talking about.
   Sequential:  Facility effects happen after construction queues are run.
   Proof:  My nature shrine upgraded from level 1 to level 2 on turn 2413.1, and my planet went from 150% to 152% at the same time.
<<
>>
Private First Class
posted 29 August 2001 07:58
   All i Know is that stellar manipulation happens before ship movement in simultaneous
which is excellent and makes stellar manipulation so powerfull
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 29 August 2001 08:23
   Sequential:
- Natural events happen at the beginning of your turn
- Repairs happen before other players start.
   I have a battlemoon sitting on a blackhole for many turns, and its armor was repaired before combat with the second player.  Damage showed up on the BM during my turn.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Major
posted 29 August 2001 10:01
   Ship movement in sim games appears to take place before construction queues. I had an enemy move into orbit around my home planet. The blockade effect reduced my resource generation and I got a "Out of resources" message and no construction on that turn.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 21 September 2001 22:21
[Ed: Separate thread]
   Originally posted by alien2:
   "Sorry for repeated questions. Maybe I'll be able to make a positive contribution in this forum one day. For the moment, I realise I probably haven't put in enough game hours but time is at a premium. Anyway, a few things that I'm not sure about:
   1) Does the Demeanour setting in the Empire Description Window (during setup) have any effect on the game ??
   2) Does the star type/age/luminosity have any effect on the makeup of the system ??
   3) Is it possible to create a planet in a system which does not have a star, as long as there are asteroid fields ??
   4) On the galaxy map, what distance does each grid square represent ?? I'm thinking for the purpose of opening a warp point.
   5) If a repair component is added to a base, will it repair itself at the appropriate rate, should the base be damaged in action ??"

   1) There is no clear proof that it does. However, I have observed things that seem to show there is some sort of effect on the reaction of the AI. But since the AI is rather erratic, this might have just been "chance".
   2) Not in the default configuration. The text files that control the design of systems could be  configured to make a relationship between the star size/type and the type of planet system around it, though.
   3) Do you mean by stellar manipulation IN the game? Or by configuration of the game setup? Stellar manipulation is hard coded to require a star in the system before you can make a planet. As far as I know, you could make a type of system in the config files that has planets but not a star.
   4) I think it's 10 light-years, but as Phoenix-D has pointed out you can simply click the button to turn on display of distances when you use the 'open warp point' device.
   5) As long as the repair component itself is not destroyed, yes. The best thing to do, oddly enough, is to put the repair components in another base so you don't water down the combat ability of the military base. The AI doesn't "think" craftily enough to realize that destroying the unarmed repair base is a good military move. It will only go after unarmed bases and ships after the armed ones are destroyed. Now, when fighting against a human opponent all bets are off.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 08 October 2001 18:24
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   When looking at individual components, they usually have a "supply usage" value, like engines are 10, cloaking device is 100.
   But how does this translate to actual usage? Certainly it's not 10 * 6 engines = 60 plus 100 (cloak)=160 per turn, that seems WAY too little.
   Is it 10 * 6 engines * 7 movement = 420 + 100 = 520 per turn. That STILL seems small.
   Bottom line: I need to know how many Solar Collectors to put on a scout ship to make it self-sustaining.
<<
>>
LazarusLong42
Corporal
posted 08 October 2001 19:34
   For movement alone, it's #Engines * Supply Cost/Engine (10) * Movement Used, each turn.
   So, on a ship with 6 engines, 7 movement, your ship uses 420 supply per turn, and needs 3 SC III's to refill it each turn.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
General
posted 08 October 2001 20:24
   It's over-kill to include enough solar collectors to completely replenish movement usage each turn. Very few ships are rushing around at full speed all the time. I've found that two solar panels are enough for even a cruiser if it has decent supply capacity. A few supply storage bins are better than many solar collectors because they're much cheaper. A cloaking device can add quite a bit to your supply usage, though. I tend to hide in storms whenever possible & let the ship "rest" a while. But then I use cloaked ships mainly for recon. If you're going to be using them as some sort of guerrila fighting force then you'd best create a dedicated supply ship with lots of solar panels and fleet this with your fighting ships. The cloak eats quite a bit of space by itself. Combining cloak and supply generation in each ship will use up your space and hardly leave any room for weapons and defenses. The supply ship can just stay out of the way in combat.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 08 October 2001 20:42
   Additionally, once you have decent sized ships, forget the solar panels, and use emergency resupply pods.
   Your resupply ship should hold more supplies than your regular ships, have the pod, and a repair bay.  You can then get 2000 supplies per turn.
   With the next patch, your resupply podship will have to be of Battleship size or larger, since it will need to carry a SpaceYard, rather than just a repair bay.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 08 October 2001 20:51
   I'd like my ship to be able to roam across the entire universe, tell me if this will work:
Cruiser class
6 of my best engines (10 supply each)
Solar Sail III
Cloaking Device II (100 supply)
4 x Solar Collector III (+600 per turn)
Repair II
Plenty of Armor & Shields
Emergency Supply unit
   So at 6 engines x 7 movement x 10 each = 420 resource usage per turn, + 100 (cloak) = 520.
   So with 4 collectors @ 150 each, 600 per turn should keep me full as long as I'm in a system with a sun. If not, go as long as I can and then bust an Emergency supply unit and repair it on-board! (I think this last technique will be eliminated with the next patch)
   Only problem I can foresee would be if it calculated 6 Eng x 10 each x 10 movement (includes sail) = 600 + 100 = 700 (too much!)
   Can anyone verify whether the sail uses extra resources (I know its not supposed to...)
<<
>>
Will
Second Lieutenant
posted 09 October 2001 04:06
   The sail does cause supplies to be used.  To calculate supply usage for a ship, it's (Total_Movement) * (Engine_Supplies_Used).  So your ship has 10 movement, and the total supplies used by the engines is 6*10=60.  10*60=600, and your cloak adds another hundred.  And it is supposed to use supplies, because technically, in the game, the engines are still "working".
   Your design should work fine though, since you won't need to use the cloak all the time, and there's the occaisional binary and trinary system.  So break-even without cloak, -100 with cloak (from reserves of 2300, 3000 minus max supply usage, for 23 turns of cloak).  Then in binary systems you get +600 without and +500 with cloak, and in trinary +1200 without and +1100 with.  Even with binaries and trinaries being scarce, you should be able to travel cloaked through at least 17 systems without running out of supplies, and add on all the nebulae systems
   Of course, I would say your biggest worry here would be mines, not supplies
<<
>>
Imperator Fyron
Private First Class
posted 09 October 2001 04:07
   Engines use supplies for each space the ship moves. The way that this supply usage is calculated is thus:
#engines*10=supplies per space moved
   Therefore your ship would use:
6 engines*10 supplies per engine per move=60 supplies per move
   In each turn, it would use:
10 moves*60 supplies per move=600 supplies
The cloaking device adds 100 supplies per turn, so the ship would use 700 supplies per turn.
   The solar sail doesn't use any supplies by itself. Since it provides 3 extra movement, supplies will be subtracted for each of the 3 extra spaces your ship moves.
<<


STRATEGIC COMBAT:

Multiplayer games of SE4: "Play By E-Mail" (PBEM) or "Play By Web" (PBW) or "Simultaneous Turn", do not allow "Tactical Combat" mode.  All combat is conducted in "Strategic Combat" mode.  ("Hotseat" mode does allow Tactical Combat.)  Essentially this means the ship strategies and fleet strategies assigned respectively govern how the AI fights your ships.  Understanding the strategies files may lead you into the wonderful world of "modding" your own race files to suit your preferences or deviousness.  The differences of Strategic Combat can take some getting used to, so practice first in "Simultaneous Turn" mode.

>>
Aristoi
Private First Class
posted 07 June 2001 13:04
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I'm curious if anyone knows a way around this, but when I'm in strategic combat, my carriers seem to have the worst possible pathing.  It appears that the "Don't get hurt" order just means randomly pick a corner and go to it.
   I have seen carriers fly directly towards an enemy ship in front of all its fighters, and be destroyed, all because it wants to "flee" to a corner that be beyond the enemy.  This is really crazy, and I hope that MM will tweak the AI so that it takes into consideration enemy craft when using "Don't Get Hurt."
   Has anyone else seen this behavior?
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 June 2001 13:32
   This is just the "don't get hurt" strategy all over. I avoid it all costs. Basically, your only options are "fight" or "die", so try one of the following:
   -give your carrier long range wepaons and set tactic to "maximum weapons range". Tell it to target the nearest ship and it should keep a good distance from enemy ships. It won't take any notice of fighters though. Also no good if the enemy has longer range weapons than you.
   -Set tactic to "Ram". If it has plenty of fighter support and some armour (organic is best=-) then it might well survive in a fighter battle. Note that strategic will only obey the ram tactic
if your ship has no weapons (except PDCs).
<<
>>
dogscoff
Second Lieutenant
posted 07 June 2001 14:03
<LIGHT BULB>
   I've just had a fantastic idea...
</LIGHT BULB>
   Would it be possible to mod the following weapon:
-No/ low tonnage
-No/ low cost
-Direct fire
-Immediate reload
-Long range. Optimal value would have to be worked out by trial and error, perhaps increasing with tech to give better performances against higher- tech weapons.
-No supply usage
-Target ships, planets, fighters, sats, seekers
-I know zero damage is impossible so 1 damage at all ranges and a 1% chance of hitting.
-Available at start of game with no research needed. (attached to engines tech tree?)
-Max 1 per ship
-Available for ships only.
   This weapon could be added to unarmed ships like colony ships, transports etc. The ship in question could then use "Max weapons range/ target nearest" to maintain a safe distance from attackers. If you get the range right this might work better than the "Don't get hurt/ Die like a dog in a pirhana pool" strategy.
   Would this work? If you wanted you could explain it away with something like "The crew of the ship desperatly modify the engines to inflict tiny amounts of damage on an attacking ship"
   Thoughts?
<<
>>
Arc.Smiloid
Private First Class
posted 07 June 2001 18:09
   I play the DevNullMod and I always add sprint missiles and anti-fighter missiles to my carriers (Both are real long-range weapons).  With appropriate strategy they maintain good distance and fire their weapons.
   The sprint missiles are excellent for soaking up enemy PD which protects my fighters.  The Anti-Fighter missiles knock out enemy fighter wings with ease giving my fighters excellent support.
<<
>>
PurpleRhino
Private First Class
posted 07 June 2001 20:58
   Love the 'nul' weapon idea... but one thing. You would have to have the range maxed out... otherwise it would fly towards a Base or missile ship... possible putting it in range... Especially if its a high level plasma missile. Granted, everything has its flaws, but I think that could be better than what we have now. Another thing I just thought of is that you would have to change the strategy of EVERY ship that defaults to 'don't get hurt' to Max. Range, upon creation and design upgrades... not THAT big of a deal, but annoying none the less.
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 07 June 2001 23:47
   Carriers need a "Stay out of range of enemy weapons" strategy. That shouldn't be too difficult to code. Instead of running for the hills, it would just stay a couple squares outside the longest range weapon an enemy has available. It could loiter there launching fighters, and then retreat if an enemy approaches it.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 08 June 2001 01:06
...
   A good idea, but the ship would have to stay out of range of not only the longest ranged weapon the enemy has but also the combat move of the ship with that weapon. Otherwise said enemy ship could move towards your ship and still be able to shoot at it.
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 08 June 2001 01:52
   True. And there are other ways it could be damaged. By being outflanked etc. But I think it would be an acceptable risk if it would allow the carrier to launch its fighters in a more concentrated manner.
   Especially since fighters in SEIV don't die if the carrier does. They would be stranded in that system, but they could be used as raiders until another carrier could pick them up.
<<
>>
capnq
Second Lieutenant
posted 08 June 2001 15:15
   In some of my games I've added a new strategy for carriers called "Fighter Support"; I think I use Maximum Range for primary move and Optimal Range for secondary move. I only use Don't Get Hurt for unarmed ships and ships designed for support roles.
<<
>>
geoschmo
First Lieutenant
posted 08 June 2001 19:03
   Right, but unless the carriers actually have weapons, they still run for the corners with maximum weapons range as a strategy. At least they did in all the sims I ran.
   I want a strategy that I can use that won't require me to put weapons on my carriers. That would require a code change.
<<
>>
Brainsucker
Private First Class
posted 12 June 2001 14:15
   What determines who moves first in strategic combat?  It seems like my ships always go second no matter whether I iniatiated combat or not.  This is especially painfull at warp points where my carriers often get blown up by enemy fire before they even get to launch their fighters.  I am player 8 of 8 in a multiplayer, simultaneous game and I would hate to discover that is why I go last
<<
>>
LemmyM
Corporal
posted 12 June 2001 14:59
   Originally posted by Brainsucker:
   "... I am player 8 of 8 in a multiplayer, simultaneous game and I would hate to discover that is why I go last"
   Sorry, but I think that's exactly why you always start last.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 12 June 2001 16:17
   Yep, that kind of sucks. Means the enemy will always get in the first shot at warp points both when you are defending and attacking. Painful.
<<
>>
javaslinger
Corporal
posted 16 June 2001 05:40
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   Ok, I'm gettin' my arse kicked...  I'm way behind in units, ships, planets, systems, and tech....
   I knew actual people would be way more challenging that the AI, but I feel almost like I'm starting over!!!
   The only reason I'm still alive is I have a generous, sympathetic ally who's decided i guess to keep me alive for the hell of it...
   Anyway, what are the basic strategies that are different in a multiplayer PBEM game?  I fell behind pretty quickly.
   Please help before I get embaressed again!
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 16 June 2001 12:01
   Basically, what you want to do is spread like locust. Grab as many systems as possible as soon as possible. Just colonize one or two planets/system to get a legitimate hold on it and if possible place a few mines over the other planets to keep others out. Or mine the warp points. To do this build a bunch of Base Space Yards asap to build mines and cheap escort scouts capable of laying mines while your homeplanet concentrates on colony ships as they get built faster that way. Use the bases for colony ships as well as soon as you have a decent number of scouts out there.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Private First Class
posted 16 June 2001 14:03
   Starting position and geography play a huge role as well. I've been in two PBEM games and in both started with nowhere to expand because I was surrounded by other empires. In the first game, by turn 10, I was in tenth place out of 9 human players. In the second, I was slightly worse.
   In that situation, diplomacy and treachery (game 1) or force (game 2) can be used to worm your way out and up. In the first game I made it to second place and in the second have moved up to 4th.
   I guess I am saying hang in there, be creative and keep seeking avenues of expansion. Trade tech, comm links, and even population to get other atmosphere types.
   It would be nice if the placement of players in the galaxy was a little more even handed. In both games one player was placed in the middle of a rich area with no opposition (except a handy neutral AI from which to harvest population) and moved way out in front early. It is very hard to overcome a start like that.
<<
>>
LeTharg
Private First Class
posted 17 June 2001 18:26
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   In a PBEM game, I had a more powerful fleet close to an opponents fleet. I pushed the attack button and, when asked which ship in his fleet to attack, chose the first one.
   My opponent, guessing that I would select the first, ran for the hills with that ship and attacked a weak force of mine guarding a wormhole with the rest of his fleet. So my fleet ended up vainly chasing one ship while his main force snuck in behind me. Pretty cute. But it gave some ideas for some other sucker punches...maybe I can get back at him.
   Anyway, does anyone have tactics to prevent this kind trick. I'm going to select my ship at random from now on but I suppose one could split ones fleet and attack each ship individually (too much like work).
<<
>>
PvK
Spec Ops
posted 18 June 2001 19:26
   I think that's basically it - decide how many chunks you're willing to break your fleet into, and assign them to the most important enemy ships. Otherwise, the enemy may split your fleet into multiple pursuers and spread them out and trap them.
   However there is one other tactic. If you order your ships to move one sector at a time, they will attack any foes in that sector. In this way, if you have the advantage of numbers and/or speed, you can block areas of space with patrols, rather than chasing specific ships.
   Another technique is to give orders to attack each ship in the enemy fleet, which will be carried out in sequence. This will allow your fleet to chase down multiple fragments if the enemy fleet scatters.
   A combination of tactics can be useful, too. Such as, Move your whole fleet together one or two sectors using sector movement through the expected enemy course. Then have two or three groups target the two or three most important enemy ships. Then give follow-on orders to hunt down all the lesser enemy ships. That will lead to a fairly comprehensive attack.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 19:35
[Ed: relevant section from a general question thread split up into the appropriate sections here.]
...
   Now, from many of your comments about tactics and weapons I gathered you use Tactical combat mostly, even in multi player. But I heard that only Strategic combat is available in PBEM and PBW ?! That;s a big bummer, because the AI sucks in Strategic combat. Often it will kill my fleets when I attack a planet and let the AI handle combat, but if I then reload and manage the attack myself I can capture the planet without a single point of damage to my ships.
   One thing I found out: AI cannot handle my PD ships. I have some "Fighterkillers" in my fleet that have 10 PD on them, and the AI will treat them as non-combat (support) ships and run them to the corner of the grid. I had to retrofit them all and put one beam weapon on to make sure the AI would send em to the front lines...
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 20 June 2001 22:33
...
   That's true (as I wrote above, the AI makes a mess with anything it handles). Anyway, it's true for your opponent too, and I enjoy "programming" my fleets (through ship design creation, fleet orders and composition, etc.) so that the AI will be able to use them in a decent way.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 15:52
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   What could be the cause of this? Possible bug?
   In our current PBEM game I have lost the ability to remote launch. Not from any Minelayers, not from any Planets, etc
   No, there is not max units in the area I am trying to launch. Although, there is a large number of Total units in the game by all players, and another player has at least 4 times as many units as I do (but Im not sure how many of those are in space).
   No, I am not launching the wrong type of unit (i.e. fighters from a minelayer). I have been very careful about this.
   Facts: I had the ability to remote launch for about 85(?) turns of the game, then suddenly, I continued to give the Launch Units Remotely order, and it appeared, but after the turn was processed, the order was cleared with no result. No warning or error message either.
   After I attacked one of my opponents, close to turn 95, I actually regained the ability for about 2 turns, but then lost it again! (maybe it had something to do with the total reduction of units, although I really did not lose any; he did.)
   Anyone else had this happen? Any ideas?
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 15:55
   I think the max units in space limit has been reached, when you destroyed his units, you were able to launch yours untill the limit was reached again.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 16:13
   I do not believe this is the case; the other players are able to launch remotely at will.
   The limit appears only to apply to me.
<<
>>
Master Belisarius
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 16:21
   The limit is per player.
   Check if considering your other minefields, fighters and satellites in the space, you have 1000 units (I think that is the standard limit now).
<<
>>
mac5732
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 17:16
   Fighters, mines and sats all count against your maximum limit in space. Check what maximum setting for units for the game. If its set low, 500 or 1000, it doesn't leave much open especially if you are using a lot of mines. Remember, as long as they are not launched into space they don't count. Only those units actually launched count towards your totals. This way you can still build them on your planets to replace what you use up but again, only up to the maximum set per player.
   I also always set this limit to its maximum when playing, when defending planets & WP 1000 mines alone don't go very far let alone fighters and sats.
<<
>>
LCC
Sergeant
posted 15 June 2001 17:40
   Open up the Ships/Units icon. Your total units in space is reported there. The absolute maximum effective for settings.txt is 5000 each, verified. I watch that number very closely and compare against what still needs to be launched. You can try bringing fighters/ sats back into your colony cargo bays to make more room. Mines once deployed cannot be recovered. BUT if you no longer need a stack of mines, you can select it then go into the scrap icon and self destruct the entire stack.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 18 June 2001 14:18
   Yes the units in space appears to be the problem... our setting was 1000/player.
   Only, when I tried to give any of my mines the self-destruct order, the "self-destruct" order appears in the ships/units view, but it never executes.
   Another thought was to "fire on" them, but this does not work either.
   As of right now, I can't get rid of them...
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 25 June 2001 15:32
   Guys,
   I think the issue here is (sim) PBEM games.  I know there are posts from other players here having the same problem.  I have been able self-destruct in Turn-based games.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 23 June 2001 22:53
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   Hi all,
   I just started my very first multiplayer game, on PBW. We are in turn 2. In turn one I constructed some explorers, who are now built. BUT, contrary to what I am used to, they start the turn with 0 movement points (out of 6) rather than starting with 6/6.
   Is this normal?
   It's annoying, because even assuming that if I give move orders now and they will be executed, one of my planets (with explorer) is close to a warp point, so after warping through the explorer would have some movement left. However I cannot use these movement points right now, I cannot tell the explorer to move further beyond the warp point because the system he is moving to is still unexplored.
<<
>>
Possum
Captain
posted 24 June 2001 01:01
   That zero movment points shown is an anomaly. Give them move orders, and they will move
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 03:51
   But am I supposed to see them move? They are not moving yet ! maybe they will carry out the orders I just gave them on the next turn, but wouldnt I loose a full turn's worth of movemet points for all my ships?
<<
>>
Lisif
Private First Class
posted 24 June 2001 13:08
   No, you don't see them move. Next turn, you'll se them in their new position. There's an option (turn replay) which allows you to see what happened but sometimes it doesn't works (at least, some patches ago).
   BTW, you can't give orders involving unknows systems. This means that you'll generally lose any MPs left after you warp in a new, unexplored warp hole.
   Try to play some turns in a sim move game on your own (not multiplayer) before next turn. You'll learn how it works without risking to compromise your empire development in the multiplayer game.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 25 June 2001 11:32
   Originally posted by dogscoff:
   "You won't lose your surplus movemnt points eithr - you can use them next turn if you wish."

   Eh, no. You can't. If you have a ship with 6 move and you only move it 4 squares on turn 1 you can only move it 6 squares on turn 2, not 8 as you would be able to if surplus movement (unused) was stored for later use. It's not so any moves not used is lost.
<<
>>
Possum
Captain
posted 22 June 2001 18:54
[Ed: from a different thread about bugs remaining after the v1.41 patch.]
   I got one a lot more mundane than that
   I can't get my mines to self-destruct in a SiMove game.
   I give them the self-destruct order over and over, turn after turn, but they never do.
<<
>>
Stone Mill
Private First Class
posted 22 June 2001 20:13
   Possum,
   Same here.  That mine bug has been affecting my games at least since 1.30, not sure how many others are experiencing this.
<<
>>
Elmo
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 13:18
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I'm playing PBEM using strategic combat.  Sent a fleet of missile ships to attack an AI planet and moon.  Ship orders and fleet orders were set to fire at maximum range.  The ships started firing at the planet as ordered.  However after killing the weapons platforms on the planet they inexplicably moved closer and kept firing at the planet.  Meanwhile the weapons platforms on the moon, which were now in range, killed my ships.
<<
>>
Taqwus
Captain
posted 26 June 2001 15:36
   What was the secondary movement strategy -- _Maximum Range_ (which it is if you use the default MR strategy, IRC), or _Don't Get Hurt_?  If the former, you might want to try the DGH variation in the simulator.
<<
>>
Dravis
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 15:54
   Actually I think the default secondary strategy for Max Weap Range is point blank or optimal weapons range.  That probally is the problem.
<<
>>
Elmo
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 16:48
   Dravis
   Could be, but why would the fleet abandon it's primary strategy in favor of the secondary when there is still a planet with undamaged weapons platforms on the combat display?  It appears the combat algorithm isn't smart enough to look for other threats and instead blindly moves in on the original now helpless target.  That would be a bug IMO if true.
   I have another combat coming up.  I'll make sure both primary and secondary strategies are max range and report the results.
<<
>>
Atraikius
Sergeant
posted 26 June 2001 17:09
   I thought the strategies were based off the ships movement, with the ship initially moving for its primary strategy before firing, and then using the secondary strategy afterwards, but there are some combinations that don't make sense at all, or are exceptions to this.
   This is easily seen watching ships armed with missiles only early in the game, where the AI will move within range to fire and then attempt to maintain thier secondary strategy while loading.  If you watch a ship that has maximum weapons rang for the secondary strategy, the ship will attempt to maintain the maximum range of the missile; if its secondary strategy is Dont Get Hurt, it will continue to move away until it has reloaded.
   Where it doesn't make sense is; giving a ship short or point blank for a primary strategy followed by drop troops, the ship should move into range of the planet, fire weapons, and then move next to the planet and drop troops.  But with this as a strategy, the ship (and entire fleet if planet has no defenses) will not approch the planet, staying near its deployment zone.  Also, if these strategies are flipped, then any ships carring troops will attempt to drop troops on the undefended planet, but will not fire at it, and and other ships in the fleet will remain near thier starting position regardless of their orders.
<<
>>
Elmo
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 17:18
   Guys
   I used another missile fleet to attack a planet and two moons and this time I set both movement strategies to max weapons range.  This time the fleet stayed out of harms way and took out the planet/moons because my missiles had longer reach.  The default secondary movement strategy for max weapons range is set to point blank?!  That combination doesn't make sense to me at all if secondary movement is tied to reloading.
   Also it does not explain why in the first battle my ships initially stayed at max weapons range and only moved in after the planet defenses were down.  If secondary movement were tied to reloading then they would have moved in after the first volley which they didn't.  Something isn't right but I'm not sure what yet.
   Fought another missile fleet vs planet battle and this time even with both movement strategies set to max range my ships blundered in too close (i.e. closer than max range) and got hammered.  A bug IMO.
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 26 June 2001 23:20
   Elmo,
   Remember the strategies are based upon your target. If you have max range it will be max range from the planet. If the moon is farther out then you will get closer to it than max range. Not a bug persay, you need to clear moon first then planet or play with the strategy setting as far as what gets attacked first,
<<
>>
Elmo
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 15:36
   Seawolf
   In the first battle where I noticed the problem, the planet was closer than the moon.  My ships initially stayed out of range of the planet, thus also out of range of the moon.  As I mentioned, after the planet defenses were reduced my ships moved closer to the planet while continuing to fire on it.  That brought them in range of the moon too.  However in that battle I had the secondary movement strategy set to point blank (the default) so that may have caused them to move in.
   In my last battle there was only one planet and my ships ignored both sprimary and secondary orders to stay at max range and moved closer.  I had a 2 "square" range advantage over the planet defenses so they should never have hit me, but they did when my ships moved too close.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 27 June 2001 14:49
   Instead of moving in to the sector by using the attack button and then selecting one of the planets, simply use the move to button and click on the sector. This should allow it to attack both planets without ignoring either.
<<
>>
Elmo
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 15:43
   geoschmo
   Can't recall if I used attack or move as the command to enter the sector, but I've never seen a choice presented for what to attack.  Once my ships arrive, strategic combat has always been automatic, at least in PBEM games.
<<
>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 27 June 2001 16:12
   This implies that you've been using Move; if you use Attack against a sector with more than one target, you have to specify one. If the specified target moves out of the sector, your ships will chase it with an Attack order, but just stop in the target sector with Move.
<<
>>
ZzZ
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 11:45
[Ed: part of a separate thread on bugs remaining since the v 1.41 patch.]
   Hi
   I encountered a different bug in a PBEM game. When I and ally of myself offer a treaty to each other at the same time and both accept, the treaty is killed and we're left with no treaty at all.
   This is very annoying. I made friendship with my neighbor just after the game began. And we established one treaty after another until we reached Military Alliance. Then it happened. We both offered Partnership and both accepted one round later. Another turn passed and there was only the yellow word "none" in the treaty list.
   As a result several of our ships (resupplying on the partners planet) were destroyed and of course we lost all minerals and research points from trade.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Corporal
posted 27 June 2001 21:57
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   OK all, I have a question again. It's pretty confusing.
   It seems to me that in Sim movement games, it takes 2 turns for messages/trades to go back and forth rather than the 1-turn immediate response you get from the AI in solo play. Right?
   Here's the thing. In my current PBW game, both myself and my neighbor are newbie human players. We have a T&R alliance and wish to trade tech, one of mine for one of his. Can't say which techs right now since other players in that game might read this post too.
   We have sent *general* messages back and forth agreeing to the trade. We are now in turn 9.
   Here it gets confusing.
   On turn 6, I sent him the proposed trade message (actual trade message, not general) with some accompanying text. I expected that he would receive this message on turn 7, accept it, and by turn 8 we would both have the other player's tech. To my disappointment, on turn 8 I received nothing from him. So, I re-proposed the trade (sent a new trade message) and sent him an email saying he should accept the trade in turn 9, so we'd have the benefits on turn 10.
   I just loaded turn 9, and see that HE has *also* sent me an almost identical trade proposal on HIS turn 8. The weird thing is, in stead of a straight tech-for-tech deal he is now asking me for my tech PLUS the Comm channel of a race that I have NOT met yet. Since the name of the race is given I assume HE has met this race, so why ask me for the comm channel?
   As best I can figure, the way out of this:
   On my turn 9 I ignore his trade proposal. I will email him telling him to accept my straight tech-for-tech deal on HIS turn 9, so hopefully tomorrow (turn 10) all will finally be as we intended it.
   I'm worried because I think I read a thread somewhere about identical trade messages canceling each other out ... is/was this true and if so how did that occur and is it fixed in 1.41?
   Hope anyone can shed some light...
<<
>>
JenMax
Private First Class
posted 28 June 2001 02:14
   May I suggest a workaround? to prevent the "cancellation" affect of identical trase offers, throw in a basic tech that everyone has - like duc 1.  Then your offer won't be identical, and perhaps it won't cancel.  If you try this, let us know. Thanks
   Oh, and just hope you trade partner doesn't pick the exact same "throw in" tech...
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 28 June 2001 11:59
   The problem was not with identical tech, it was with offers being sent from two players the same turn, accepted by both players the same and it would just vanish. And it was about an offered partnership treaty, not trade but my guess is that anything that "meets" on the way between two players gets lost somehow. I hope that makes sense to someone somewhere.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Corporal
posted 28 June 2001 16:34
   Makes sense to me, but then again I got my brain all wrapped around this issue for the last 2 days
   Another question came to mind: in a low tech game early on, let's say I research Physics I and then Shields. My ally has not done Physics I yet. If I give/trade him Shields, will that automatically give him Physics I and open up the other branches of the tech tree for him that are related to Physics I?
   (same for Constuction => Mines , etc.)
<<
>>
Seawolf
Captain
posted 28 June 2001 18:43
   Dragon,
   No giving him Shields WILL NOT give him the basic tech to get to shields. He will get a message that he received the tech but can't understand it and will not be able to use it. You need to send both Physics and Shields for him to have it.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 28 June 2001 20:37
   He will get the tech for Shields, but will not be able to research Shields on his own until he learns Physics.
   You only get a "cannot understand" error if you try to trade Racial or Unique techs that you do not have the racial trait for.
<<
>>
Noble713
Second Lieutenant
posted 11 July 2001 22:24
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   What combat strategy settings do you have to use to get your ships to launch satellites during combat?
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 16 July 2001 11:41
   It used to be that sats were launched automatically in strategic combat but the latest (or next to latest, don't remember) patch changed/screwed that so they don't launch at all. So now sats are even more useless.  At least in Sim turn PBEM games which is all I play.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 15 August 2001 12:48
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   This is a hair-pulling problem that I want solved, and I want it solved fast, before I get so mad that I literally throw the computer out the window.
   I'm preparing my first planetary assualt for my first PBW game, and I'm having huge difficulties trying to get the damned troop ship to drop the damned troops. Due to my really restricting resources (and the fact that the damned AI is too stupid to do anything other than a head-first charge), I "cheated" a bit by making use of the fact that the AI almost always shoot at the ship with the most shields first. I planned to assualt this homeworld with 3 ships - the troop transport, a gunnery dreadnouhgt and a decoy shield ship (a dreadnought with nothing but a small gun and 7000+ shield points). The fleet had primary orders to capture the planet and secondary orders to fire at optimum range, and they are ordered NOT to shoot at the planet - I want to take it intact. The gunnery DN is there to take out the 8 satellites in orbit around the planet, which carry a big wave motion gun each.
   In real life, the best way to take out a prepared defender is to drop troops right on top of him rather than winning the firefight first, and this is exactly what I plan to do since my ships probably can't win the firefight against the WPs anyway. I want the three ships to move in as a group, while the gunnery DN shoots down the sats and the decoy ship takes hits, I want the troop ship to land the troops and silences the WPs. The plan worked perfectly when I personally took control and tried it in one of my solo games against an even more heavily defended planet, but when I handed it over to the idiotic AI it screwed up big. Actually it worked perfectly against a lightly defended planet, but when I tried it on a heavily defended homeworld, the &@$!*$* troop ship kept running to the corner while the other two ships got chopped into tiny little bits by the WPs. THEN the bastard would turn around, head for the planet kamakazi style and get itself killed. Originally I thought it was because the troop ship didn't have any weapons other than a PDC, so I added a meason blaster and tried again - same result. I've checked that the troop ship was not ordered to break formation in "strategies", and none of the ships had anything to do with "don't get hurt". I need a solution NOW! This attack is strategically VERY important because of the extra resources on this planet, and I have to launch the attack flawlessly within the next day or two, since this is a PBW game.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Captain
posted 15 August 2001 13:14
   OK, here's where I think you might be going wrong:

"making use of the fact that the AI almost always shoot at the ship with the most shields first."

   In my experience the AI prefers to go for the ships with the most weapons, but no matter...

"The fleet had primary orders to capture the planet and secondary orders to fire at optimum range, "

   As far as I know this is the right way to go about it.

"and they are ordered NOT to shoot at the planet"

   This is your problem. Ships will not move in to drop troops in simultaneous while there are weapons platforms present. Sorry, it's hard-coded that way. You'll have to destroy the weapons platforms out from orbit.

"- I want to take it intact."

   Naturally. Try setting the strategies to "fire until all weapons destroyed." This seems to work quite well, you should experience very little collateral damage. As soon as the WPs are gone, your gunships should stop firing and your troopship will move in.

"my ships probably can't win the firefight against the WPs anyway. "

   Oh dear. If you can't get some more/ better ships in there, you could be stuffed. The only other possibility is to attack the weapons platforms using the "cargo maintenence problems" intel project. Unless you're playing a non-intel V1.41 game that is. Oh dear...

"kept running to the corner ...  head for the planet ... get itself killed ... so I added a meason blaster and tried again"

   Interesting. Can't help with this problem I'm afraid. I'm quite surprised actually, I wouldn't have expected it to behave that way once you had the weapon fitted. Perhaps someone else could help... Atraikus? Rollo? You guys have worked in this area.
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 15 August 2001 14:55
[Ed: reply to previous]
   "In my experience the AI prefers to go for the ships with the most weapons, but no matter..."

   My impression has been that the AI goes after the most expensive ship first. I think that may be how it defines either "biggest" or "strongest" in the attack priorities.
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 15 August 2001 14:33
   I think dogscoff is right. You have to destroy the weapon platforms first. The troops will stay behind until this is done. Once the WPs are finished the warships stop firing and scatter (actually run for the corners!, pretty silly isn't it?) and the troops move in for the capture. Works really well for me.
   About the Kamikaze attack after the warships are dead: I don't know. I have never seen this, but here is what I suspect: The troop ship in a mixed fleet will wait until the defenses are finished (that I know for sure), BUT if there are no warships it tries to capture the planet anyway (that is what I assume). If this true, you might turn it to your advantage. Try to capture a planet with troop ships only. Use two or three of them and shield them. Hopefully one gets through to capture the planet even with WPs intact. Might be worth a try (if you try this and it works, let me know). It might also be a good idea to put some point-defense on the troop ships to kill the sats, because they will fire on the planet after the capture. In one of my tests with an AI that captures planets, a planet was glassed only moments after the capture by the sats that were still in orbit.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 15 August 2001 15:06
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Emm... the reason why I'm not using a full fleet in the first place is because I'm so poor and time constrained that I DON'T have a full fleet to start with, let alone 3 or 4 filled troop ships!
   It looks like I'm force to give the AI some planetary napalms to play with, even though I really don't feel like it. I've tailored a ship with just enough bombs to take out the WPs, but that means I need to refit the ship for every planet I attack...
   I could have been smarter and thought of using fighters, too bad but I don't want to wait, so I will use my ships this time and build the fighters for next time.
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 15 August 2001 20:34
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Okay, then a have a solution to your problem using just two ships. All you need to do is some tiny little refit. I did some testing this afternoon and found out a lot of interesting stuff. First of all my assumption about the Kamikaze run was correct. If there are no warships (better make that "ships with no troops") left then all troop transports charge for the planet. All you need to do is refit your high shield dreadnought. Put in one cargo component and fill it with troops. Make a fleet with only the dreadnought and a troop transport. Since both ships have troops now, they will both charge for the planet right away. The dreadnought will soak up the fire and the transport will capture the planet. It works, I've tried it. Just make sure both ships have the same speed so one doesn't arrive ahead of the other one when charging the planet. Now it all depends on the staying ability of your dreadnought and the fighting of your troops  .
   One nice thing: After you capture a planet with weapon platforms intact. They will start firing right away for your side (no reload time added after capture).
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 15 August 2001 20:51
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Big Q here:
Are the platforms on the planet armed with either PDCs or sat-targetting beam weapons?
   Or, alternatively:
Can the planet + WPs destroy the SATs on their own?
   If your fighting warship gets a cargo bay too, you can avoid ruining your transport's strat, and hopefully save the planet from some damage...
   You did say that you'd tried it in a tactical sim, but not using the same planet IIRC.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 16 August 2001 14:16
   Rollo, tried your method, but it worked only part of the time. The problem comes from another of the AI's strange behaviour. I converted the gunnery DN with more shields and a cargo bay, and put a single troop on it. The two ships (that converted DN and the troop ship) would move in together, but if the DN drops its troops first the problem starts. Obviously the single troop would lose the ground battle, but then instead of dropping its uncommited troops the troop ship would turn around and head for the corner!
...
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 16 August 2001 15:36
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Yes, I know. From the situation you described I assumed the dreadnought would not live long enough to drop its troops. My bad. Besides that you should set the troop transport as fleet leader. This way it will move first and will probably drop the troops before the dreadnought. Also you should put a small weapon on the transport to get it to stay and finish the sats after the capture(only PD will cause it to run away). After the planet is captured and the DN still lives and has its troops still loaded, do not expect it to battle the sats. It will run away, because it is a "troop transport"  .
   Originally posted by "CW":
   "The problem comes from another of the AI's strange behaviour."

   Actually this behaviour is consistant with what I have mentioned in my earlier post. After the dreadnought drops its troops it is not a troop transport anymore, but a warship again. This will cause the "real" troop transport to go into hiding and wait for the weapon platforms to be destroyed...
<<
>>
dogscoff
Captain
posted 16 August 2001 15:28
   What happens if you use Rollo's method but with *no* troops on the DN?
   Would it make a difference changing the fleet leader and/ or formation? (ie make sure the troop ship gets there first.)
   Failing that get some more troops on the DN and hope they can take the planet.
   Or... reduce the shields of the dreadnought so that it's just tough enough to soak up all the enemy fire, but gets damaged / slowed down / destroyed before reaching the planet and dropping it's troop. (Getting desperate now)
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 16 August 2001 15:59
[Ed: reply to previous]
   "What happens if you use Rollo's method but with *no* troops on the DN?"
   If you put no troops on the DN, that will make the troop transport (TT) wait. The DN is just a warship with a cargo space.

   "Would it make a difference changing the fleet leader and/ or formation? (ie make sure the troop ship gets there first.)"
   Yes, that is a good idea.

   "Failing that get some more troops on the DN and hope they can take the planet."
   IIRC the problem is that CW doesn't have enough troops to fill two ships.

   "Or... reduce the shields of the dreadnought so that it's just tough enough to soak up all the enemy fire, but gets damaged / slowed down / destroyed before reaching the planet and dropping it's troop. (Getting desprate now)."
   Should work. As I said before, I was thinking the DN would get destroyed in the approach anyway.
   CW, if you don't find the DN/TT combo satisfactory, the best thing (if possible) would probably be that you build/refit two DN/TT hybrids. Both should have:
A) enough troops to capture the planet
B) enough shields so that at least one will reach the planet
C) one small weapon and some PD to finsh the sats
<<
>>
dmm
First Lieutenant
posted 16 August 2001 16:02
   Originally posted by CW:
   "I've [got] to admit the AI in this game is one of the worst I have seen."

   1) I've seen a LOT worse, and for less complicated games.  Most of the challenging AIs cheat, which I hate.  Certainly, SEIV's AI is aggravatingly stupid at times, but I don't see that as the main problem here.
   2) The problem, in this particular case, is arising because you're trying to capture a planet by _exploiting_ the weak AI!  Ironic, isn't it?  Admit it, you'd never capture that planet with that fleet against a human opponent.  He'd go after your unshielded troop transport as soon as it came into range and would blow it to pieces with one salvo.  And he would ignore your "shield ship."  The AI would be good enough for the job if your fleet were good enough to capture the planet from a human opponent.
   3) Your (probably human) opponent has set up his planetary defences (defenses?) in accordance with known AI behavior.  Sorry, but you just have to deal with it.  That's the game.  The hard-coding that insists on destroying weapons platforms before landing troops was probably put in at the request of some poor slob who had his heavily-defended planet stolen from him by someone who tricked the AI into ignoring troop transports.  Ditto with the "one drop per combat" rule.
   4) You should feel lucky.  You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing.  The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining!
<<
>>
Rollo
Corporal
posted 16 August 2001 16:11
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by dmm:
   "4) You should feel lucky.  You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing.  The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining!"

   good points dmm,
   just let me answer to one of them: if the planet owner is reading this, he will probably adjust his defenses anyway. just build some sats with ionic dispersers and enjoy the fireworks  .
<<
>>
dmm
First Lieutenant
posted 16 August 2001 16:52
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by CW:
"And if I'm directing the fight personally I wouldn't let him get in range of my transport!"

   I'm missing something.  How could you avoid getting into range of defense platforms and still land troops?
   Do you mean that you could dance in and out to wipe out the sats and platforms?  I think you'll admit that's not realistic, and only works in tactical because there's no "opportunity fire" mode for defenders.  It's a weakness of the turn-based system.
   Or do you mean that your weapons out-range the sats and platforms, and that the AI is too stupid to take advantage of that?  In which case, I agree with you, that's really frustrating.  (But I thought that problem was fixed.)
[edit: Above was posted before CW's edits.  Below is after.]
   So, it's the dancing thing, huh?  Like I said, that wouldn't work if there was opportunity fire.  Your solo games went so quickly because you exploited the lack of it, by using tactical combat.  Try a simultaneous-move solo game (strategic combat only).  It's harder, as you are finding out.  Strategic combat is (purposely?) set up not to use dancing, which roughly simulates the effect of opportunity fire.  I think, however, that if a ship has only weapons that take multiple turns to reload, then it will move out of range while reloading.  Not a true dance, but it might help.  What happens if you try that?
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 16 August 2001 17:00
   Originally posted by "dmm":
   "1) I've seen a LOT worse, and for less complicated games."

   Unlucky you. Most of the time I research a game before I buy it, and that effectively filters out the games with bad AIs. But I agree with you, SEIV is a good game even with its improvable AI, makes some interesting engineering challenges!

   "2) The problem, in this particular case, is arising because you're trying to capture a planet by _exploiting_ the weak AI!  Ironic, isn't it?  Admit it, you'd never capture that planet with that fleet against a human opponent.  He'd go after your unshielded troop transport as soon as it came into range and would blow it to pieces with one salvo.  And he would ignore your "shield ship."  The AI would be good enough for the job if your fleet were good enough to capture the planet from a human opponent."

   If I'm directing the fight personally I won't even let him shoot at my transport in the first place!       AND that planet is easily takable with that DN and transport. The biggest problem is the AI doesn't know how to do little tricks to defeat an enemy that doesn't move (the WPs namely).

   "3) Your (probably human) opponent has set up his planetary defences (defenses?) in accordance with known AI behavior.  Sorry, but you just have to deal with it.  That's the game.  The hard-coding that insists on destroying weapons platforms before landing troops was probably put in at the request of some poor slob who had his heavily-defended planet stolen from him by someone who tricked the AI into ignoring troop transports.  Ditto with the "one drop per combat" rule."

   You can set the AI to engage the transport first in strategies but appearent none of the default AIs were set up for that. Either way, who says it is not a valid strategy? I'm the kind of person who don't like sticking to set-piece battle drills.

   "4) You should feel lucky.  You've got a 50/50 chance of capturing a planet that you've got no fair expectation of capturing.  The planet owner is the guy who should be complaining!"

   It is turn 23 already. In my solo games I normally would have wiped out my first AI empire by now, and with comparable forces.  Again, the problem is the AI doesn't know how to defeat static defenses.
   By the way, the empire I'm fighting is AI controlled.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 17 August 2001 11:56
   I've finally decided to give the AI some planetary napalms to play with, since this is the only method that guarantee success, even though there is a 50% chance that the AI might blow up something I want to take over intact. My plan is to use 3 ships - a gunnery DN to take care of the sats, a planetary bombardment BC with JUST enough bombs to wipe out the WPs, and of cause the troop ship.
<<
>>
CW
Sergeant
posted 18 August 2001 18:49
   YEEHAA! Planet conquered! And conquered intact! The only thing went wrong was the ships made their individual attack runs instead of doing it together because I did not put them in a fleet. That caused me a cruiser but that's a cheap price to pay, especially considering the number of ships I captured from the Phong lately.
<<
>>
Commander G2
Private First Class
posted 26 September 2001 17:39
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
We need more topics on how to play better than we do discussing bugs and mods, so I am starting one on tricks to use in multiplayer, strategic mode games.
   I am currently losing a major war to another player (a good friend at my office) in a PBW game, but in the process we have both learned a lot about how to conduct combat in strategic mode. Here are a few things to consider in your current and future games.
   To Hit modifiers are vital for Direct Fire weapons.  Important Technologies to have are Advanced Military Science (Fleet/Ship training), Armor 4-6 (Stealth Armor and Scattering Armor), Sensors 1-3  and Combat Support 1-3 (ECMs).  Also consider using a smaller hull to get better defense.  For example, if you oppponent has a 20% chance to hit you, a smaller sized hull can decrease the chance to 10% or maybe even 1%, depending on how much smaller you go.
   Possible Defense Factors:  ECM III (60%), Scattering Armor III (15%), Stealth Armor(15%), Fleet Training(20%), Ship Training(20%), Hull Size (negative to +40), Range (10% per square beyond point blank) Racial Modifier(20%), Cultural Modifier(10%, but not working in 1.41).
   Possible Attack Factors: Sensors III (60%, I think) , Fleet Training(20%), Ship Training(20%), Racial Attack Modifier, Cultural Modifiers(not working in 1.41).  Some weapons also have a ToHit modifier in the Ripper Beam/Wave Motion Gun Tree.
   As you can see, there are more ways to get defense modifers than attack modifers.  If you are having trouble hitting, make sure your ships have orders to fire at the 'nearest' ship rather than the biggest or smallest.  Consider the following targeting order: Has Weapons, Nearest, Most Damaged, Smallest.
   Depending on how the modifiers add up, you may often find that Destroyers are a better hull than Light Cruisers, Battle Cruisers or Battleships.  Personally, I do not care much for Cruisers as they require more non functioning iron eating components, giving little advantage of Light Cruisers.
   Other hints to consider:  Target Seekers before Fighters.
   Once you employ a fleet that exploits the To Hit modifiers in your favor, watch out for a Missle Heavy fleet.  Missles automatically hit provoding the PDC do not shoot them down. My opponent referenced above has switched to using Battle Cruisers and Battleships with 9 Organic Parasites (Organic Missles with ROF 2) because he could not hit my Destroyers.  His missleships do not require fleet training before he sends them off to battle and thus they are very disposable.
   Another thing about ships with high defense, is they have no advantage in defending against ramming attacks, at least in the current version.  I would argue ship experience at least should be a factor to avoid a ram attack.  Ramming was historically used frequently by the Greek ships around 300BC.  In ramming in that era, crew experience was critical in getting the right angle in attack or in avoiding it as the defender.
   Another thing I would recommend is training skeleton fleets with a cheap ship and add ships to them once they are fully trained.
   Also, remember to give your fleets a better formation than arrow.  Arrow is about the worst thing to use in most cases.  Try using wall or spider.  I usually use wall, unless I am defending a carrier or some other valuable ship, in which case I use Decoy or Spider instead.
   If you have trouble hitting, try using Short or Point Blank range so you ships will move in closer.  Max Range is very bad for direct fire weapons, but great for missles.  I am not sure on Optimal range, as I do not know the algorythm.  I tend to use Optimal until I have problems hitting, then I switch to closer range.
<<
>>
Rollo
Second Lieutenant
posted 26 September 2001 21:17
   You make some good points and I agree with most of them. Just a few comments and additions:
   I totally agree that ship and fleet training are very important. The neural combat net can be very useful to give your rookies the needed experience, if you don't have time to train them.
   Attack factors: don't forget the talisman that will make your weapons always hit. Very powerful for long range direct fire in combination with engine destroying weapons that will keep the enemy from closing in.
   quote:  "As you can see, there are more ways to get defense modifers than attack modifers. If you are having trouble hitting, make sure your ships have orders to fire at the 'nearest' ship rather than the biggest or smallest. Consider the following targeting order: Has Weapons, Nearest, Most Damaged, Smallest."
   I am in agreement with you except for the last word. If you have trouble hitting, you should probably set the order: Has Weapons, Nearest, Most Damaged, Biggest.  Otherwise you will waste a lot of shots trying to hit that small ship, while the nearby dreadnought rips you apart   .
   ship hulls: my favorite hull is the light cruiser. While still getting defense bonus, you can use the large mount. Destroyers aren't bad, but they really lack the punch, because of the normal mount. They could still be good missile launchers, though.
   missiles, ramming: really can't say much about that, because I have never used those, but since you can put 2 PDC (40t) for each missile (50t), I doubt that missle heavy fleets can be used well in the long run. They might work, though, if your enemy doesn't know your designs, yet   . Ramming ships (frigates/destroyers) can be used effectively on warp points, if your opponent has a higher player number than you (just found that out today when I lost my elite ships to a ramming attack).
   Depending on what you trying to accomplish with your fleet, maximum range can be quite effective with direct fire weapons. Especially if you hit better than your opponent and you use engine killers. Also max range gives you more time to shoot down enemy seekers.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 26 September 2001 21:29
   One thing about the higher player number: I am still not convinced that such a player would shoot first in a strategic battle. Other factors are ship speeds, formation, and weapon range. I am ranked 1st (because I am host) in some PBW games and do not always fire the first shot in combat.
<<
>>
Saxon
Corporal
posted 27 September 2001 10:42
   Nice thread idea!
   Targeting is very important when you are trying to do something fancy.  A good example is if you want to invade a planet instead of just glassing it while you take out the enemy defenders.  Dont forget to turn the planet targeting off.  Since ships seem to count so heavily in scoring, I have also chosen to run down transports and colony ships before damaging the planet.  This drives the enemies score down and increases the chance of a surrender.  With big empires, it doesnt make much difference, but early on against the single system races, it can help a lot.
   If you are fighting the AI, it seems to me that they usually go after your biggest ships first.  I would suggest that Humans who dont pay much attention to their fleet orders would use this default AI.  If you are facing such a person, building a larger than average ship with lots of shields and armor may draw the early enemy fire while your offensive forces are unhindered.  I usually throw in some supply or repair components, so the ship does serve some other purpose than just soaking up fire.  You should also throw in one small direct fire weapon, so the ship does get involved in the fighting and will get targeted by those targeting weapons.
   Further opinions of mine include that missile fleets become less useful later in the game and much less useful if in a long war with a human.  As people start to use larger ship designs, throwing in one or two PDC on a ship is a common insurance against missiles and fighters.  I sometimes even throw one in as I dont see anything else useful to add to the ship.  If you are facing a race that uses lots of missiles or fighters, building small, PDC only ships (one DUC to keep them in the front lines) is cheap, fast and highly effective.  Most humans figure this out and will soon make it impossible for you to hit them with missiles.  Those who dont figure it out are probably going to get beaten anyway
   Actually, has anyone faced a heavy missile fleet with carrier and fighter support?  All that together might swamp most PDC combinations.  I am guessing not, as I never see any postings about fighters.
<<
>>
Rollo
Second Lieutenant
posted 27 September 2001 11:25
   Dragonlord,
   I agree with you that player number has little or no effect in open space battle. On warppoints, however, having a lower player number gives you a huge advantage, because you can fire a full broadside at point blank crippeling or even destroying the enemy fleet before they can fire a shot. Satellites are a good warppoint defense, if you have a low player number and they are totally useless, if you are last in the list.
<<
>>
capnq
Major
posted 27 September 2001 19:09
   Originally posted by "Saxon":
   "If you are fighting the AI, it seems to me that they usually go after your biggest ships first. I would suggest that Humans who dont pay much attention to their fleet orders would use this default AI. If you are facing such a person, building a larger than average ship with lots of shields and armor may draw the early enemy fire while your offensive forces are unhindered."

   I sometimes use specialty ships with one of the Massive weapons from ruins in this role, if I've found any. They're usually the first thing the AI targets, even if there are larger hulls in the fleet. My impression is that the AI tends to go after the most expensive ship, not necessarily the biggest.
<<
[Ed: The following are announced changes affecting this topic effective as of patch v1.49:
   Changed - Combat has been changed such that order of player's movement is random. In addition, defenders will be placed at the front of the player list so that they get to move first.
   Changed - Removed the application of the maximum units per player rule while in combat. This means that you can launch as many fighters as you like during combat. However, the maximum units per player rule stilly applies to non-combat unit launching.
   Note    - Medical Bays will cure plagues on your planets or planets of
your allies (Military Alliance or better).
   Fixed   - You should be able to view and clear the orders of minefields or
satellite groups.
   Fixed   - Self-Destruct of satellites and mines was not working in simultaneous
turn games.
   Fixed   - A log message should be generated when a ship self-destructs or is
fired on and destroyed.
   Fixed   - Resource Production and Space Combat racial modifiers were not working
correctly.
   Fixed   - Ships were not showing up in the correct portion of the combat map
at the start of combat.
   Changed - Spaced out large groups of ships in combat a bit more when starting.
   Fixed   - Sometimes your ships would not fire on a planet because you had a troop
transport present carrying troops but it didn't have the Capture Planet
order.
   Fixed   - Simultaneous Game: Combat would often occur too many times. Now it will only
occur one per sector per phase if a ship executed orders in that location.
   Fixed   - Emissive armor should be working correctly now.
   Fixed   - Simultaneous Game: Colonizers at the same location would not follow orders
to colonize given in the Planets window.
   Fixed   - Sometimes when a colonizer would colonize a planet, not all of the population
in its cargo would be dropped to the planet.
   Fixed   - Simultaneous Game: Adding the "Use Component" order would clear all previous
orders for a ship.
   Fixed   - Simultaneous Game: Using Emergency Propulsion Pods would not always work correctly.
Please note: You want to use the emergency propulsion pods at the beginning of the
turn in a simulatenous game (your first orders before moving). Since these pods
actually increase your speed during phased movement, if you try to use them at the
end, you may not actually get the remaining movement points.
   Changed - You cannot repair an Emergency Propulsion Pod or an Emergency Resupply Pod without
a space yard being present.
   Added   - Added a message when your counter-intelligence project successfully defeats an
attack. (This attack will cause the progress of the counter-intelligence project
to be put back.)
   Fixed   - All Counter-Intelligence projects were being cleared when an attack came in. So
only the first attack would be defeated, and then all others would get through
that turn.
]


PBW/PBEM:

Some interesting points have come out of a thread started to gather complete novices to learn Play-By-Web (PBW) together.  While the Strategic Combat section was originally intended to cover these game forms, some lessons are unique and outside of that topic area.  Here are the lessons learned:

>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 23 June 2001 16:27
   Originally posted by Saxon:
   "I have put in to join the game, though I am not sure when or to where I am to send the .emp file. Does the web site give me more guidance if you accept me?"

   Yes, you'll get an e-mail when you're accepted into the game, and when you next log in to the PBW site, the game page will have a button activated for uploading your .emp file. There might also be an option to e-mail the .emp file, but I don't recall offhand.
<<
>>
capt_spoogy
Second Lieutenant
posted 23 June 2001 22:21
   I just joined the game.
   I have a question through.  I wanted to use my spoogy shipset - does everyone need to have that shipset to see it correctly?
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 23 June 2001 22:52
   Yes. If they DON'T, I think the game will substitute another empire pic for your empire's. Worse, it might pic a new one every turn.. make sure you email that set out once you upload it!
...
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 25 June 2001 01:45
   It's not letting me do it [Ed: increase the number of players]. It says the game has already started, even though it hasn't.
   Keep watching here though, as the two people that joined after me are being a little slow to upload. I may have to boot them to get the game running.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 25 June 2001 04:54
   I think I've got this figured out now.
   I kicked the slow player that hadn't posted here. BUT now the control system thinks the game hasn't started, so I can change the max players!
   So if the game goes to x/x (eg: 4/4, 5/5, etc), AND the players are approved, it is marked as "started" regardless of whether the empires are actually in or not.
   In the future, I simply won't approve myself until everyone else has an empire in, so this problem doesn't show up.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 26 June 2001 01:06
...
   The turns are 24 hours long, or whenever everyone uploads their turn, whichever comes first. The timer starts from when the turn before is done, so if the last person uploads their turn at 6 PM EST, the next turn will end at or before 6 PM EST the next day. If you miss a turn, the AI takes over for that turn.
   Make sure to check the forum for the game, too, as once contact is established I'll do a bit of RP there, the in-game comms being too slow
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 03:06
[Ed: reply in this thread to a request for comments about differences found in PBW/PBEM.]
   Our game has not started yet, but I started my very first PBW game a few days ago (now on turn 6) and ran into something strange:
   I just produced a number of mines on my last turn. In a normal game (against AI only) I can have my planet launch these mines into orbit, to catch any potential attacking ships. This option is disabled in Simultaneous play games? Is that normal? Must I build a mine layer to launch the mines into orbit over my planet?
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 05:35
   Small update to my last post:
   I also asked the mines question to a fellow player in my PBW game. I will paste a few lines from his email response:
> Mines can be lauched without the help of a ship but it happens at the end of the turn, e.g as turn is processed.
>
> In multiplayer get used to the orders screens (the eye) these screens tell you what you have told planets and ships to do during processing.
   And here is my follow-up question:
   Just one more question about the mines:
   Must I use the "launch units remotely" button because the normal "launch / recover units" button is greyed out. I can do that and say launch mines and then click on planet (I assume if you click anywhere else it wont work cause planets can only launch into their own orbits?). But this will not let me control how many of the mines stored on the planet will be launched? I only want to launch 10 or so (enough that a minesweeping destroyer level I can't sweep em all) and keep the rest on planet so that my minelayers can pick them up and move em around. Minelayers still cannot recover mines that are already launched in to space, right?
   Hope anyone can clarify.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 26 June 2001 05:48
   Dragonlord, you have just discovered one of the more annoying aspects of sim turn games. Launching of units is an all or nothing deal since it can only be done with the "Launch Units Remotely" button. The only way to control how many units is launched is to only have that amount of units to launch or build a ship/base that can only launch the wanted number of units. Which pretty much means that you need two ships to lay mines and sats. One to do the launching and one to do the carrying. A bit of a pain.
   Oh, and you're right about how to make a planet luanch. If don't want to launch them all have a transport or base with cargo space take the rest on board while launching. Like I said, a pain.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 06:04
   Back to Phoenix's message a few posts ago:
   The game has just started, and I must say I have an most excellent starting position (I think). Nice system with two breathable planets in it. I'm assuming placement was random (right phoenix?) and perhaps I'll get an advantage over other players who don't start off as well...my home system is also easily defendable...(evil chuckle).
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 26 June 2001 07:26
   Dragonlord, I have no idea why it is implemented that way. It's not consequent with how cargo is handled so I don't understand it.
   As for your start in your game, yes it is good. Two breathable planets ain't all that usual and if they are both medium or above in size count yourself lucky. And if I am correct in assuming you only have one warp point leading our of your homesystem then it sounds to me like you have a really good starting position. Good luck.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 26 June 2001 18:01
   I re-gened until I got the map I wanted- I like the "all WPs connected" OFF, then re-gen the map until they are all connected approach.
   I got an easily defensable system too.
<<
>>
Baal
Corporal
posted 26 June 2001 18:56
   BAD NEWS:
   We need to restart the game.  I generated my empire from the "Quick Start" menu and it put a differnt password on my empire than what I gave to PBW.
   MORAL OF THE STORY:
   Don't ever generate a race from the quick start menu to save time because SE4 puts passwords on all races to prevent tampering.
   Sorry guys, my bad.
<<
>>
Baal
Corporal
posted 26 June 2001 19:14
   Never mind that last post.  I got the password thanks to the help of geoschmo.  No restart needed.
<<
>>
Baal
Corporal
posted 26 June 2001 19:21
   I uploaded my file.  My start is kind of bad.  No breathable planets.  :-(
<<
>>
capt_spoogy
Second Lieutenant
posted 26 June 2001 19:40
   Don't worry - I don't have any other breathable planets other than my own...
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 26 June 2001 21:45
   Just checked the PBW site and it is processing the first turn now, but seems to have problems with Phoenix's password.
   Baal, I think that regardless of what you tell PBW about your password when you upload your .emp file, you still have to configure your password when you create your empire, and it becomes then a part of your emp file. (I had that problem on my first PBW game a few days ago). Also, if for some reason something is wrong with the password or you forgot to use it completely (like I did) you can still log on to your turn with a blank password and change the password with the Empires (yellow crown thingy) button.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 28 June 2001 02:59
   Maybe I should have used 3 planet start.. this is kinda slow starting
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Corporal
posted 28 June 2001 03:52
   Phoenix, yes , that's a good lesson for the next game. Most of my experience with PBW (very limited) comes from my first PBW game in which we are now in turn 9, and we started with 5 planets. That makes the game interesting much faster, got some fast and furious diplomacy going on now.
That game (and my low ranking in it) has also given me ideas about a much better race design...if only I could have used it in our newbie game..   sigh.
   You know..we're only in turn 3...we could always start over with 3 or 5 planets each and all agree on a timeperiod so we could play the first 5 turns or so quickly...
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Sergeant
posted 28 June 2001 04:11
   Or I could just start another game and we play that one too   I'll do that now, actually, and try not to screw the setup up this time.
<<
>>
Baal
Corporal
posted 28 June 2001 04:25
   Personally, I like this one planet start.  It has potential of being really exciting.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 28 June 2001 20:49
   Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
   "In any case, if you need to drop out I can just kick ya and let the AI bungle it's way through the rest of the game. Or you could abandon all your planets, same deal."

   You can do what you suggested, but one of the best things about PBW is how quickly you can find a replacment player for someone that has to drop out.
   Simply hit the KICK button next to their empire on the game admin screen and your game will go up on the Open Games list with a big red "Replacement player needed" next to it. Once someone applies to join, click on accept and they will get an email with the empire password. Often you can get a replacment in and playing before everyone even knows someone is missing.
<<
>>
Gimboid
Private First Class
posted 17 July 2001 13:47
[Ed: start of new thread]
   In one of my PBW games, when I enacted a partnership treaty with another player I recieved all ship designs for that player, and all enemy ship designs that they had encountered.
   Now it's a few turns later and they have new ship designs and so has the enemy, but these designs either haven't been given to me by my partner (automatically I would presume, if it occurs) or I can't access them in the designs and simulator section.
   Has anyone else been able to access these designs? (without enacting a new partnership treaty to swap the designs)
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 17 July 2001 14:31
   Everything is working ok. You generally know more about your enemy's ships than your ally's. Here's how it is:
   OK, you are race A, your partner is race B, your enemy is race C.
   When race A goes into partnership with race B, he does _not_ receive race B's ship designs. He only receives the designs that race B has acquired about other races. (race C's designs for example)
   Remember that if B and C are allies, they probably don't have much data about one anothers' ships.
   I don't know where you got your race B designs from, it must have been from one of the methods below. If you want to get more of race B's designs, you will have to:
a- get some long range scanners and fly past his ships
b- get a military alliance/ partnership with race C, D, E etc who might (or might not) have some of race B's designs available.
c- Get some of his ships by trade or theft
d- break your treaty and attack some of race B's ships. You'll get his designs then.
   This is also why you are getting no data about race C - you have to wait until either you or your partner goes into combat with the new ship designs. If B and C are allies then it might be a long wait. Try a comms mimic to force them into combat >=-)
<<
>>
Gimboid
Private First Class
posted 17 July 2001 14:41
   Thanks for the reply, but...
a)I've never fought with any of my allies ships.
b)I've never had anything higher then non-aggression with the other players.
   Does his ships passing thru one of my planets sectors count as scanning? (since I have no ships with long range scanners)
   Or my ships refueling at his planet? (when some of his designs are also present)
<<
>>
Slaughtermeyer
Private First Class
posted 17 July 2001 17:04
   I can't explain why you've received the ship designs of your ally, but the reason you haven't received additional enemy ship designs is probably because your ally hasn't had combat with any of the newer enemy designs yet.
<<
>>
Gorgo
Private First Class
posted 16 August 2001 13:50
[Ed: Start of new thread "How do you do that, Dragonlord?"
   I've just been browsing through the statistics of all PBW-games and could not help but noticing, that you are the leading player in nearly every game you're playing where I could see the statistics.
   If it's not a secret: How do you do that?
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 August 2001 03:36
Gorgo,
   I am flattered that you would think I am such an experienced player that I always make it to the first ranking. I am actually in second place in 2 games where statistics are turned on, and am first in the Spiralus and Dark Wars game.
   My strategy? Well, it's a combination of many factors, luck being one of them.
Starting position is *very* important, in fact in the next game I host I will pre-generate the map and fix the starting position of all players so that everybody has an equal shot at success.
   I also tend to research Appled Research II and Minerals II early on, to save me the time of upgrading facilities later. I try to make T&R alliances with everyone, and have a good economy going. I spend racial points on things like political ability (more trade) and ship maintenance. I usually have many ships, which count (too) heavily in score.
   In the beginning of a game I set all my starting planets on emergency build to make colonisers in one turn, and build a few space stations. By the time my planets go in slow mode my new colonies have spaceyards and can take up the slack, while my space stations make Mines, which is my primary defense in the early game. I've stopped wasting time on satelites, and often skip Fighters too. I pay a lot of attention to all the numbers and micromanage a lot, e.g. get 100 population minimun on all planets for that small bonus in construction capacity.
   At the end of the day, these games are all about juggling the numbers to your advantage, something I like to do.
   The second best part is the diplomatic roleplaying you get in multiplayer PBW games.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 17 August 2001 05:07
Originally posted by "Dragonlord":
   "Well, it's a combination of many factors, luck being one of them"

   Like how you came down on my being-retrofitted fleet?

   "I will pre-generate the map and fix the starting position of all players so that everybody has an equal shot at success."

   You'll need to know everyone's planet types and air type first, though.
<<
>>
BeeDee10
Corporal
posted 17 August 2001 06:27
   You don't necessarily need to know the planet types of players in order to give them fair starting positions. When you define a planet as a player's starting position in the map editor, the planet automatically changes to the atmosphere and type of the race that starts there.
   The _size_ of the planet doesn't change, however. So make sure all planets are the same size. Alternatively, place the starting position markers in empty sectors; the game will automatically create homeworlds of the predefined starting size in that case.
   Oh, and one more caveat; ringworlds and sphereworlds that are used as starting points will turn into Huge planets instead, but only if the atmosphere and type doesn't match that of the player. If you want a race to start on a sphereworld then you _do_ need to keep careful track of what planet type they require. But this is a special case that is unlikely to come up often in conventional games.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 August 2001 08:04
   Beedee, thanks for that info. I still have to figure out *how* to place those markers though, I haven't really explored the map editor yet.
   Gorgo, you're better off asking these guys (Beedee and Phoenix) for their strategies, they are much more experienced players than I am.
   (and yes, the occasional bit of big luck like with Phoenix's fleet being retrofitted does help in getting into 1st place :-)
<<
>>
Gorgo
Private First Class
posted 17 August 2001 08:20
   Thanks, Dragonlord - you've made some really interesting points.

   "I am actually in second place in 2 games where statistics are turned on, and am first in the Spiralus and Dark Wars game."

   Yeh, and I if someone else is first, it's Shujo. How does Shujo play? Maybe if he reads this, he can contribute some of his strategies.
   Thanks for your insights, I've just learnt a great deal.
   I'm currently in three games, War and Diplomacey features you (2nd) and Shujo (1st).
   In Ender's game, we're at the year 2406 and not a single combat has occured. It is obviously a great risk in this game to attack someone while not knowing if others will turn against you.
   How do you people decide if it's time for war? What has to happen that you choose to attack someone?
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 17 August 2001 17:03
[Ed: reply to previous]
   In my first PBW game, I maintained peaceful relations until I ran out of colonizable worlds in my claimed space. That game had Allied Scores turned on, so I knew that my two neighbors were in 1st and 3rd to my 4th. I decided to expel 3rd from a system that I had colonized first, and seize the two worlds he'd colonized.
   In my second PBW game, I joined a partner's war against an AI that happened to claim most of the systems that still had colonizable planets available. In that case, I just poked at the AI until it declared war. Since then, I haven't been the one to declare war first, so I haven't had to make the decision.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 August 2001 21:19
   When to go to war? Depends on the victory conditions. If those call for galactic domination then all alliances are temporary, though they may last for over 5 years. Usually when I run out of room to expand I pick a target which is close by and a threat to my frontier, and start provoking them. However I must do this in-char (roleplaying) so it isn't always easy, unless you play a xenophobic berzerker race
What sometimes works against humans is demand they give you stuff or reduce their fleets or such until they get fed up an break their treaty   Or, make friends with an enemy of your target and find a reason to help that enemey against your target, e.g. if you are merchants you could say you were bribed with promises of tech and colonisation rights...
etc etc, be creative :-)
<<
>>
Gorgo
Private First Class
posted 17 August 2001 21:59
   Oh, I messed up something: It's Heretic who's leading in War and Diplomacy, Shujo is 8th.
   Has stellar manipulation tech ever played a crucial role in one of your PBW-games, in a way that it was decisive for victory or defeat? In SE3, you could build a star destroyer or a ship with an open warp component in a really short time, now it's taking forever. Do you guys really use this tech area on PBW, or do you concentrate on building stuff that can fight?
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 17 August 2001 22:55
   stuff that can fight.  i only build that stuff in huge games against the AI where i want to wipe out their systems and dont have time to deal with all the planets.
   on the other hand, in high tech games on PBW, i could see the warp point components coming into play a great deal, maybe even star destroyers if the game was running long.  basically tho, star destroyers would only be worthwhile if planets were too well defended to crack with less than 50 or so ships.  I would guess that any low-cost technology game that ran over 200 turns would see alot of SM.
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 17 August 2001 23:28
   I'm 8th in Diplowar because I surrendered for personal reasons
   Well Dragonlord and I appear to be doing mostly the same things.  I must thank you for starting this thread cause now I know what his secret is
   Anyway, here's what I tend to do in games...
1) Get increased mineral extraction because you can never have too many minerals in a game
2) Get increased ship construction to crank out ships faster
3) Get advanced storage because more facilities = more resources
4) Never let surplus resources go to waste.  Some people build storage facilities.  I tend to build/retrofit ships, and then build storage only if I can't spend my surplus.
5) Units are a waste.  Fighters are point defense fodder.  Satelites are just for cloak detection.  Don't bother with mines unless there's AI in the game, or you want an invisible scout between you and the enemy.  When a human player attacks, he usually brings a couple of sweepers with him.
6) Trade colonization tech as early on as possible.  If you delay, somebody else is gonna get the tech.
7) If there's AI grab their colonization tech then declare war as soon as you're ready.  They're only taking up space on planets you could be using.  Not to mention your very existence is usually good enough reason for them to declare war.  No need to let such scum live
8) (optional) Get organic tech - This tech lets you crank out ships at a cheap cost FAST.  Dreadnoughts in 3 turns without emergency build or SY III is possible.  Since most people use PPBs, Organic armor gives you quite an edge.
   I don't declare war unless one empire is building too many ships or colonizing too many planets.  Other people are most likely worried about it as well, so there won't be any shortage of allies.
   Stellar manipulation - I haven't been in a game that lasted long enough for this to be of any use.  It's usually last on my list of research priorities.  Monoliths take too long to build, other techs are too expensive to research.
<<
>>
Gorgo
Private First Class
posted 17 August 2001 23:56
[Ed: reply to previous]
   You surrendered in Diplowar? Your empire is not marked as dead yet, so this comes as a surprise!
   That part about trading colonization tech raises some questions: How do you get humans to trade that, as it immediately produces competition in colonizing the same planet types? I would think twice to trade this tech, unless the other player is at the other end of the galaxy.
   What about weapon platforms? I used to think they're good for their range and power (and zero maintenance), and as you can't do the missile dance in PBW, they should be much better than any bases which tend to orbit on the wrong side of the planet when attacked. Or do you rely mainly on ships for planetary defense?
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 18 August 2001 00:15
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Should show up next turn.  It probably hasn't shown up as dead because it takes a turn to send a message, and another turn for it to be accepted.
   I used to think just like you, until in one game I found myself being the only player who didn't have more than one type of colonization tech.   Yes, trading it does create competition, but people are generally don't establish colonies in your systems because they don't want to start any wars early on in the game.  So the only competition you have is over systems that aren't yours in the first place
   Weapons platforms - I use them against AI if I don't have mines yet.  While there's a good chance that AI will attack your planets, the exact opposite seems to be true with people.  Even human players that are psychotic berserkers don't want wars so early on in the game.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 18 August 2001 02:21
   I have been reading this thread with interest, and thought I would inject some of my own pbw thoughts (hopefully I don't intrude too much).
1: Weapon choices:  VERY important, watch out for Engine Overloading Weapons, can be deadly!! (I always use them, very good against those who rely on short ranged weapons such as null-space).  Don't rely on PPB too much, players develop Phased Shields earlier than the AI, APB almost seems a better choice (more range).
2: Armor:  Definite must, stealth armor can decide a game early.
3: planet busting weapons:  Plague bombs and such, good but watch out, using plagues seems to get everyone in a tizzy!
4: Shipyards!  I tend to have one on almost every planet! (and watch out that you don't have only one Space Port per system, if it gets knocked out you could lose resources fast, getting half your fleet scrapped!!).
5: Planet/atmosphere type & Racial abilities.  Very important to choose the right mix.  I usually go for rock or Ice with none for atmosphere, moons everywhere!!, but Gas has min size of medium so they are good as well.  If you do go for rock/ice none then the racial bonus for more storage/facilities is a must!!
   Anyway, hope I haven't rambled too much, and hope I provided some points to ponder....if not just ignore and continue  ....
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 18 August 2001 03:58
[Ed: reply to previous]
   While I like APBs (very cheap) myself, I've heard some compelling arguments why PPBs are better.
   Even without the shield-penetrating ability they're good weapons in and of themselves.  There's a table somewhere on this forum which shows that PPBs have one of the best damage/firing rate per kiloton ratios of all weapons.
   PPBs cost the same to research as APBs (not including the cost for getting Physics II), and deal significantly better damage at equivalent levels.  You need at least APB VIII or IX before you can even begin to compare its damage to PPBs.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 18 August 2001 06:57
   I liked the combo of Rock/none with Advanced Storage Techniques when Shoujo mentioned it to me (the moons! of course !) but now I am in 3 games with that race setup, and seems like *everybody* is doing it now, which causes a lot of competition for planets. It also makes it harder to find a human player you can exchange colonists with (cheap way to avoid atmosphere converters), and I sometimes have a hard time convincing a Gas player that his Gas tech is worth less than my Rock tech, (in a trade) because I cannot get breathable Gas planets while he can get breathable rocks.
<<
>>
Shoujo
Private First Class
posted 18 August 2001 07:34
   You've brought up an interesting point...  In one game both my neighbors have rock/none.  I wouldn't be willing to give up the moon advantage, so no gas for me.  I've been considering going ice/none.  Only problem is I'm not sure how common ice planets/moons are.  In every game I play I have the odd feeling that for whatever reason there aren't enough planets of my type.
   In case you're reading this Deathstalker, how lucky have you been finding ice/none planets or moons?
   If only I could find that one tabe (which I foolishly did not link) which had a full listing of the ratios of get rock/gas/ice planets and the various atmospheres you would be likely to see in a game...
<<
>>
BeeDee10
Corporal
posted 18 August 2001 08:32
   Hrmph. I chose rock/none and advanced storage for very good roleplaying reasons; my race were a race of self-replicating industrial robots that had originally created to do space exploration and development for an organic species. I was rock/none+adv. storage _before_ it was cool!
   I think that ultimately the best atmosphere/planet type to choose for your race is "the one that nobody else is using in that particular game." Good luck guessing.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Captain
posted 18 August 2001 16:15
   Planet finding is almost luck...One game I chose Ice/None, there were three huge Ice/None in my home system, all with moons, a few of them even Ice!!.  I honestly don't know if if depends on the system chosen though, I usually go for spiral, and my other (rare) choice is cluster.  I've been playing Rock/None on average almost every game since I started playing back in October, but lately I have been picking other combos just to see what it is like.
   And yes, sometimes having the atmosphere/planet type no-one has is THE edge in the game, like Pukes Junkyard game, I believe everyone mostly chose rock, a few chose Ice but I think only one chose gas.  It is set on only colonize own planet/atmosphere, That 'gas guy' has a huge advantage, esp since EVERY planet has tech left behind to discover, and NO research is allowed.....but as usual, I digress....
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 18 August 2001 18:23
   Not quite Beedee..in newbie 2, I went Co2, rock; I figured no one picked it. Aside from the AI races, that is, since 3 of em used it.
   Anyway, it was a pain to find any Co2/Rock planets. Not very common at all. So choosing the type no one else uses can bite you in the butt, since if your type isn't common.. your expansion is quite limited.
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 30 August 2001 23:46
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   I have found that the play by web games tend to be very friendly.  This can be good because you have no huge fleets knocking at your door, but with the fact that if you declare war most other empires tend to side with the "defender", how do you get things jumping? In real life this is great, but for a game this makes for poor roleplaying.  what have some of the PBW players done to overcome this?  Peace can become rather dull!
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 August 2001 00:27
   heh.. heh heh.  Ha Ha Ha BuWahahahah Guffaw-Guffaw.  *sniffle*
   okay. I'm better.  seriously tho, I don't think that's entirely accurate.  I usually try to hit up the first few people I meet for peace or partnership.  If they look like they would make lousey partners, I leave them be, don't make a treaty, and plot their eventual demise.
   I try to make friends with people that I think won't screw me over half way thru the game, and stick with them while we railroad everyone else.  That usually works for PBW and PBEM.  Roleplaying is great, because who the heck determines who is the aggressor and who is the defender.  You might be innocently protecting your assets, and then someone paints it in a light that makes you look like an inhuman monster.  I know, I did that to Timorth.  And it's been done to me.

People usually take the side that serves them best.  If it looks like they are siding with the defender, you just need to get a better propoganda machine.  They are not the defender, they pushed you against the wall!  They were colonizing systems in your space, and preparing a war fleet against you! You only acted to save your skin!  Look at what they were about to do to you, and if they were able to get away with ruining your empire, just think what they would have done to the other races!  Setup treaties with a few other races, and show them how taking your side will benefit them in the long run, and you will be sure to get a few allies.

Of course, if you're just looking for reasons to stab people in the back, you might have a harder time.  Multiplayer games are over when people say they are, not always when victory conditions are met.  Even if a game does not have a peace after x years condition, I will stick with an ally and not turn on them.  If someone is going arround breaking treaties and stabbing people in the back, I'm going to plan on fighting him, because if I help out then he will do the same to me.

Also, when picking who to support if I am neutral in a war, I try and look at the long term.  Maybe the person I help will help me later against another enemy.  I will try to help out the race that has the best potential for coming out of the war stronger.

Maybe I have nothing to gain from either of them, so then I will help the weaker race hoping to prolong their war and wear them both down, so that if the weaker race does come out on top, they won't be on top by much and I can come in and take over more planets.  I would not betray them, just pick up some scraps, or take advantage of other sections of space while they are busy.  If the race I am helping loses, hopefully their enemy is then weakened enough that I can move in, wipe them out, and take it all for myself.

It's not that people like peace and dislike aggressors, it's that they are self serving, and you are probably not playing to their greed.

Honor is important too.  I might help someone in one game, hurt them in another.  But if you are a backstabber in every game, that will follow you around and no one will ally with you.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 August 2001 00:54
quote:  "You might be innocently protecting your assets, and then someone paints it in a light that makes you look like an inhuman monster. I know, I did that to Timorth. And it's been done to me."

   Puke, I just don't know who you might be talking about. (snicker, snicker)
   Seriously though. I think most PBW games eventually get around to being just as bloodthristy. It's just a matter of time. You don't shoot first and ask questions later against a human player (usually anyway, lol).
   You can be as aggressive as you want against the AI, and they simply can't take advantage of weaknesses the way a human player might. Against the AI, you can take chances, and leave places undefended, he's not going to counter attack effectively and turn the table on you like a human might.
   Give it time, and some more games. I think you will find multi-player very ruthless.
   But do me a favor, when you do meet a player that is mean enough for you, keep it in the game. There's nothing that can ruin a game faster than bringing hurt feelings in from a previous game.
   I agree with Puke, being a backstabber all the time can get you a bad rep, but it's fun every once in a while.
<<
>>
Rich04
Private First Class
posted 31 August 2001 01:06
   I don't know. Most games I have seen start out peaceful. But eventually all hell breaks loose.
Diplomacy is very important not only in the beginning but all through the game.
   In one game I was about to be eliminated from only Diplomacy saved my butt. I am still in that game while empires much larger than mine crumble all around me. I am in last place (as I have been in most of the game) but still surviving.
   I have been an honest ally and I believe it is appreciated by the other players.
   PBW is still fairly new. I know players that would make a Klingon proud in PBEM games go ultra-cautious in PBW. In time I think that will change.
   Has anyone tried the 'take out my 1st neighbor' strategy on PBW?  How did it go? I think it would work.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 August 2001 01:11
   quote:  "Has anyone tried the 'take out my 1st neighbor' strategy on PBW? How did it go? I think it would work."

   I did it in the first round of the Survivor I Tournament. Worked great! For me anyway.
   It's not as good as it is against the AI though becasue you normally can't get them to surrender. And it slows you down at a time you should be expanding your economy. Even if you win, you could be easy pickings for the next player that comes along.
   An equally valid strategy is to make real good friends with the first player you come across, and wipe everybody out.
   I've done both. They're both fun.
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 31 August 2001 02:17
   Great answers, I am in the early stages in a few PBW games (Different name) I am screwing over a neibor just because of the fact that I'm getting bored, not with the game, but because they seem to be having all of the fun.  I am playing with the same persom in another game.  But the way I intend to play this one is way different.  Would it not be better if you could hide yourself from game to game, considering that alians should have a completely different mindset.  For example should I be considered a beserker for all time because of one game?   I came across a game where you Geo, intevened due to your administrative rights, I must say that every one freaked because they thought you were an Expert.  Just a flavor thought.  Why would you not want a nutcase to liven up just because he fells like it? whith out staining his reputation.  Perhaps this may be a good game to be a berserker?  That is what makes this game so great the players that play, and the flexability of the game
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 August 2001 13:42
   Originally posted by Shoujo:
   "*sigh* I sincerely hope the game Puke & geo are talking about isn't the game I have in mind.  I'm going to have serious trouble preventing this information from affecting my actions in the game..."

   LOL. Shoujo, Don't worry about it. Keep in mind, I have not admited to Puke's scurrilous accusations. I was only taking a guess as to who he may be talking about.   He has his perspective about the events in our game, and I have mine.
   Without giving away too much about in-game info, I can give you two likely reasons Puke and I are hostile in the Grittech game.
   First, we were coming from another game in which our races are long time partners and close allies. Being friends with the same players all the time is boring.
   Secondly, The game is a "colonize own type" and we are both Gas Giant Races. That fact alone means we are in competition for scarce planets.
   Neither of these would necesarily affect our relations with other races in the game.
   When I talked about role playing differently in different games, you can go as far as role playing differently towards different players in the same game. It's a little harder to pull off, but it can be fun.
<<
>>
capnq
Captain
posted 31 August 2001 16:42
   I've finished one PBW game and am playing two more. All my games have had long periods of early peace, but only in the youngest of the two active games have I not gotten involved (yet) in the war that inevitably breaks out.
   I've found that the diplomacy involved in trying to stay neutral in other players' wars is as big a challenge as joining in the fighting.
<<
>>
Puke
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 31 August 2001 21:10
   Originally posted by geoschmo:
   "Keep in mind, I have not admited to Puke's scurrilous accusations. I was only taking a guess as to who he may be talking about.    He has his perspective about the events in our game, and I have mine."

   I don't know, sounded an awful lot like a guilty conscious to me.
   I'd say a solid 70% of the reason that Geo and I are after each other is because we share real estate.  I'd say the other 30% is just because we can.     
   This is a WAR game after all, and although I'm trying hard to make friends with my other neighbors, we're not playing the game if we're not harassing SOMEONE.  Besides, if Geo can't keep to his side of the treaty, you won't have to worry about picking sides by the time you get to us.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 30 August 2001 03:13
[Ed: Start of enw thread]
   One of the most frustrating things about playing Space Empires IV PBW, or any PBEM for that matter, is in the event you miss a turn, or if your turn file gets scrambled somehow, the ai will take your turn for you. As we all know the ai does a particularly awful job of handling things.
   We all have horror stories I am sure. I was in a game once where the AI, broke several trade and research treaties, declared war on my closest neighbor, took control of my fleets in that system and wiped out three of his planets, not to mention filling my construction queues with worthless junk, and obsoleting and replacing all of my carefully thought out ship designs.
   All his dirty work was done in one turn. But it took me 7 or 8 turns to undo the damage. Particularly because I was close to the limit on maintenance anyway, and loosing all that treaty income meant several ships being abandoned.
   There is a setting in empire options "AI should not make changes during simultaneous games." As we all know, that does little or nothing to help the problem. Jimbob and I have come up with a solution. It involves replacing the files that control what the ministers do during your turn. More on how it does it later.
   These files, will eliminate the problem as much as is possible. By using these files, the ai will NOT:
1. Obsolete your designs
2. Design new ships or units
3. Put ANYTHING in your construction queue
4. Become angry at other races, for ANY reason
5. Break existing treaties
6. Offer or accept new treaties
7. Declare war
8. Attack colonies of empires you are not at war with
   Using these files the AI still WILL:
1. Fill your research queue if empty (I figured this is about the only thing it does decently)
2. Reply to messages from other empires, but only to refuse any requests. (But I have modified the speech.txt file so that it is clear the refusals are coming from the AI and not the player)
3. Move your ships around somewhat
4. Attack colonies of Empires you are at war with.
5. Attack ships of Empires you are at war with.
6. Send colony ships that do not have previous orders.
   Another big thing these files WON'T do is affect the performance of randomly generated AI players that are setup at the beginning of the game as AI players. They don't use the the new ai files, so they aren't affected.
   Here's how it works. In the Space Empires IV directory is a folder called Ai, and in that are three folders, Aggressive, Neutral, Defensive, and several files that start with Default.
   When you set up an empire, you have an option called "Use Race Minister Style". This option has two choices, "Using selected Style" and "Use style from Race". If it is set to "Use Selected Style" (it is by default) then you have another option you can set, "Minister Style". "Minister Style" can be set to (drum roll please), Aggressive, Defensive, or Neutral. Which one you set it too determines which set of files are used.
   Now, here's where it gets interesting. If you add another folder under the Space Empires IV/Ai directory, whatever you call that folder now becomes a new option for "Minister Style". I have put the new files in a folder called "None". This way only empires setup with "Use Selected Style" and MinsterStyle set to "None" will use the new files. All exsisting empires, Ai races, and randomly generated AI's and Neutral Ai's will not be affected..
   It's importatnt to remember, so I will repeat it, by default when you add a new empire it is set to Using Selected Style BUT the Minster style is blank. This has to be changed to "None", or the AI will use the scripts in the appropriate pictures/races folder, or the default ai files, instead of the modified AI/None files.
   After the game is started you can't change your empire minister style, and only empires that SPECIFICALLY set the minister style to none will use the modified files. I could modify all the ai scripts and make it easier to setup, and it would work for exsisting games, but then all the ai will be useless, and many people like including AI in their PBW and PBEM games.
   The other downside I see to this is that if an empire is set to none, then it is very important that if that player leaves the game a human replacement is found. Turning them over to the ai will result in a useless do-nothing empire. This makes it more important that all players have correct passwords loaded in PBW for their empires. We have no way to "crack" your empire password, and if your PBW empire password doesn't match your .emp file password, a replacment player can't take over turns.
   Since there is no AI/None folder in the standard SE IV files set, or in any mod that I am aware of, there is no reason to set this up as a separate mod. I have included the None folder in all the available 1.41 mods on PBW, as well as the standard, non-mod version. This will allow players to take advantage of this for any game they choose. You really only need the folder on your PC for setting up the empire at the begining of the game. All the actual use of the files happens on the PBW server while the turns are being processed.
   That's it. I hope this helps people with a problem that has been a source of great frustration for me. If you have any questions, post them here.
   Go here to download the zip file.    http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000018.html
   Instructions:
Step 1: Unzip "none.zip" file.
Step 2: Move "None" folder into "Space Empires IV\Ai" directory.
Step 3: Add new or edit existing empire.
Step 4: Set "Use Race Minister Style" to "Using Selected Style" (Normally it is this by default)
Step 5: Set "Minister Style" to "None" (Normally it is blank by default.)
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 30 August 2001 19:31
   Might be more fun if the "AI" speech file read more like:
   "You have reached the <EMPIRENAME>.  <EmperorName> is busy handling other affairs, so if you leave your name, home system address, and large amounts of resources, we'll get back to you whenever we feel like it.  Oh yeah, and beware of strange warp points."
<<
>>
geoschmo
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 30 August 2001 19:50
   Hehehe. I thought about doing something like that. I didn't have time. If you want to put one together, I'll use it. Otherwise, I might get around to it eventually.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 02 October 2001 16:41
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
   I've been reading the forums and strategy guides, but there are a couple of issues I'm still not sure about.
   1. Racial traits:
Can't be traded to other races? Or are we just not doing it right?
   2. Mines:
I got mine-happy right after I researched the tech, and made nearly all my shipyards build a couple of turns worth of mines. I figured, "Hey, they're not doing anything in the cargo hold, let's launch them and I can have a mine layer come by and pick them up later." I just blew it, right? No way to recover a mine once it's launched into space?
   3. Building expensive stuff:
Just researched some planet making and warp closing techs, but 2.4 years to build a ship??!! And this is a minimum-loaded engines and technology science frigate. I know I can research ship yards II and III, (jeez, those are expensive), and can load my key planets full to increase the production rate, but any other tips for building expensive stuff? (No I can't have temporal shipyards.) How about a base with a shipyard facility at the same location? Would they share the load on a single building project?
<<
>>
Taqwus
Major
posted 02 October 2001 17:03
   1.  Racial traits.
Hrm.  I suppose you're talking about trading the technologies themselves.  If you don't have the prerequisite racial trait(s), if any, you won't be able to get the technology itself -- through trade, theft, or analysis.
   The best that you can do is build ships and trade those, but if it has tech you don't understand, you still won't be able to "edit" it by refitting.
   2.  Nope.  No mine recovery once launched.  You can try to detonate them, if you're up against the unit-in-space limit.
   3.  I've had ships take 5 years to build, with SY III and no penalties; Stellar Manipulation is expensive, after all.  No, you can't use multiple shipyards to speed up construction on one project.   You could emergency build the last 15 turns (=> 10 turns, but then 10 turns of 25% rate).
   Population, racial bonuses, culture bonuses, and shipyard type matter.  I don't remember whether happiness does, beyond not rioting; it's important enough already for the resource bonuses that I try to keep everybody at Jubilant.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 02 October 2001 17:34
   Thanks, guys. Pretty much what I thought. Major, you said that you can't trade the Racial Technology if you don't have the racial trait. I assume you also can't trade the Racial Trait ITSELF, like "Very Religious".
<<
>>
Taqwus
Major
posted 02 October 2001 17:57
   Er, right.  No trading racial traits themselves.  Even populations you assimilate from other empires will assume your racial traits; e.g. you cannot use population from a Crystalline race to build Crystalline ships or research Crystalline tech unless you're Crystalline yourself.  Note, tho', that facilities don't vanish; for instance, if you receive a colony containing buildings that you can't and won't ever be able to build, you still get full benefits from them.  Likewise, if you receive a colony that was packed over-full by somebody with Advanced Storage Techniques, the "extra" facilities don't vanish.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Advisor
posted 02 October 2001 18:17
   Originally posted by Rhinestone Cowboy:
   "1- If by Racial Traits you mean Racial Technology like Psychic Weapons, then as far as I know, no one else can use that technology. (You have to be Psychic in order to use a Psychic weapon, you have to be religious in order to use a religious artifact). Can't Give'em, Can't trade'em, can't steal'em."

   While it is true you can't give, trade or steal the racial technology itself, you can give trade and steal ships with racial tech components on them.
   If a psychic race builds a ship with allegiance converters, he can give it to me, or trade it to me, or I can maybe capture it with boarding parties or intel, or get it if he surrenders to me. I can then use it just as he would. But I can't build new ones, and I can't repair the racial components if they get damaged. And I can deconstruct and analyze it, but it won't do me any good, because I can't understand the technology behind it.
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 02 October 2001 18:20
   you CAN trade ships built with your racial technology.  this way, when a fleet becomes obsoleet, instead of refitting it or mothballing it, you could concievably trade it to another empire in exchange for something.
<<
>>
dogscoff
Major
posted 03 October 2001 08:20
   Originally posted by "MegaTrain":
   "3. Building expensive stuff:"

   This is generally considered an exploit, and in a vs human game it might well be considered cheating, but there's always the retrofit chain.
   Basically you build a cheap ship, and then retrofit it bit by bit until you get to your desired design. Each design has to cost less than 150% of the previous design (cost=org+min+rad) .Since retrofitted compnnts are always added to the ship in just one turn, no matter how long they should take to build, you can knock years off your construction time.
   Like I say, human opponents might not appreciate you doing this, so use it at your own risk.
<<
>>
MegaTrain
Private First Class
posted 03 October 2001 18:33
   Hmm... Let's figure this out.
Approx. cost of a current attack vessel: 6400
(buildable in 2 turns at a big shipyard)
Cost of my warp closer ship: 85000
   So I'd need to come up with intermediate designs of the same ship size that cost no more than:
(2 turns to build the original ship)
Turn   Cost
----  ------
1:    (building)
2:     6400
3:     9600 - added  3200
4:    14400 - added  4800
5:    21600 - added  7200
6:    32400 - added 10800
7:    48600 - added 16200
8:    72900 - added 24300
9:   109350 - added 36450
   DAMN!!! .9 years instead of 2.9 !!??!! Less if you start with an existing ship of the same size.
   I like it. mooohahahahaha... An exponential curve, you could make outrageously expensive ships in a fraction of the time.
   So can you upgrade a ship a second time before the just-upgraded components have been repaired? If not that would make it 1.6 years instead of .9. Still not too bad.
   Another question: Does it actually COST me that amount (the difference in the design cost) per turn to upgrade it? I assume it would, and that would start eating away at your resource stockpile pretty quickly.
   I like it. Is this a verified strategy? Does it work? Is it an "approved" strategy, or are they going to "fix" it?
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 03 October 2001 19:29
   it can't be 'fixed' without either lowering the retrofit percentage from 50 to something else, which would probably break retrofitting.  I think its fine in a simultanious game where each step takes a full turn, and you still have to pay the higher cost to get it done faster.  i hardly ever have the resources to retrofit with anyhow.  if you have leftover resources, then your fleet is too small.
   the real exploit is in a sequential game where you can do all those steps in one turn, but those are mostly single player and as such you are only cheating yourself.
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 13 October 2001 05:27
[Ed: Start of new thread on a "PBW Guide"]
   Having been a long time listener, almost first time caller.  Oh! wait a minute this is a message board!
   I am currently in about 3 Play-By-Web Games.
   I have found that most player will research PDC very early in the game, making missiles obsolete in the early stages.
   Mines are also useless, due to the fact that minesweepers will be online at about the same time.
   Looking at the current best AI races, it seems that engine destroing weapons are the best to research.  I think I am looking at what has worked for PBW, and almost as important what has not.  I have found that sticking a research plan, and finding allies is very important,  What have you found out?  What is your research tree?  What makes us newbies so much worse than the more seasoned players?
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Major
posted 13 October 2001 06:30
   Tip 1: do NOT send all your fleet to the retrofit yards at the same time. I did this, then the fleet was attacked. Ow..
   Mines can be useful, if only because they get any AI opponents off your back and force your human oppponents to build sweepers.
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 13 October 2001 11:10
   Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
   "Tip 1: do NOT send all your fleet to the retrofit yards at the same time. I did this, then the fleet was attacked. Ow.."

  There goes my plan of giving you a good "gift" right before I attack! LOL.  Sounds like a game I'm in right now, built a light cruiser(big ship at that time, no one else had that size), very weapon heavy.  In the upgrade, I did remember to include engines, the really sad part, did a copy of the design for minesweepers!  Duh.....
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 13 October 2001 06:57
   Hi Phoenix, still traumatised by that fleet-in-retrofit I wiped out with luck ? :-)
   Mines are very useful. I use them on wormholes and over planets. Minelayers can lay at twice the speed that a sweeper can clean... and it forces opponents to send enough sweepers with every fleet...causing them to spend resources and maintenance on sweepers while your mines are cheap and maintenance-free.
   In one PBW game I had one annoying opponent who put one minelaying component on a transport ship, loaded it up with mines, then started creating little 2-mine minefields *everywhere*. Makes you really paranoid, even after defeating his military I couldn't safely send any colonisers or such into his former systems without sweeper escort...
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 16 October 2001 04:32
   Originally posted by Dragonlord:
   "In one PBW game I had one annoying opponent who put one minelaying component on a transport ship, loaded it up with mines, then started creating little 2-mine minefields *everywhere*. Makes you really paranoid, even after defeating his military I couldn't safely send any colonisers or such into his former systems without sweeper escort..."

   trying that trick now, teach him to send 3 fleets each larger than my whole Navy!!  Fleets destruct, I go from last place to first in one glorious turn!!  BTW who is considered the best player at this point, both SEIII and IV, knowing my luck the one I declared war against last turn! LOL
<<
>>
[K126]Mephisto
First Lieutenant
posted 13 October 2001 10:32
   Always remember the Tholian first principle of war as a dipolmatic suggest to all other races: "Let's you and him fight."
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Major
posted 14 October 2001 03:09
   PBW rocks!, I love playing this game!
   The things I have noticed for pbw:
1. Never underestimate mines!!! (or DUC's!)
2. Go for Armor 4 (stealth armor) FAST!
3. Go for Military Science FAST, especially the ship fleet/ship training facilities, MAX out the levels too.  Ship/fleet experience is everything, esp since battle order occurrs in order of player number.(I am currently 8th of 8 players in a game, gonna be a tough one to climb to the top of the Heap! )
4.  Engine Destroying weapons rule!
5.  Beware, EVERYONE has PPB early!, stock up on armor!
6.  Most players lower their racial strength to 50%, same for repair and trade, and perhaps organics if not an organic race.  So be unique/different, take 120 str and conquer those planets with troops fast!!
7. Don't forget sensors to see those stealth ships, best placed on 1 satellite per system around a heavily defended planet.
8.  Hidden repair/Base Yards in Nebula can be a real advantage, as can mining satellites in asteroids for minerals.
9.  Emotionless, REALLY consider taking it.  When at war you can be toast real quick when 5-8 planets in a system start rioting after 1 or 2 planets are glassed.
10.  Psychic/Religious, Talisman/Subverter, need I say more?? (for long range, Mental Singularity/Talisman, rocks!)
11. EVERYONE has PDC to the max, fighters and missiles are pretty much obsolete but they can make a good surprise when a complete weapon change is made, use all beam fleets and then suddenly switch to missiles, catch the enemy with pants down!
12. Never retro-fit everything at once....
13. Beware Askan, he will KICK your butt!!!
14. sEEE thirtEEEn!  (seriously, there are some incredible players out there, as well as some really good roleplayers!  Also are the rare ones that do both quite well, they make the game enjoyable even if you are losing!).
   Well, enough babbling for now....time to check pbw and see if their are any new turns for the 6 games I am in!
<<
>>
ZeroAdunn
Corporal
posted 15 October 2001 05:46
   Your forgetting some very important ones:
1. Fighters are worhtless for attacking.
2.  Don't confuse your games!!!
3.  Trust no-one, everyone and anyone will stab you in the back for no reason other than to do it!  Partnerships mean nothing!
<<
>>
Puke
General
posted 15 October 2001 06:22
[Ed: reply ot previous]
   i dont know about Zero's number 3.  I tend to disagree with that.
   here's one that I like:
use things that other people think are obsolete and/or useless.  they will probably not be prepaired to defend against you effectively.
   heres another:
find a way around building things that other people think are necessary, thus you can devote research to avenues that others do not have time to explore since they are stuck to researching what they think they always need, thus you can catch them with their pants down.
   one more:
never give up, never surrender.  it may seem easier to do so, but makes the experience much more rewarding if you dont.  and you never know, things might turn arround.
   finally:
abuse alliances.  dont abuse your allies, but abuse the alliance.  trade tech. trade ships.  trade colonization rights.  trade population.  trade everything.  get in bed with a partner, and dont let racial differences get in the way.  then unite the galaxy under your combined rule, drive your enemies before you, and exercise your imperial might.
   one more, just because:
roleplay.  if your race is a mass of vomit, act like it.  tell people not to step in the puddle of your space lest their feet be coated in the sticky ick of your vengance.  tell other people that you wish that your two peoples could ooze toghther in prosperity.  even if you are playing a purely tactical game, give your diplomatic message some color.  give reasons for stuff too: hippies are protesting the former administrations actions in your space, we wish to end hostilities with your empire.  Or lie:  this is not a war, it is a police action.  Or bend the truth:  Empire X's actions in violation of the Kronos Rift peace accords has forced our hand. we ask that you cease diplomatic and trade relations with the treacherous Empire X immediatly, and remain clear of the conflict zone if you do not wish to lend forces to the unified effort against this hatefull bully.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Advisor
posted 15 October 2001 12:18
   The key to sucess at PBW is experience. And I don't mean ship experience, although that is important too. I mean your experience at playing other humans.
   Play LOTS of games. Join as many games as you think you can handle, and then find one more and join that too.
   The more you play against other humans, (even other newbies) and see what they do, the better you will get. Playing solo games against the AI is almost worthless when it comes to gaining experience for playing other humans in PBW.
   The best AI isn't going to be as challanging as the worst PBW player.
   Join games that are already in progress and in need of replacments. This way you can pick up in a game and skip all the boring empire building stuff and get right to the combat. Sure you might get pasted quick, but you can always blame it on the former owner, even if it was your fault.
   Be flexible. There is no formula for winning on PBW. The tips given in this thread are things people did in the past to win games that worked well. They might not win in the future, especially if your opponent knows them too.
   Protect your homeworld.
   Know where your enemies are.
   Know what your allies are doing.
<<
>>
docshane
Private First Class
posted 16 October 2001 02:25
   I agree with Geo.  Once I started playing humans, I went back to playing the computer.  I couldn't do it.  Gave up about 50 turns into the game because the AI was so pathetic.  The only real challenge against the AI is to get the real good modded AI's and give them astronomical advantages.  Then you have a tough game.  Mega evil empire also ruins any chance for a large peaceful empire.
   We all try to prepare FOR or AGAINST an attack.  But what will you do AFTER the attack?  ....read on!
   I got a good trick.  Got a storm about 3 clicks from a key warp point?  Park a minelayer in the storm.  After the enemy comes into your system and raises a little havoc, he will inevitably return home to refuel or return to the warp point to await reinforcements.  Send your mine layer out and mine the warp point AFTER he comes through.  If you have enough movement, you can hide back in the storm without him knowing.  It is a treat to see their reaction, returning to that "safe" spot in the system to recoup.  Boom!  Hehe, ask Gimboid about it.
   This is why playing humans is so fun.  May the Phage remain pure!
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Second Lieutenant
posted 16 October 2001 03:30
   Doc,
   I'm not sure that trick would work too often. A good player would assume the wormhole itself is mined before he comes through, and would include sweepers in his fleet that can sweep more than your minelayer could place in a turn or two...
   I for one never send off big fleets without the ability to sweep 100 mines.
<<
>>
Gimboid
Corporal
posted 16 October 2001 04:41
   Originally posted by docshane:
"It is a treat to see their reaction, returning to that "safe" spot in the system to recoup.  Boom!  Hehe, ask Gimboid about it.
   This is why playing humans is so fun.  May the Phage remain pure!|"

   Touche Doc.
   i think we are both weary of approching each others planets and systems without minesweepers now...
   In regards to strategies id like to add to some of the ones already presented:-
   Know what your allies are doing. Also know who your allies allies are, and what they are doing together.
   Nothing hurts more then seeing a valued ally turn on you because you didnt notice they were allied with your mortal enemy from day one of your partnership with them.
<<
>>
Rollo
Second Lieutenant
posted 17 October 2001 15:32
...
   My pieces of (limited) wisdom for PBW:
1. Advanced Storage trait. Consider taking it. All your (home)worlds will have 20% more facilities. Very valuable for a good start. Besides that you can ship population from your homeworlds without losing the production bonus, because there will be 4800 instead of 4000M people.
2. If you find a player with the same planet type/atmosphere nearby, attack and glass his homeworlds ASAP, you can't find any better planets than this  . (Might not make you very popular, though).
3. Combat bonuses. The extra 20% you can get from racial modifications can really turn a battle around at all stages of the game. I consider good combat bonuses from race/sensors/ECM/training much more important than weapon choice. What good is a PPB that doesn't hit compared to a DUC in the hands of an expert? (see also the "Are battles always one sided" topic)
4. Trade tech, especially colonization tech.
5. most importantly: Have fun! And if you lose, remember: it is only a game.
<<
>>
Commander G2
Private First Class
posted 17 October 2001 18:36
   Here are my tidbits of wisdom:
1. In addition to using racial combat modifiers to make you hard to hit, consider using Destroyers against battleships.
2. Scattering Armor and Stealth Armor are stackable modifiers for defense and can be added to ECM IIIs.
3. Cloaked Ships can move through enemy ships if undetected.
4. Organic Seekers Ships are cheap to build.  You probably cannot afford to put enough point defenses on your ships to fight them one on one. Psychic and Crystalline are nice to have to fight Organics.
5. Organic race can build ships faster because their armor and weapons use purely Organic resources. They can build most ships in 2 turns because they use so little metal.
6.  Rename your planets to indicate where Fleet and Ship Training facilities are for easy identification.  Consider using a code as renames are visible to opponents.
7.  Consider using 'Nearest' in your combat orders to avoid shooting at long range with non seeker weapons.
8.  Build cheap mines (one warhead) to build more at a time.
9. Use fighters and missles in combination to overwelm point defenses.
10. Consider targeting seekers before fighters as missles always hit and generally do more damage.
11.  Target ships before fighters to let point defenses deal with them leaving your weapons free to fire at ships.
12.  Target 'has weapons' as a priority.  Why waste shots on a crippled ship, especially if using PPBs or Null space?
13.  Missleships can function as cannon folder as they do not need ship training for offensive purposes. Send them straight to the front lines.
14.  Consider shipyard ships before repair ships as shipyard ships are useful when there is nothing to repair.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Advisor
posted 17 October 2001 20:26
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Too much good info in this thread. It's going to get harder in those PBW games.
   quote:  "6. Rename your planets to indicate where Fleet and Ship Training facilities are for easy identification. Consider using a code as renames are visible to opponents."

   On the subject of too much information. Renaming your planets might not be such a good idea. It may help you keep organized better, but it also gives your opponent a lot more info than you want them having.
   And it doesn't even have to be a race you've already met, if they are an ancient race, they can see your planet names when you change them from across the quadrant. Even if you use some code for the names that won't tell them what's on them, it could give them an idea of how fast you are expanding and in what directions. All stuff that is better to keep to yourself.
<<
>>
Deathstalker
Major
posted 17 October 2001 19:21
   Some more tidbits of knowledge:
1. LEARN to BLUFF!  Don't be too revealing in your ship/base names.  Sure, naming the bases what they actually are ( 'Repair Base 1'etc, with planet location) may help you remember what they are, but for people encountering them the 'first time' they can gauge the 'threat level'.  Use 'defense base' for the class or 'attack base', may make people think twice about attacking a planet.  Or do it the other way around, have a dreadnought fully loaded with weapons called 'supply ship one' or 'mine sweeper deluxe'.  The less info the enemy has the better.
2. Keep your eye on the alliance screen, watch for patterns.  And watch out for first contact.  If a new race shows up and immediately goes for your planet with training facilities suspect your 'allies'.  Someone could be funding them on the side instead of direct attack.  BE PARANOID!
3. Spy Ships RULE!  Don't know if I mentioned this before, but destroyer or frigate class ships, maxed out on engines with level 1 stealth armor and a few solar panels can really make a difference.  Station one in the sun (or storm/asteroid) of a nearby system and watch the enemy (or ally below partnership) moves.
4. Midway into the game GET stellar tech fast, get to warp opener and closer and then build the ship fast (closer first IMO, then you could always retro-fit to please).  Later of course get Star Destroying tech.
5. Again, Racial Traits will either let you win or kill you.  If on a 3 planet start then definitly take the extra planet storage one, the research points alone are worth it.  For a rock or Ice race with 'none' atmosphere with the adv. storage that means those small moons can have 6 buildings!!  Large and Huge can have 30!!
6. Research points, spend them wisely, especially in a med/high cost tech game.  You have DUC IV, do you really need V??, put the points somewhere else as it is a marginal damage increase but no range increase.
7. Cheap units!, ie 'Riot Police' for planets (1 cockpit, 1 armor, nothing else), keep em happy!  , and like suggested before, small mine with 1 warhead, numbers count here and you can build them faster this way!
   EDIT:  OOPS, forgot the most important.  Fleet formation, go to your empire options, check the boxes under fleet formation for ships to break formation.  They will now follow their individual orders (max,point blank, capture etc) instead of trying to keep in fleet formation and getting hammered!
<<


ANNOYANCES AND THE UNEXPECTED:

At first I didn't see a need for this topic.  However a recent thread made me realize that it is just as usefull to know what doesn't work or at least works differently than expectations.  While the initial thread was entitled "One thing I really dislike about SEIV", it's really about things people would like to see function differently which don't necessarily fit into other categories so easily.  There are many ideas as to preferences, so don't hold your breath waiting for things to change to suit you.  Instead, make note of the things listed which work differently than you anticipated.

>>
Atrocities
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 June 2001 06:02
   Everyone has at least one thing that just bugs them about the game. Some its an AI issue, others graphics; etc, but for me it's the GRID.
   Today, while promoting the game at work, I came to realize that the one thing that has illusively bugged me about SEIV is that damned GRID map.  I simply hate it.
   I truly wish that Aaron would replace the GRID map with a map of space with different color stars representing systems much the same way the white boxes do now.
   Jump Point lines could stay, but would be masked in a "fog of war" until used much the way they are now.
   The other thing that truly bugs me about the game is the general lack of planets with alien populations on them.  As it stands now, all planets are unihabitted, except for Random Neutrals, and those are limited to six.
    What I would love to see here is up to60 random RACES, each at different levels of technology randomly placed throught a large galaxy.
   Give them some special tech, like:
War College - Gives an increase in training
Peace Shrine - Increases happyness
etc. that could become part of your empire as you open trade or establish alliances, or simply conqure them.
   (I have a rather large list but I'll save it for now.)
   These two things are really the only things about Space Empires that I do not like.
   My intent with this post was not to open the flood gates of "I hate this" but rather to point out specific items that could use some serious improvement, and perhaps, if Aaron choose to make another game,incorperate it into Space Empires V.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 13 June 2001 06:54
   The feature that I HATE most, at least in the demo, is the group movement in combat. I curse it at least 10 times a day! It has a nasty tendency for messing up your battle plan big time when you forget to clear group assignments AND move the group leader. I admit that this function is pretty useful when there are a lot of ships to move, all I'm asking for is, there should be a dialog box that askes me if I want to move the whole fleet when I move the group leader. In the heat of battle it is too easy to forget simple things like this.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 June 2001 12:04
   I hate scrolling down the same list over and over and over.
<<
>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 13 June 2001 17:42
   Originally posted by Atrocities"
   "Everyone has at least one thing that just bugs them about the game. Some its an AI issue, others graphics; etc, but for me it's the GRID."

   I'm not quite sure I understand what your complaint is; you do know that you can turn off the grid display in Empire Options? Or are you talking about something else entirely?
<<
>>
Atrocities
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 13 June 2001 23:44
   I am talking about something else entirely.
<<
>>
Steven-n-Donna
Private First Class
posted 14 June 2001 01:05
   I hate after a while of playing in the combat screen, the mouse will F-up and be offset about one game square to the left.  This then carries back over to the game interface.
   Only way to fix it is to reboot it.
   Don't know if it's a game bug, or a personal problem.
   I'd rather see a real galaxy too honestly.
   Also, allow ships to be larger then 1 square.  I hate trying to make escorts look like fleas.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 14 June 2001 12:59
   I like the funny comments in this post.  However, I don't like the Selection Boxes (in the game, not the posts) and how they deal with clicking in the scroll bar.  For instance, in the log window - how if you have a long log, you can't just click in the open space of the scroll bar.  It should (like 99% of other Win apps) just do a 'Page Down' kinda' thing.
   Also, as said many times before:
I WANT MY RIGHT CLICK BACK!!!! (Please, please, please, etc.)
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 14 June 2001 13:24
   The one thing I don't like is not being able to remove planets from my list that are not in my claimed systems when I want to search for new colonies. I would like to tell it to exclude all planets outside my  borders.
   (yes I have suggested this to MM)
<<
>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 14 June 2001 13:53
[Ed: reply to previous]
   I usually use the Systems to Avoid markers to get around that, but I agree that more display options would be nice.
<<
>>
Baron Munchausen
Colonel
posted 15 June 2001 04:23
   I really HATE having to click every weapon "off" individually on a ship/base/sat group with many weapons when I want to micro-manage fire control in tactical mode. Why can't there be a global 'toggle' switch beneath the combat weapons control box? Then you could turn them all off with ONE click and then turn on only the ones you want to fire. SE3 had global targetting toggles.
   For that matter, why can't we have SEPERATE switches for auto-movement and auto-fire control? Maybe I'm happy with the AI fire control but want to control the fleet's movement because of the brain-dead way that formations are handled? Nope, it's all or nothing, meaning you have to put up with much more tedious micro-management than really necessary. This is another very nice feature of SE3 that was lost in SE4.
<<
>>
DirectorTsaarx
Major
posted 15 June 2001 20:12
   Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
   "...why can't we have SEPERATE switches for auto-movement and auto-fire control? Maybe I'm happy with the AI fire control but want to control the fleet's movement because of the brain-dead way that formations are handled? Nope, it's all or nothing, meaning you have to put up with much more tedious micro-management than really necessary. This is another very nice feature of SE3 that was lost in SE4."

   My favorite trick in SE3 was to turn on automatic targetting (especially for battles with lots of fighters), and then "tweak" the targetting before resolving weapons fire.  That way, I could let the computer decide on the fighter's targets, and I would manage the ship targetting.
<<
>>
jc173
Second Lieutenant
posted 16 June 2001 09:48
   I hate how sometimes even if you click on the build one turn's worth for WP's it will only build one even if you have the production capacity to build two or three.  Along those lines I wish there was a selection for choosing that you want 1, 2, 3, or 4, of a unit.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 16 June 2001 11:47
[Ed: reply to previous]
   It would be so much better if you could just give the order to build a number of units, say 20, and the ones that get finished each turn actually does get finished each turn. ie, if you have the capacity to build 3 units/turn and you order 20, each turn 3 will be built and a 4th will be started on. Same goes for upgrading facilities. Upgrading 30 facilities takes forever. I would really like it if that worked as I described with units above. That way you could actually abort half way through in case of emergency without losing 6+ turns of work.
<<
>>
Jubala
Captain
posted 16 June 2001 15:52
   Come to think about, the thing I really really dislike is the fact that as soon as you have no presence in a system all information about that system is lost. Suddenly you don't know what you knew last turn. It's like leaving a room and instantly forgetting there's a TV and a bar in there. I think that all info about colonies, bases and sats should still be there for review even though you have no presence with red text in the upper left or right corner stating how old the information is. If you have a presence in the system the age info text should be green and say current. I hate having to write this stuff down on paper and I shouldn't have to.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Sergeant
posted 16 June 2001 18:17
   I dislike how Counter Intel (mal)functions in the game and I finally would really like to get some declaration from Aaron about that.
   Also I hate to remove every ship seperately from a fleet to trigger emergency supplies and E-movement, if I mistakenly remove every ship then the fleet experience is lost. Also if I select a ship and press the scrap/mothball button, I have to reselect the ship again... hundreds of mouseclicks...
   I dislike to have to keep track of the system wide facilities, I would like to see an overview with these facilities somewhere in the build queue.
   But I must say also: I really like most of the rest of the game (e.g. research depth, infinite possibilities to mod things,...)
<<
>>
Omega
Private First Class
posted 17 June 2001 17:16
[Ed: post from a separate thread]
...
   You can set Automatic Moveto by doing the following:
1. Select Empire Status from the toolbar (the crown).
2. Click on the Waypoints button.
3. Select the waypoint in the upper left panel.
4. Click on the Set button.
5. Select any sector in any system to be the waypoint.
6. Select the shipyard construction queue that you want to set Automatic Moveto on.
7. Click on the Set Move To button.
8. Select the waypoint from the list.
   Any ships constructed at that shipyard should be given a Move To order to the sector and system specified by the waypoint.
<<
>>
Dragonlord
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 08:08
...
   Originally posted by Taqwus:
   ...
   - When a build queue is exhausted, indicate this in the build completion so I don't have to check manually every turn for idle queues.
   My solution to this: I have the build window (f7 key) sorted first on number of facilities built, then on whether or not its constructing something something. That way, I spend 5 minutes max (in large map) hitting F7 and seeing where I should issue build orders. All the colonies that are already building are at the bottom of the list and the ones that are not building and have facility slots left are at the top. However, as my empire grows, even this method becomes cumbersome, and I'd like to be able to filter out colonies that are not building (cause they are full) that currently still show up in the list cause they have a shipyard.
<<
>>
Zanthor
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 05:33
   I noticed that I can save an empire that has experience any time during a game.  What is the point of this?  I tried to start a new game with this empire but it said it has too many Racial points.  I have everything up to the top including the racial points set at 5000.  There is no setting higher.  How can I load this empire into a new game?  Is that possible?  Better Question... Is that Legal?  To which Lord Sidious would reply??  I will make it legal.
   Any insight on this topic would be appreciated.
<<
>>
LCC
Second Lieutenant
posted 27 June 2001 07:42
   In new game player settings - select racial points for new player to 5000. Then you can add an empire with 5000 points used. You have to edit the empire and adjust the point balance to zero to play with 2000 or 3000.
   I have 239826 racial experience accumulated and am rated "old". I find that the AI is more willing to make treaties and less prone to break them now that I have lots of experience. They know that I will whip their behinds if they start trouble. You get racial experience for building ships and bases. You get 100 experience for every colony you plant. I have not checked what else gives experience, there may be some minor contributions from other things. The fastest way to get experience is to play a big map, make all the AI but one neutral surrender, then colonize all the planets on the map and save your empire. Repeat on another map etc.....
   I already posted my empire on another thread. If somebody else has a higher experience then they could post their empire files on this thread for newbies to download. On second thought I will just post mine here too. It may make it easier for you to use mine. Just edit the empires to be whatever you want for your race, and use my experience level.  [clayemps.zip; also located in the "Races" archive forum]
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 27 June 2001 12:53
   Another benefit is that you save your ship designs. I use this so I don't have to redesign my colony ship, scout and transport every game (I always build these three types early).
   Experience and racial points are two different things. Experience is earned by playing with and saving an empire. There is supposed to be some small benefit. Racial points are used to set up your race. They can be edited at the start of any game. How many racial points are allowed in a game is set up in the player settings screen.
<<
>>
PurpleRhino
Private First Class
posted 27 June 2001 21:21
   It also keeps all the options that you set with that empire... including strategies, ship & colony types, selected tabs on windows, and bunches of other things... including what everybody else said.
<<
>>
Jubala
Major
posted 28 June 2001 17:54
[Ed: start of a new thread]
   I've been wondering if Neural Combat Nets is worth 30kT of space on my ships so I decided to test them. Ships with the NCN get the same experience as any other of your ships in combat even if it doesn't have the NCN itself. However, the ship with the NCN only gets an offensive bonus, not a defensive one. And it doesn't get bonus from fleet experience unless it's in a fleet with experience. Example:
   Ship A no NCN 20% ship exp & 20 fleet exp.
   Ship B NCN no ship exp no fleet exp

   Ship A gets a total offensive and defensive bonus of 40% while Ship B gets on offensive bonus of 20% but no defensive bonus.
   I wonder if the no defensive bonus is intented or if it's a bug/oversight.
   Since ships with the NCN only gets offensive experience boosts I'm not sure If I want to "waste" 30kT of space on my ships by adding one. I suppose it could be useful for ships fresh off the yards to add them to a fleet with ships that's been trained up to max and send them off to face the enemy without delay.
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 17 July 2001 13:47
   I don't know if it has been mentioned before, all I know is how annoying this bug can be. In 1.41 if you try to queue up commands for a colony ship that includes the load cargo command (ie. load population), then send it to colonise a planet that is not inside the system where you load the population, then the ship will try to execute the load command twice (just check the View Order screen). Of cause the ship can't execute the second load command since it is filled after the first, and it will clear all the to-be-executed commands after that. Very anonying! Stuffs up my colonisation plans every time and I have to go and sort out everything again. Please look into it and I hope it will be fixed soon.
<<
>>
dogscoff
First Lieutenant
posted 17 July 2001 14:11
   This could be more of a feature than a bug.
   The colonise command is designed to load population before sending the ship off to it's destination. This is handy if you've just built the colony ship on a heavily populated planet but less useful if it has the capacity to empty your frontier shipyard world of people.
   My way around this problem (which should also solve yours) is to make sure the ship does not receive the colonise command while it is above one of your worlds: Just load population manually, give orders to move the ship one square towards the destination (so that it is an uninhabited sector), and then use the colonise command.
<<
>>
rdouglass
First Lieutenant
posted 17 July 2001 14:56
   One step fewer:  If you manually load even 1M pop on a colonizer, you then can just hit the Colonize button.  It will not load any additional pop.  You can skip the 'move 1 space' step.
   As far as I can tell, if there is ANY pop on the colonizer, it will not load anymore with the colonize command.
   EDIT:  Re-read post and this is how my version works reguardless of the end destination of the colonizer.  Is there something in the path of the colonizer when you issue the command (ie. minefield, ships in a WP, etc.)???
<<
>>
Krakenup
Corporal
posted 17 July 2001 15:15
[Ed: reply to original post in this thread]
   It's always been that way. Just "Move To" the planet where you wish to pick up population and "Colonize" from there, or "Load" at the pick up planet, "Move To" the desired colony and then "Colonize".
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 17 July 2001 15:44
   Thanks for the replies, but my problem is still there.
   SCENARIO: I've got a whole bunch of captured-and-converted colonisers at a naval base. There are 4 different races in my empire and they all breath different atmospheres. Now I have got a bunch of target planets of different ground types (gas/rock/ice) and different atmospheres. Naturally I want to send the right people to the right planets so they don't have to put a dome over their new homes. If I have to manually keep track of the ships, load the population at different planets and send the colonisers on their way to different places in different turns it is going to be a pain in the @$$.
   YOUR POSITION: I'm the Emperor and I've just ordered the execution of the previous Minister of Colonies for his stupid way of dealing with this problem, wasting public money in the process. You mister, is hereby appointed as the new Minister of Colonies, whether you like it or not. Remembering how your predecessor met his end, how will you deal with your new problem? Will you ask the guy who made the game to make changes to it? (ie. so that the load command doesn't appear twice when you try to queue the LOAD and COLONISE orders together as I described?)
<<
>>
capnq
First Lieutenant
posted 17 July 2001 19:13
   I've also run into this problem where I have the colony ship in a fleet with escorting ships. If I give the fleet an order that requires loading population, I get warning boxes for every ship that can't hold any more cargo, and any further orders are cancelled.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 17 July 2001 21:12
   Ok, I had to read this a couple times before I figured out what you are saying CW.
   Colony ship is built at planet A. You want to send it to colonize planet B, but not with population from planet A. You want it to stop along the way at planet C and pick up the poplation because planet C has the population that breathes planet B's aptmosphere. What you are saying is you are clicking in this order,
1. Remote load, (Planet C)
2. Colonize, (Planet B)
   The result of theese two orders would be:
Move to planet C
Load Population
Load Population
Move to planet B
Colonize
   And you are saying the two Load Pop orders are causing a problem? Have I got this right so far?
   If so, try instead one of the following order sequences:
Either,
1. Move to Planet C (not remote load)
2. Colonize (Planet B)
or
1. Remote load (Planet C)
2. Move to Planet B (not colonize)
3. Colonize (Planet B)
   Do I get the job? Do you pay for relocation expenses? Does your empire have a good 401K?
<<
>>
CW
Private First Class
posted 18 July 2001 03:32
   Good job geoschmo!

   Originally posted by geoschmo:
   "Do I get the job? Do you pay for relocation expenses? Does your empire have a good 401K?"

   Nope, but you can keep your life!
   Guards! Take everybody else out and shoot them!
<<
>>
toy4x4
Private First Class
posted 24 July 2001 22:08
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   Need a little help. To make a long story short, I have one ship left and am on my way to meet my partners. Will there be anyway to re-establish communications without a planet?
   And no, it's not a colony ship
<<
>>
Puke
Major
posted 24 July 2001 22:16
   No, but that sure sounds interesting. as long as they keep your ship alive, you might get to share in any victory conditions. any chance of hearing the long story?
   I dont know how they could gift anything to you (such as a colony ship) without you having a planet to establish communications with.  any chance you have boarding parties or allegiance subverters on that ship?
   Case in point, i had a ship teleported across the map and it met an alien race.  it could not make contact though, because we did not have a path established between our planets.  fortueneatly, i had allegance subverters on that ship, and it took over a colony ship, built a colony and i established a presense in that area of space. alliances were made, wars faught, fleets constructed, and eventually i was able to connect that area with the rest of my empire.
<<
>>
geoschmo
Captain
posted 24 July 2001 22:31
   Also, if your one ship has a space yard on it, you could build a transport and some troops and conquer a colony somewhere. I can't think of any other way to reestablish contact other than what Puke said.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
First Lieutenant
posted 24 July 2001 23:07
   Do you have a repair bay, and is the ship Cruiser or above?
   That's all you need..
refit to space yard
build colony ship
contact restablished
   But do it QUICK, because you don't have any production, right? That means that your reserves are going to start dropping, and once they hit zero you'll probably loose the ship to maintance issues.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 24 July 2001 23:09
   If you had a space yard, you could build a colony ship... the planet dosen't have to have people to make contact.
   BTW, what is the maintenance on your ship relative to the resources you are bringing in?
(Don't say you're not making resources cause you don't have planets- you get a minimum of 100 of each in standard SE4)
   If you don't have capture components, or construction components, and you don't have any colony module, I believe that you are done for.  You may be able to survive, but eventually you'll be hit by a random event and killed.
   I suggest taking over an AI player, such as the next rebelling planet of one of your friends.
<<
>>
CW
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 11:05
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   How many warp points can you open in the same sector?
   Answer anyone?
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 12 September 2001 11:38
   10. same as you can open in the same system. and you can open them from the same ship, too.
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 12:54
   What would happen if say you had 20 systems and you created 10 warp points in each system only going to the 20 systems  and you did this until their were 10 warp points in each system.
   Could you lock your self in  Or could some one still create a jump point into your systems?????????
<<
>>
dogscoff
Major
posted 12 September 2001 13:08
   Nope, you could effectively lock yourslf in. Obviously this could caus game balance issues, since a player could simply isolate himself in times of trouble.
   For this reason I think changes need to be made:
-allow infinite warp points per system.
-introduce warp point blocker facilities
-introduce successive levels of warp point creator which can be blocked by successive levels of blocker, much like cloaking now. (ie my enemy has a level 3 blocker in his system, so I have to research wp creator 4)
   I also like the "initial instability" idea suggested in the current FTL thread. Perhaps a time limit could be imposed on the closure of warp points (ie can't close it immediately after opening it), so opening a wp into enemy territory leaves your systems exposd as well.
   All hard code of course...
<<
>>
tesco samoa
Second Lieutenant
posted 12 September 2001 13:17
   You sure about that. You could lock your self in.
   No One way warp points??
<<
>>
dogscoff
Major
posted 12 September 2001 13:43
   You can create as many as you like in the map editor, but in- game the limit is 10 per system. As far as I know you can't create one- way warp points in- game so that is an entirely academic question.
   I don't think a player should be able to lock themselves in (or at least not without *severe* risks/ penalties.), but likewise I don't like the idea of being able to strike anywhere in an opponnt's empire without any warning at all.
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 12 September 2001 21:19
   Tested and verified, it is absolutely possible to lock yourself in.  All you need are 11 systems, and the wp openers to do it.  You could then build up those worlds to the max with all kinds of crazy sphereworlds and construction bases.  Then you could desingnate a bastion sector where you could build all kinds of crazy defense bases, and open one warp point out from there, taking one system at a time and adding it into the mesh.
   But, this would take far more time than is practical, and if anyone isolates them selves in a multiplayer game, I would probably call the game over, as the other player could take the opportunity to do the same thing.
<<
>>
Spoo
Sergeant
posted 13 September 2001 03:59
   quote:  "all you need are 11 systems..."

   Can't you open warpoints to the originating system?  In which case you'd only need one system w/ all warpoints leading to the same system.
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 13 September 2001 04:30
   You can't open two warp points to the same system.  And you can't open a warp point to yourself.  You might be able to do things like that with the map editor, but not in the game.
<<
>>
Spoo
Sergeant
posted 14 September 2001 05:14
   I looked into it.  We're both right.  You can open one warp point to the same system, but no more.  You will get a "cannot open warp point to system X because a warp point to that system already exists" error.  So you will need more than one system (10 min).
<<
>>
Puke
Colonel
posted 14 September 2001 05:52
   Wow, I thought I had tried that.  Where does it appear, if you open it to the same system?  When you open it to another system, it appears realitive to the position of the system you opened it from.  I would guess that it would go to sector 6,6 but computer placed WPs always end up on the outer edge.
<<
>>
Phoenix-D
Captain
posted 14 September 2001 06:21
   When I tried it, it ended up at 6,0, then 6, 0, then 6,0. This was with normal WP settings.
   With WP Anywhere on, it ended up at: 6,3 6,1 and 6,2.
<<
[Ed: The following are announced changes affecting this topic effective as of patch v1.49:
   Added   - The System Gravitational Shield now prevents warp point opening
within the system. This prevents warp point opening into or
out of the system by all players (including you!).
   Added   - The System Gravitational Shield now prevents warp points closing
within the system. This prevents warp points closing into or
out of the system by all players (including you!).
   Fixed   - You cannot open a warp point into the same system that it
originates from.
]


MODS AND MOD PACKS:

One of the major attractions of SE4 is the ability to customize the game to suit yourself.  While "MM" produces the patches to the code, "Mods" are player developed alterations to the game's data files which drive the game engine and are made available through the generosity of their developers.  Some develop new "components", ship designs and artwork, and even entire new races, while others work to improve the game's AI.  There is a difference between a "mod" and a "ship set" and a "race set", which primarily consists of the files involved.

"Mods" should be regarded as after affecting all empires in the game.  They affect the game engine and the files involved are typically located under the "Data" sub directory/folder tree.

"Ship sets" are technically just new graphic images of the ships which can be displayed for a particular race.  These files typically go under the "Pictures\Races\<Racename>" sub folder tree.  "Generic" ship sets, not designed with any particular race in mind, will need the files renamed to exactly match the filenames they will be replacing.

However, many graphic designers have a particular "empire" or race in mind when designing the set, and also provide some of the files used by the AI.  When all of the files which are used for a specific race are provided, the package is called a "Race Set".  In addition to "Pictures", a considerate developer will create an ".emp" file which will go under the "Empires" sub folder.  (If they don't, you can create it yourself.  See below.)  The "Pictures\Races" sub folder should contain a new sub folder for the new Race, containing both "<Racename>_... .bmp" and "<Racename>_AI_... .txt" files.

The author of any of these packages should include instructions for implementation.  If they don't, you should re-consider how "complete" the package may be in other respects as well.

Implementing any of these should not be a daunting task if you take the simple precaution of backing up any file you intend to modify first.  Here is a common "mod" change as an example:

>>
Trachmyr
Sergeant
posted 16 April 2001 23:47
[Ed: reply in thread on the best way to make a "resupply ship" in the early game]
   The best way is with a little modification to the "components.txt" file...
   Find Supply Storage I, II & III and add this ability to those components:
   Ability 2 Type        := Cargo Storage
   Ability 2 Descr       := Allows to count as if Cargo Storage for transports
   Ability 2 Val 1       := 0
   Ability 2 Val 2       := 0
   (Don't forget to change the number of abilities to 2)
   This will allow supply storage to count towards the 50% cargo restriction on transports...  thus allowing "Tanker Ships".
   It may also be useful to at least double the number of supplies that they hold, so they can at least equal engines in capacity per ton, or cut tonnage/tonnage structure/costs in half.
...
<<


Some mod developers have banded together and produced "Mod Packs" which combine compatible (with each other and the standard game files only) mods into a single, easily downloaded package.  The goal of the modpack developers may differ widely.  Read their compatibility information carefully before installing.  Combining different mods and modpacks indiscriminately can have unexpected results and even prevent the game from functioning.  However, many of the most exciting and impressive improvements to the game can only be seen by using mods.  Simply read the provided information carefully and you should have no problems.  Help is available on the forum boards at Shrapnel and fan sites.

MM encourages "modding" and has implemented the ability to add a "mod" subdirectory under the "Space Empires IV" game directory to place mod files while leaving the original game files intact.  Files in the "mod directory" are used first and if a needed file is missing from there the program uses the original file.  Place the name of the desired "mod directory" in the game directory's "Path.txt" file to have those mods incorporated into a new game:
       Using Mod Directory := ModPack
This directory is also sometimes called the "modpath" directory.  (Note: no pathing is allowed in the modpath entry, just the name of the directory which MUST be directly under the game directory; ie 'ModPack' would point to directory "Space Empires IV\ModPack".)

Several utilities have been developed to simplify switching between several mods each time you start a game by changing the modpath before launching.  Check out the "Space Empires: IV - Modding and other Help Tools/Information" archive forum on the Shrapnel Games site: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum25/HTML/000019.html (same place this Strategy Guide is located).

Some mods provide complete replacements for game files.  Others have only the changed or new elements which must be included in the appropriate file.  When modding, unless it is known to cause problems, always add new entries to the end of the copies of files in the "mod directory".

Common questions are "What mods are recommended?" and "Can I use several mods together?".  Here are some recommendations.

>>
jc173
Second Lieutenant
posted 28 May 2001 06:38
...
   Some of the mods I use and would recommend are the TDM modpack, God Emporer's 'AI Research' mod (although it takes a little editing to make the TDM modpack compatible with it; see the 'filler tech' thread for details), Sun Devil's 'Politics' mod, and the 'Sound' mod (I think it's from TampaGamer?) [Ed: Yes, by TG; he produces a TDM compatible 'components.txt' file which uses his sound files and can directly replace the TDM version of that file].  I also use elements of my own stuff, Suicide_Junkie's 'Pirates and Nomads' mod, and the 'DevnullMod'.
...
<<
>>
dumbluck
Corporal
posted 28 May 2001 07:50
  Oh my.  TDM, Devnulmod, and Zippy's mod are all mutually exclusive and incompatable with each other.  The reason is that Devnulmod and Zippy both alter (extensively) the components in the game.  TDM, on the other hand, intentionally _only_ mod the AIs to make them as strong as possible for the standard game.  I think that Dev is working on creating versions of the TDM races that is compatible w/ his mod, but I don't think it's done yet.
   Now, don't get me wrong; you can play all of these mods.  But you can't play them AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE SAME GAME [Ed: without extensive manual editing of shared files].  Each of these three mods needs to be in it's own mod folder; and you alter the path.txt to point to whichever mod folder you want to play at that time.  That way you can easily switch between mod; all you do is change path.txt.
   Confused yet?
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Corporal
posted 28 May 2001 08:12
   The difficulties that I think of with MODs is the AI and related to that: the patches of SEIV which come out almost monthly. If you do any changes to components, add new things, scanning and obscuration, pirate/nomad stuff etc. then you always have to change EVERY AI (research strategy, use of new components and so on), right?
   I think that's the main reason for TDM modpack, not to change the original data, because you always have to fiddle around with the AI data every time when a new patch is released.
   Or am I wrong with this? At the moment, these concerns are the main reason for me not to use any MOD which do changes to the original data, or do you change the AIs every time? I guess this would be a bunch full of work!
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 28 May 2001 14:18
[Ed: reply to previous]
...
   My 'Pirates & Nomads' mod changes the components and facilities and tech areas, but I've tried to arrange my changes so that they don't screw up the AI.
   All the amazing new components that AIs don't use come with some fairly big limitations; so they fit in more of a roleplaying style, and aren't so effective in a down and dirty war
   EG. ablative armor: amazing amount of hitpoints, but costs a fortune and takes years to repair.
-hardened bulkheads: unlimited hitpoints, but costs even more, and also "leaks damage" into the internals.
   I don't change the AI, I just worked my components around them.
And with any new patches, I just use the list of changes to add the new bits to my mod, rather than starting over from the patched files.
<<
>>
PsychoTechFreak
Corporal
posted 28 May 2001 16:11
   Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
   "I don't change the AI, I just worked my components around them."

   SJ, maybe I'm a little bit puzzled at the moment... Let me see if I got it right:
   I could use the AI-races from TDM modpack with your mod? If I copy TDM into a folder like TDM_SJpirate and then overwrite this folder with your mod?
   The AI would not use the additional/modified components, but this would not hurt?
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
Colonel
posted 28 May 2001 17:33
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
    "I could use the AI-races from TDM modpack with your mod? If I copy TDM into a folder like TDM_SJpirate and then overwrite this folder with your mod?"

   Yes they would!  The only condition is that you must create a new EMP file for the race, since my mod has extra Racial Traits.
   All you have to do is:
1) Put both mods into the same directory, then run SE4.
2) Start a random game with lots of random opponents, then set them all to human control.
3) Save every race to a new EMP file such as "Nomads TDM Cuecappa.EMP"
4) Start a new game.
5) Choose "add existing empire" to add all the races you saved.
6) Edit each race, and give them the racial trait of "Normal", then save them again.  You can now play these races anytime by adding them manually.  (randomly generated AIs never worked with my mod)
7) Upload the EMPs to these boards for everybody to enjoy!
   The alternative is to add an extra line to the TDM races, so they choose "Normal" as a racial trait by default.
   Any race without the "Normal" trait will be unable to build colonizers or resource extractors and will certainly die (unless they're controlled by a human).

   Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
   "The AI would not use the additional/modified components, but this would not hurt?"

   The AI will use some of the new/altered components, but the ones it does not use will not hurt it.  In fact, I have been surprised by some of the things the AI did.
   One time, the Phong attacked with fighters, but the medium and heavy fighters were using a handful of my 0kT armor!  Not so much that the fighters got too expensive, but just enough to make them really tough to kill (150 points of armor each fighter)
<<


Some mods, such as new 'Races' and 'Shipsets', can present their own problems especially if no instructions are provided:

>>
Jason2
Sergeant
posted 02 June 2001 00:00
   I have the TDM-modpack already installed.  However, I had hoped to unzip a bunch of new races I got at Universal Shipyards... like the "squid" race etc.  However... I can't seem to get them to install properly.  To what directory do I unzip them.
   I put them into the 'empires' file of the modpack directory, but then ALL the files are in there (about 80 or so a race) and their pics don't come up etc.
   Then I tried to unzip the files to the main folder (like you do with modpack) thinking it would put each in the proper place.  Nope.  Just filled my folder!
   Would someone help   Thanks !
<<
>>
Dracus
Captain
posted 02 June 2001 00:12
[Ed: reply to previous]
   Are you putting the ship pictures in the pictures/races folder?
What I do is I unzip them in a temp folder and manually move the files to the correct folders.
   They should then show up in the game setup.
<<
>>
Cranex
Private First Class
posted 05 July 2001 22:43
[Ed: Start of a new thread]
...
   CueCappa race has empire files, CueCappa2000, CueCappa3000, CueCappa 5000 etc, and loads wonderfully.
   Ferg, Dominion, and other races do not
   apparently, have empire files included.
   Don't you need them? They don't work.
   I can't get borg2000 race to work even though it has Borg2000 empire. I name the new folder the same Borg.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 July 2001 23:23
   You can make your own .EMP files by starting new games with random empires until you get one with the desired race.
   Then go to the file menu, and click "players".
   Deselect the desired AI from computer control, and end your turn.
   When the AI's turn starts, go back to the file menu and select "Save Race".  Save it as "Borg2000" or whatever.  You now have a .EMP for that race.
...
<<

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 60. I need instructions as to how you can create a race in the game from those downloaded from other sites or made by myself. I'm talking about those that have the AI scripts. When I enter the game and I'm creating a new game I'm not able to locate any of the races I've downloaded into their own folders in the Pictures/Races subdirectories.
A. When you download a custom race style from a web site, you need to create a directory for it in the SE4 \ Pictures \ Races directory. When you start SE4, go to New Game, then create a new empire. In the Empire Setup Window, on the General Details tab, there is a "Race Portrait \ Ship Style" selection. Pick the new race portrait you downloaded. A little farther down on the window, there is an item called "Use Race Minister Style". Set this option on so that it reads "Using style from race". This empire will now use all of the features of this custom race style.
   If you're wondering how you get the race added to your Quickstart window, you need to open the file "Settings.txt" in the Data directory. In this file there are items titled "Quick Start Style #" which you can set to the name of the directory for the race style. In the first patch, we have extended this to allow as many races as you wish.

>>
Cranex
Private First Class
posted 04 July 2001 23:52
   The races Borg, Ferg, Dominion, Cardassium for example do not have the *.emp files; ie the files Borg2000, Borg3000, Borg5000 etc., and I cannot use these races that do not have the empire files.
The CueCappa DOES HAVE the CueCappa2000, CueCappa3000 etc files and loads wonderfully.
HOW DOES ONE USE A RACE WHEN THERE IS NO EMPIRE FILE (OR WHERE IS THE FILE)?
<<
>>
Atrocities
Colonel
posted 05 July 2001 08:31
   What are you naming the folder that the races are contained in?
   Is it the same name as the names of the portraits and other files?
   For example, the Cardassians are named CARD, thus the folder holding them MUST BE NAMED 'CARD' as well.
   The Ferengi are 'Ferg'.
   Look at the files: Ferg_Main, Ferg_Mini_Pop, Ferg_Race_Portrait, etc.
   The folder that the races are contained in MUST be named the same as the race name in the files.  IE "Ferg".
   Hope this helps.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 05 July 2001 23:23
   You can make your own .EMP files by starting new games with random empires until you get one with the desired race.
   Then go to the file menu, and click "players".
   Deselect the desired AI from computer control, and end your turn.
   When the AI's turn starts, go back to the file menu and select "Save Race".  Save it as "Borg2000" or whatever.  You now have a .EMP for that race.
...
<<



Some mods cannot be incorporated without starting a new game.  These include files related to the creation of the galaxy at the beginning of a game, such as Quadrant and Sector files, and new Races.  

Others such as most of the "Data\" directory and race "Politics" and "Anger" files can be changed during a game. Race information is loaded at the beginning of each turn for that race.  

Changing the sequence ORDER of entries in files in midgame is known to create problems.

A Guide on modifying SE4 similar to this one has been developed.  See the "SE4 Modders Guide" thread in the forum and look for the file in the "Space Empires: IV - Modding and other Help Tools/Information" archive mentioned earlier.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 61. I just had a question about the Abilities.txt, are thoes hard coded in, or can we add things to it?
A. No, you cannot add new abilities to the game. The abilities.txt file is not used by the game and is merely informational. Abilities are built directly into the game and cannot be modified or added. Only we can add abilities by releasing a new executable for the game.
Q 66. In SEIII I could save a standard set of ship designs (usually the ones I wanted to start a game with.) I haven't found that feature in SEIV yet. Have I missed it? If not, when will you add it?
A. You can save your ship designs by saving your empire. This will not only save your designs, but will save all of your empire settings as well.
Q 67. When i create a new race it has the status of newborn and has no experience. Does the status change when i play some games with that race, and do i get experience points to buy new abilities?
A. Yes, when you play with an empire, they will gain experience. You can then save the empire at the end of your game so that you can use in future games. The experience points determine your race's age and give you minor bonuses in different areas.

>>
Krakenup
Corporal
posted 05 July 2001 14:49
   Originally posted by Cranex:
   "I downloaded nb800 or whatever, unzipped it in pictures/systems/800 and deleted 5 boring storm files,
but it don't work.  Program says can't load storm.
   help"

   You need to rename the files to Storm1.bmp through Storm5.bmp - this was the second set of nebulae, the first set (wiped out by a forum reorganization) had the right names. The first set is still available as part of Daynarr's Quadrant Mod.
<<
>>
Daeromont
Private First Class
posted 30 August 2001 18:39
[Ed: Start of new thread]
   Due to an enormous amount of information to search against a short supply of time, I'm asking for an explanation of mods vs. shipsets, etc.  I am a player...not a programmers, so forgive my ignorance.
   1) I've downloaded several shipsets of various races; however, I've noticed that I often have to 'move' files around into different directories to get them to work.  I have NO idea what I'm really doing...and somtimes I don't know where to put certain files, nor do I know if I'm just downloading pics or AI files...or if they are always congruent.
   2)  Do 'shipsets' automatically modify the AI?
   3)  I am loathe to use any MOD's as they change the 'parameters' of gameplay (if I understand them correctly).  Is there a way to 'save' the original files or does one need to reload the game every time you want to change back to the original parameters?
   4)  Are shipsets and .emp files MOD-specific or can they be used interchangably?
   5)  In PBW games, do all players have to use the same shipsets, etc, for AI players?
   6)  Is anyone working on a Manual...or a reference guide for technologies, etc?
<<
>>
LazarusLong42
Corporal
posted 30 August 2001 19:18
   1.  Usually shipsets are just ship pictures/race pictures/etc, and don't change the game at all.
   2.  No.  Assuming the author has put together just a shipset.  Oftentimes, you'll see the shipset advertised "with AI files".  But even these files modify only the AI that uses that shipset.
   3.  Depends on the Mod.  The TDM Modpack changes no gameplay aspects; it adds only new AIs.  Certain other Mods are compatible in the same way.
   All Mods, however, have to be installed to a new directory--so retrieving the "original" files is very easy, and often the Mod will have simple directions.
   Also, Matryx (I think) has created a mod-picker.  You may want to check that out.
   4.  They're interchangeable.
   5.  Not sure what you mean.  Players can use whatever shipset they wish, as long as it's been uploaded so that other players can download the pics.  Is that what you mean?
   6.  Not that I know of.
<<
>>
Atrocities
General
posted 30 August 2001 20:43

   quote:  "1) I've downloaded several ship sets of various races; however, I've noticed that I often have to 'move' files around into different directories to get them to work. I have NO idea what I'm really doing...and sometimes I don't know where to put certain files, nor do I know if I'm just downloading pictures or AI files...or if they are always congruent."

   Installation:
   If you have the full version, unzip all files into a folder named "illuminati" in your "...\Space Empires IV\Pictures\Races" folder.
   If you're using the demo, the problem is that the demo has the option to install new race styles disabled. The only way to try any new race styles before having the full version of the game is by renaming all the files to overwrite one of the existing ones.

   quote:  "2) Do 'ship sets' automatically modify the AI?"

   As stated, only for that ship set.  No other AI is effected.

   quote:  "3) I loathe using any MOD's as they change the 'parameters' of game play (if I understand them correctly). Is there a way to 'save' the original files or does one need to reload the game every time you want to change back to the original parameters"

   Mods are kept in their own files, and do not effect the original game.  For example, the TDM mod has its own folder in your Space Empires directory called  TDM-ModPack, where all of its files are kept.  The only thing that is changed is the PATH text:
   (Using Mod Directory := None) To (Using Mod Directory := TDM-ModPack)

   quote:  "4) Are ship sets and Emp files MOD-specific or can they be used interchangeably?"

   Ship sets and Emp files can be used in any Mod.  You simply have to put the set and Emp files you want into the Mod directory files.  I.E. the Ship sets into Pictures\Races\ShipSetName [Ed: "ShipSetName" = "<Racename>"]  and the Emp files into the Empires Folder.

   quote:  "5) In PBW games, do all players have to use the same ship sets, etc, for AI players?"

   In order for the other players to see your sets, they too must have them and you must have the ones they are using in order to see them as they are designed to be seen.  Read the PBW Q&A at http://seiv.pbw.cc/index.jsp

   quote:  "6) Is anyone working on a Manual...or a reference guide for technologies, etc?"

   There are already tons of info regarding Manuals and or reference guides for technologies and other aspects of the game.  Check out this site for strategies: http://www.spaceempires.org/

Topics of interest: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/001389.html  http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002249.html  http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/003247-2.html  http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/003136.html  http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/003157.html

Info: http://www.sandman43.fsnet.co.uk/vikingshipnotes.htm
<<
>>
LemmyM
Sergeant
posted 30 August 2001 21:15

   quote:  "6) Is anyone working on a Manual...or a reference guide for technologies, etc?"

   I believe Dubious was working on something of a guide, not sure what's in it, or if it's finished... 
   [Ed: You're reading it!]

   BTW. I was looking for this guide in the mod archive and weren't there 4 SE4 topics, now there are only two?
<<
>>
Mudshark
Private First Class
posted 30 August 2001 23:56
   Lemmy any forum has a "show only last 20 days" [Ed: this is the default setting.  You can change it, but note that it resets to the default for each session/visit].  Geoschmo pointed this out to me when I asked what happened to the scenario achives.  Glad I'm not the only person that has added his name to the exalted list of those that have emulated Homer Simpson "Doh". How many others have felt the same way?
<<


PATCHES:

Malfador Machinations, the game developer, produces all patches.  These are available from the Shrapnel Games website, as well as other fan sites.  Because patches usually change the underlying code of the game, you should expect to start a new game when you install a patch unless explicitly stated otherwise.  It is generally recommended that you create a copy of your current game directory if you have enough disk space so you can recover if a patch fails to install correctly.  It has sometimes proven necessary to install the original game from the CD again before a patch will succeed.

Expect to have to reapply your modifications after patching, even when using the "modpath" directory option.  A patch may have made changes to files used by the mods you are including, and if the original developer of the mod does not produce an updated version, you will have to identify the differences and update the mod version of the files yourself.

From the MM site Q&A web page:
Q 69. The patch for version 1.11 overwrote all of my custom data files!
A. First off, you should NEVER modify the original data files. You should create a new data directory under SE4 and call it something else such as "mydata". Copy all of the original data files to that directory. Make all of your data modifications to the files in that directory. Then, you should modify the file called "path.txt" in the SE4 directory so that it now points to your "mydata" directory. This way you can install patches and such without ever modifying your custom data files.
   You can have as many auxiliary data directories as you want. The path.txt file determines which one the game will use when it is run. It will be up to you to incorporate any changes made in patches into your custom data files.
>>
Mr. ?
Private First Class
posted 14 June 2001 14:00
   I just got SE4 in the mail yesterday, and I must say this is one great game. But I do have a problem. I downloaded and installed patch 1.35 after messing around with the game for a while, and that's when I noticed that the modifications I had made no longer worked. Before I had installed the patch I had taken the folder called Data and made a copy of it, this one I labeled MyData I changed the components.txt file and then went into Path.txt and replaced Data with MyData. Does anyone know what I should do to get the components I created to show up again? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 14 June 2001 14:59
   Installing the patch resets PATH.TXT
<<
>>
Mr. ?
Private First Class
posted 14 June 2001 15:57
   When I noticed the components I made were gone I changed Path.txt to say MyData. It still did not work, though.
<<
>>
Nitram Draw
Lieutenant Colonel
posted 14 June 2001 16:00
   Did you make the components in a separate Components file? The patch overwrites the original files I think.
<<
>>
NqzvenyOynve
Private First Class
posted 14 June 2001 17:24
   Data needs to be a subdir of MyData.
   To clarify:
MyData needs to contain custom folders(Data, Races, etc), not just custom data .txt files.

   Originally posted by Mr. ?:
   "Nope, I checked the MyData file, It wasn't rewritten when I installed the patch. The only thing that I can see that was changed was the path.txt file. It says
      using mod directory    := none
   I changed none to MyData but it still does not work, but it did before I installed the patch."
<<
>>
Mr. ?
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 00:41
   Okay, I have put those folders under MyData (Data, Races, etc) but now when I start the game it says that it can not load "Settings.txt".
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 15 June 2001 01:24
   Settings.txt must be here:
SE4\mydata\data\settings.txt
   It may say "can't read xxxxx" if there is an unknown error in the file, like a double-line halfway through one of your component definitions.
<<
>>
Mr. ?
Private First Class
posted 15 June 2001 16:41
   Settings.txt is under SE4/MyData/Data but I have not changed anything in it. I have replaced Components.txt with the original file so that all the stuff under MyData is just like the original files, however it still says it cannot load settings.txt.
<<
>>
suicide_junkie
General
posted 15 June 2001 17:14
   Originally posted by Mr. ?:
   "Settings.txt is under SE4/MyData/Data but I have not changed anything in it."

   Ahh, then you probably need to compare the settings.txt to the new patch's settings.txt.
The patch probably added some new settings that must be in settings.txt.
<<
>>
Mr. ?
Private First Class
posted 16 June 2001 00:24
   That fixed it. I thank you for your help. This game Rocks!
<<

=============================== End of File ==================================
