Taking Moo2 to new heights?

307 Aufrufe
Direkt zur ersten ungelesenen Nachricht

Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
14.03.2000, 03:00:0014.03.00
an
I've just recently got a hold of various editors.. I have been on a pleasant
task of actually making Moo2 (In my humble opinion of course) even better
than ever...

Here are a few of my workings....

I've completely redone all the races.. now Bulrathi, Alkari, etc. actually
are good races! And Silicoids and Darloks are the galaxy's powerful prime
evils. I had one game with a friend where the Darloks simply murdered us
with fleets of titans.. It was the best game we ever played...

I'd release them, but I'm going to be using the pick hack to edit various
things and make it a bit more reasonable and balanced..

Other points of interest.. Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships.. Cost and
command point effectively:

Ship Class Cost Space AR Hull CP
Frigate 50 90 14 12 1
Destroyer 100 175 24 18 2
Cruiser 200 225 40 32 3
Battleship 400 250 62 50 4
(haven't got to Titans and doomstars yet, I plan to increase their costs and
power substantially.)
(Also notice, I modified ship costs substantially. I want bigger and more
frequent fleet battles, don't you?)
(Big thing here: Note that Destoryers in equal command points have much more
space than Battlecruisers. And Battlecruisers have much more health than
destroyers. Cruisers are average in both respects. Frigates are the best
in both respects.)

A few weapons adjustments:
Anti-Missle Rockets:
4 spc
Laser Cannon:
7-9 dmg
Mass Driver:
8 dmg
Fusion Beam now:
Fusion Cannon, 1-36 dmg, 40 spc, no PD
Graviton Beam now:
Graviton Cannon, 15-60 dmg, 50 space

Armor Modifiers:
Titanium 1x
Tritanium 2x
Zortrium 3x
Neutronium 4x
Adamantium 5x
Xentronium 7x

My Future Plans:
- Hopefully make Fusion/Graviton Cannons, Stellar Converters fire every
other round.
- Increase later game tech costs.
- Make all races Warlord, the number of command points you get is
pathetic, I want much larger fleets. Thus, warlord would require 0 picks.
- Modify Shield Values
- Generally make ships tougher and/or make later-game weapons weaker.
- increase space requirements of the real bastard systems; structural
analysers and achilles targeting systems.
- Increase combat speeds of most ships.
- Give the CP's a boost
- Put up a page about this
- Lessen the power of the tech meisers
- Anything else that gets my interest

So, I'd really like to know all (if any) things about Moo2 that you'd like
to see changed somewhat. Also, gimme mucho input about what I've done so
far.

Have a Nice Day!

Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
15.03.2000, 03:00:0015.03.00
an
I've updated my changes...

My current pick values:

Population Ship Defense Special Attributes
-50% -4 -20% -2 Low-G -4
+50% +3 +25% +1 High-G +4
+100% +6 +50% +2 Aquatic +4
Subterranean +6
Farming Ship Attack Large HW +1
-0.5 -3 -20% -2 Rich HW +1
+1 +3 +20% +1 Poor HW -1
+2 +6 +40% +2 Artifact HW +2
Repulsive -10
Industry Ground Combat Cybernetic +2
-1 -3 -10% -2 Lithovore +10
+1 +2 +10% +1 Charismatic +2
+2 +4 +20% +2 Uncreative -4
Creative +8
Science Spying Tolerant +10
-1 -3 -10% -3 Fantasic +3
+1 +2 +10% +3 Telepathic +6
+2 +4 +20% +6 Lucky +1
Omniscient +1
Money Government Stealthy Ships +1
-0.5 +4 Feud -4 Trans +3
+0.5 +3 Demo +7 Warlord +3
+1.0 +6 Uni +6
(Also to note: all basic races you can choose from are given 11 free picks
instead of 10.. Which means custom races lose a pick. Giving incentive to
actually use the races as I have them.)
(Combat picks are cheaper, this is because Moo2 is largely descided by a
race's infrastructure and thus they are less important in desciding the
victor.)
(Population bonuses are cheaper because the governments are really where
most of the empire's power resides.. the 7 pick democracy gave much more
research than the 6 pick +2 research, then adds mucho money to boot.)


> Ship Class Cost Space AR Hull CP

> Frigate 50 90 60 30 1
> Destroyer 100 175 86 44 2
> Cruiser 200 225 155 78 3
> Battleship 400 250 240 120 4
Star Base 300 400 300 150 -1
Battlestation 1000 800 400 200 -2
Star Fortress 3000 1600 600 300 -3


> (haven't got to Titans and doomstars yet, I plan to increase their costs
and
> power substantially.)
> (Also notice, I modified ship costs substantially. I want bigger and more
> frequent fleet battles, don't you?)
> (Big thing here: Note that Destoryers in equal command points have much
more
> space than Battlecruisers. And Battlecruisers have much more health than
> destroyers. Cruisers are average in both respects. Frigates are the best
> in both respects.)
>
> A few weapons adjustments:
> Anti-Missle Rockets:
> 4 spc
> Laser Cannon:

> 6-8 dmg
> Mass Driver:
> 7 dmg
> Fusion Beam now:
> Fusion Cannon, 1-32 dmg, 40 spc, no PD
> Graviton Beam now:
> Graviton Cannon, 12-44 dmg, 50 space
>
> Armor Modifiers:
> Titanium 1x
> Tritanium 1.5x
> Zortrium 2x
> Neutronium 2.5x
> Adamantium 3x
> Xentronium 4x

The Bruhns

ungelesen,
15.03.2000, 03:00:0015.03.00
an
Most of my games are multi-player, so my comments are from that point of view;
take them with the appropriate grains of salt. Most of my comments are a bit
negative, largely because I think that there's a good general balance to things
right now...weapons are fairly appropriate for their costs in research and space
requirements, technologies provide sufficient incentives to pursue them, taking
the time and resources away from one thing to apply it to another (e.g. ship
production, research, expansion, etc.) balances risks and rewards pretty well,
etc. Things could be improved, and I like some of your ideas, however I'm not
sure the game needs this big of a facelift. The enhancements you are talking
about seem to favor a certain style of play, and could shut out other styles and
limit the diversity that gives this game its longevity.

All of this to say, don't take any of my comments the wrong way!

"Arc.Smiloid" wrote:

> Here are a few of my workings....
>

> Other points of interest.. Destroyers, Cruisers, and Battleships.. Cost and
> command point effectively:
>

> Ship Class Cost Space AR Hull CP

> Frigate 50 90 14 12 1
> Destroyer 100 175 24 18 2
> Cruiser 200 225 40 32 3
> Battleship 400 250 62 50 4

> (haven't got to Titans and doomstars yet, I plan to increase their costs and
> power substantially.)
> (Also notice, I modified ship costs substantially. I want bigger and more
> frequent fleet battles, don't you?)
> (Big thing here: Note that Destoryers in equal command points have much more
> space than Battlecruisers. And Battlecruisers have much more health than
> destroyers. Cruisers are average in both respects. Frigates are the best
> in both respects.)

I don't know about making things so cheap to build/buy...losing much of your
fleet in a major battle hurts a lot in the current system, and I like that
aspect of it. It also makes the decision to commit resources to initial
shipbuilding a bigger one. Overall, I guess I think the current balance of the
ship values is pretty fair and well thought out. Increasing the space a bit in
frigates and destroyers is a good idea, but don't take it too far. The whole
point of having a big ship is that it is more space efficient, carries more
firepower, and has better staying power in a fight. The space you're proposing
completely changes those. I'd like to see smaller ships be able to hit a bit
harder, but not so much that they become a superior value.

> A few weapons adjustments:
> Anti-Missle Rockets:
> 4 spc

Definitely a good idea (why are they so big, anyway?), maybe not quite so small
though, by the time it miniaturizes after 2-3 tech levels you could take
missiles out of the game completely (fitting 20 anti-missile rockets in 20 space
would make a ship nearly impregnable).

> Laser Cannon:
> 7-9 dmg

This is the cheapest beam weapon in the game. It shouldn't be able to overcome
class 3 shields, which cost 36 times the research, so easily.

> Fusion Beam now:
> Fusion Cannon, 1-36 dmg, 40 spc, no PD

Now this one I'd have to try before judging, since you do have it taking an
awful lot of space. I'd miss my PD ENV CO fusion beams, tho...they are the best
pd weapons in the early and middle game.

> - Make all races Warlord, the number of command points you get is
> pathetic, I want much larger fleets. Thus, warlord would require 0 picks.

Making warlord cheaper is a good idea. I don't know about free, however.

> - Generally make ships tougher and/or make later-game weapons weaker.

This could be a good idea, but would require some experimentation to find a good
balance.

> - increase space requirements of the real bastard systems; structural
> analysers and achilles targeting systems.

Then what's the point of researching them? As an example, adding High Energy
Focus to a ship just after researching it only increases overall firepower by
10-20% in a fully decked out battleship...half the time I'm tempted to remove
the inertial stabilizers to make room for the thing. Incidentally, it's having
to make decisions like this that make this game so great.

> - Increase combat speeds of most ships.

The problem here is that it could take away some of the need for researching
drive technology, which is another great decision to have to be faced with: do I
take the pulse cannons and press on for anti-matter drives (which are better yet
more expensive), or take ion drives instead so I can research a different
field? Plus, ships start combat too close together as it is...one combat round
and you're in the enemy's face, which takes fleet posturing out of combat.
Increasing combat speeds would take that even further.

> - Put up a page about this

Great way to get lots of feedback!

> - Lessen the power of the tech meisers

What? Don't people take uni-tol enough as it is? ;-)

I hope my comments make sense...

-Victor Bruhn
(Gusset)

Sean

ungelesen,
16.03.2000, 03:00:0016.03.00
an
>Definitely a good idea (why are they so big, anyway?), maybe not quite so
>small
>though, by the time it miniaturizes after 2-3 tech levels you could take
>missiles out of the game completely (fitting 20 anti-missile rockets in 20
>space
>would make a ship nearly impregnable).

That's what YOU think.

First 20-50 missiles in any swarm *I* launch are CHAFF: there to INTENTIONALLY
suck up damage from yoru antimissile defenses.

The NEXT 10-20 are my shield-droppers: there to drop your shields, maybe even
sandpaper your armor.

The last 2-5 are EMG warheads.

So, picture: 40 Nuke/ECCM/ARM/FAST missile, followed by 20
Merculite/FAST/MIRV/ECCM, followed by 5 Merc/FAST/MIRV/EMG/ECCM missiles.

You have 20 PD guns and 20 Antimissile Rockets; say all FOURTY manage to kill
their targets.

Fine, my chaff is exhausted: 20 MIRVed Merculites impact your shields, that's
80 warheads at (presume, say, Class V nonhardened shields, or it'd be Merc
chaff and Pulson hitters) 9 damage each. 720 damage: even on a Doomstar with
Multiphased Class V's, thatw ill drop a shield arc.

Then the 5 MIRVed EMG missiles hit, doing (again) 9 per warhead, 20 warheads,
all to the engines. *BOOM* no more ship.

And that's my STANDARD array for missiles. =o)

There's no such THING as something *completely* immune to missiles. All any
tech does is, ups the NUMBERS NEEDED. =o) Lightning field, for example, would
require me to launch about DOUBLE those numbers. =o)

>Making warlord cheaper is a good idea. I don't know about free, however.

I agree, 2 or 3 picks, but not free.

>> - Generally make ships tougher and/or make later-game weapons weaker.
>
>This could be a good idea, but would require some experimentation to find a
>good
>balance.

Changing the armor multipliers woudl work. Instead of 1x 2x 3x 4x, what about
1x 2x 4x 6x, or even 1x 3x 6x 9x ... ?

-- Sean
-- GM Pax
-- GM_Pax on Kali.Net
-- Pax (notice any trends? ;-), # 18582108, on ICQ
-- of course, delete ".spam.xa" from my email address to reply by email (".xa"
being the code for Xanth, of course! <g>)


Noel Llopis

ungelesen,
16.03.2000, 03:00:0016.03.00
an
gm...@aol.com.xanth (Sean) wrote in
<20000316111058...@ng-fe1.aol.com>:

>>Definitely a good idea (why are they so big, anyway?), maybe not quite
>>so small
>>though, by the time it miniaturizes after 2-3 tech levels you could
>>take missiles out of the game completely (fitting 20 anti-missile
>>rockets in 20 space
>>would make a ship nearly impregnable).
>

>That's what YOU think.
>
>First 20-50 missiles in any swarm *I* launch are CHAFF: there to
>INTENTIONALLY suck up damage from yoru antimissile defenses.
>
>The NEXT 10-20 are my shield-droppers: there to drop your shields, maybe
>even sandpaper your armor.
>
>The last 2-5 are EMG warheads.

This might be considered a newbie question, but how do you
determine the order in which your weapons fire? Or do you load
different ships with different missiles to have control over that?

I'm asking because when I play, it seems that as soon as I click,
it fires all the missiles it has. If, as you describe, I got some
control over the firing order, that could add a lot more depth
to combat.

Thanks.


--Noel

Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
16.03.2000, 03:00:0016.03.00
an
In response the "The Bruhns"

Thanks for your comments! Greatly appreciated..

The reason I'm modifying the ship model and such is that:
A) I usually never ever build destroyers/cruisers because Battleships are
simply so much better! I like the variety this brings with it. Instead of
pure Battleship fleets that seem somewhat unreal to me I wanted more
smaller support craft.
B) I personally think ships take way too long to build. I increased the
base costs of smaller ships, decreased the larger. I just think the game
could use more combat, not that ships are fodder now. The change isn't
big.. The battleship dropped 33% in its basic cost, which is only 100. Not
a big difference considering how much cost weapons and systems add.
C)Battles are too quickly descided, the player who moves first gains an
immense advantage on the opponent. I'm increasing ship health to allow
battles to last longer.
D)I want more combat!!!!

If you haven't guessed I like playing combat races like the Elerians. I'm
not trying to give Elerians a leg up in moo2, but I am trying to make combat
a bigger part of the game.

Anti-missile rockets are used mainly by the CP ships.. by making them 1/5
the size, the CP's will get 5 times the number of them... Also, I agree
they are too big to begin with. =]

Laser Cannons and Mass Drivers will go back to normal, I just wanted to
actually see laser cannons for once.. =]

Fusion Cannon/Graviton Cannon... I just think that there are a lot of beams
in the game.. why not make smaller types of stellar converter guns? Fusion
Cannon is a thought brought in from Freespace 1 where the big enemy ship had
this big impressive weapon that fired almost like a stellar converter.. it
was called a "Fusion Cannon"..

Warlord is now 3 picks.

The reason I want ot tone down the structural analyser and achilles is that,
when combined... it only takes a couple of beam hits past the shields to
kill a ship.. I had a titan loaded with a crapload of auto-fire disruptors
supported by all these toys and killed a fleet of at least 80 sakkra
battleships in under 5 rounds! It took like 3 disruptors to kill each
battleship, and my titan had 40 of the suckers. I only gave the systems 50%
more cost and 25% more space..

Faster ships means more opportunity for interesting battles, if they last
longer and ships move faster.. interesting things may happen.. and that's
what I'm going for.

Contrary to what I said above, I also play my share of Psilons.. They have
trouble getting the fleets out, but when they do, they are nearly
unstoppable!

UniTol races are potent.. not too sure what I can do about it though....

Something interesting to note.. Imperiums can attain +100% morales... which
means +100% production, food, research, money... Late-game, It beats the
pants off of galactic unification.

Once again, thanks a lot for the input!! btw, the races I have so far are
very very cool...

> I'm asking because when I play, it seems that as soon as I click,
> it fires all the missiles it has. If, as you describe, I got some
> control over the firing order, that could add a lot more depth
> to combat.

In combat when you have a ship selected you have a small window with the
ship's weapon systems. If you click on those weapons they yellow, then
another click makes them red. green weapons will fire upon whatever you
click, yellow will not fire on the first thing you click instead they will
turn green again, red will not fire until you click on them to make them
green.

Because all of his missiles are different types and different modifications,
they won't group up into a massive swarm of missiles. However the missiles
fired first will attack first and soak up the anti-mille defences...

Michael Sandy

ungelesen,
16.03.2000, 03:00:0016.03.00
an
Noel Llopis <llo...@computer.org.xxx> wrote:

> gm...@aol.com.xanth (Sean) wrote in


> This might be considered a newbie question, but how do you
> determine the order in which your weapons fire? Or do you load
> different ships with different missiles to have control over that?
>

> I'm asking because when I play, it seems that as soon as I click,
> it fires all the missiles it has. If, as you describe, I got some
> control over the firing order, that could add a lot more depth
> to combat.
>

> Thanks.
>
>
> --Noel

From pages 121-122 of the manual.

*WEAPONS lists all of the weapons systems in or on the Active...
Each listed weapon has its state of readiness denoted by its
color... if the Active is under your contro, you can manually
cycle the status of a weapon through its possible states by
clicking on the listing.

For more information, read the manual. If you don't have the
manual, go away.

Michael Sandy

martin

ungelesen,
16.03.2000, 03:00:0016.03.00
an
>
> That's what YOU think.
>
> First 20-50 missiles in any swarm *I* launch are CHAFF: there to INTENTIONALLY
> suck up damage from yoru antimissile defenses.
>
> The NEXT 10-20 are my shield-droppers: there to drop your shields, maybe even
> sandpaper your armor.
>
> The last 2-5 are EMG warheads.
>
> So, picture: 40 Nuke/ECCM/ARM/FAST missile, followed by 20
> Merculite/FAST/MIRV/ECCM, followed by 5 Merc/FAST/MIRV/EMG/ECCM missiles.
>
> You have 20 PD guns and 20 Antimissile Rockets; say all FOURTY manage to kill
> their targets.

Providing good computer and battlescanner, each _Auto_Fire_ Phaser or Gauss
Cannon is
capable to shot at least two nukes or mercs (fast, arm). Fully miniaturized phasers
take about
same space as fully miniaturized missiles. Now do math.

Regarding smaller AMR, why should one put just 20 AMR when playong against you ?
With 1 space, I can put 60 of them and still have more than enough room to fit
nasty beams.

Oleg.


Sean

ungelesen,
17.03.2000, 03:00:0017.03.00
an
>This might be considered a newbie question, but how do you
>determine the order in which your weapons fire? Or do you load
>different ships with different missiles to have control over that?
>
>I'm asking because when I play, it seems that as soon as I click,
>it fires all the missiles it has. If, as you describe, I got some
>control over the firing order, that could add a lot more depth
>to combat.
>
>Thanks.

Whatever is at the top of the list, fires first.

You might notice, with beams: when you click to fire on a target, and ti takes
LESS than ALL your weapons to kill that target, the weapons at the TOP of the
list are the ones depleted, while those at the BOTTOM of the list are not. =o)

Or you can go to deja, and search for a post (within the past 2-3 months I
think) by me, talking about missile swarm tactics. I presented some
step-by-step instructions (rather lengthy and involved, or I'd retype them now)
for "building" a swarm of missiles.

But in it's SIMPLEST form, the weapons list woudl look like this:

50 Nuclear Missiles (2) ARM, FST, ECCM
20 Merculites (2) MIRV, FST, ECCM
5 Merculites (2) MIRV, FST, ECCM, EMG

So when I fire, it fires the nuclear "chaff" ... then the merculite
shield-busters ... then the EMG drive-killers.

The TRICK of ourse, is that anti-missile-defenses like Antimissile rockets and
beam weapon (PD *and* standard) will ire at missiles IN HTE ORDER THEY ARE
LAUNCHED.

So, against that swarm of 75 missiles above, the 40 PD/40AMR/10Std Beam ship
should kill ONLY the "chaff" ...

Essentially, the TOP slot of missiles is (a) *just* big enough to damage the
target's shields by 1 pt per warhead or more, but (b) SMALL enough to be
present in LARGE NUMBERS ... and it's there to do NOTHING except absorb their
defensive fire, protecting (kind of like armor) the "real" missiles.

All such missiles must be the SMAE SPEED however: ALL fast, or NONE fast.

plub...@my-deja.com

ungelesen,
17.03.2000, 03:00:0017.03.00
an
In article <38d14...@skyview.icrossroads.com>,

"Arc.Smiloid" <jho...@icrossroads.com> wrote:
> The reason I'm modifying the ship model and such is that:
> A) I usually never ever build destroyers/cruisers because Battleships
> are simply so much better! I like the variety this brings with it.
Instead
> of pure Battleship fleets that seem somewhat unreal to me I wanted
> more smaller support craft.
I agree on the problem. Some warning though: game balance might concern
technical (i.e. hardware/software) issues as well. As ships are saved
individually, way more ships might slowdown performance or even cause
an out-of-memory fault on some systems. Same for battles: you might get
_way_ more objects to handle...
But as solution I'd rather see special modifiers for smaller ships
(like _really better_ beam defense than a battleship, higher initiative
values). That way they get a reason of existence of their own. And you
might try to balance available space better, agreed. If the overall
fighting power per command point is in the same continuum (although
battle ships should have an edge there) the trade-offs I had to
consider would be toughness, build time and so on; this would make for
more realistic fleets.
<snip>

> Warlord is now 3 picks.
I don't like this solution. A warlord is distinct from other designs.
It's rather like a nomad, better wariors and getting the needed command
points w/o having to build structures like star bases. He pays for this
with a reasonable amount of picks he will miss for economy. If you want
more command points, rather increase the base points of star bases and
related structs (say any base +1, any comm +1). The effect would be
simmilar, but conserve the distinct warlord character.

> B) I personally think ships take way too long to build. I increased
> the base costs of smaller ships, decreased the larger. I just think
the
> game could use more combat, not that ships are fodder now. The
> change isn't big.. The battleship dropped 33% in its basic cost, which
> is only 100. Not a big difference considering how much cost weapons
> and systems add.
If I play 'fun' designs (that last over turn 300) I can't complain
about too few battles. On the contrary. The stupid computer players
won't talk peace even if they get their ass handed over again and again
until it gets boring.
Anyway the ship cost changes contradict the intentions of wanting a
more realistic fleet composition (i.e. more smaller ships).

> C)Battles are too quickly descided, the player who moves first gains
> an immense advantage on the opponent. I'm increasing ship health
> to allow battles to last longer.
Do you play with initiative on? More ship health also changes the
character of design. Missile boats have just a limited amount of damage
they can do.
> D)I want more combat!!!!

> The reason I want ot tone down the structural analyser
> and achilles is that, when combined... it only takes a couple
> of beam hits past the shields to kill a ship.. I had a titan loaded
> with a crapload of auto-fire disruptors supported by all these toys
> and killed a fleet of at least 80 sakkra battleships in under
> 5 rounds! It took like 3 disruptors to kill each battleship, and
> my titan had 40 of the suckers. I only gave the systems 50%
> more cost and 25% more space..
But that's the point of the game, in my view. You had the Sakkra out-
teched over and over. I think you had better beams, better armor,
better computers and so on. Remember what those antaran raiders (just
frigates) do to your beamers in the beginning of the game?
Those two systems don't come easy either, because each is the choice
against a good computer and/or other goodies, so to get the best
possible ship you're either creative (then you'll probably get it later
than a non-creative player) or you have to trade/conquer technology.
Things get even worse if you have shieldbreaking or -ignoring beams...
- Peter


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Noel Llopis

ungelesen,
17.03.2000, 03:00:0017.03.00
an
meh...@teleport.com (Michael Sandy) wrote in <20000316124722341670@pm3-02-
09.cvo.du.teleport.com>:

>Noel Llopis <llo...@computer.org.xxx> wrote:
>
>> gm...@aol.com.xanth (Sean) wrote in

>> This might be considered a newbie question, but how do you
>> determine the order in which your weapons fire? Or do you load
>> different ships with different missiles to have control over that?
>>
>> I'm asking because when I play, it seems that as soon as I click,
>> it fires all the missiles it has. If, as you describe, I got some
>> control over the firing order, that could add a lot more depth
>> to combat.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>

>> --Noel
>
>From pages 121-122 of the manual.
>
>*WEAPONS lists all of the weapons systems in or on the Active...
>Each listed weapon has its state of readiness denoted by its
>color... if the Active is under your contro, you can manually
>cycle the status of a weapon through its possible states by
>clicking on the listing.
>
>For more information, read the manual. If you don't have the
>manual, go away.

No need to get that way. Sorry if it was in the manual, but you
have to admit that the manual is less than useful since it doesn't
have an index at the end.

Thanks for the snippet though, and thanks to everybody else
who answered.

By the way, what manual are you quoting from MOO 1? I read the
combat section more carefully this time and the excerpt you listed
above is in page 126 in my manual. Weird.


--Noel

The Bruhns

ungelesen,
18.03.2000, 03:00:0018.03.00
an

Sean wrote:

> >Definitely a good idea (why are they so big, anyway?), maybe not quite so
> >small
> >though, by the time it miniaturizes after 2-3 tech levels you could take
> >missiles out of the game completely (fitting 20 anti-missile rockets in 20
> >space
> >would make a ship nearly impregnable).
>

> First 20-50 missiles in any swarm *I* launch are CHAFF: there to INTENTIONALLY
> suck up damage from yoru antimissile defenses.
> The NEXT 10-20 are my shield-droppers: there to drop your shields, maybe even
> sandpaper your armor.
> The last 2-5 are EMG warheads.
>
> So, picture: 40 Nuke/ECCM/ARM/FAST missile, followed by 20
> Merculite/FAST/MIRV/ECCM, followed by 5 Merc/FAST/MIRV/EMG/ECCM missiles.
>
> You have 20 PD guns and 20 Antimissile Rockets; say all FOURTY manage to kill
> their targets.

I had hoped my points would not require further detail, but I will supply the
details behind my thoughts. I stated at the beginning of my post that I was mainly
concerned with multiplayer games, which I know you to be accomplished with. I've
never seen hyper-tech levels reached in my 2 years on Kali. Though I did not state
it, I was also referring to general numerical equality of ships, and my number of
20 AMR was not meant as a limit. ANY ship can be overwhelmed if you fill the sky
with enough missiles, but that takes more launch platforms than targets in this
scenario:

Given zortrium tech for the missile miniaturization, a single battleship with no
specials except for battle pods (no shields, either, just to maximize space) could
fit something like 23 of the chaff you describe, 7 shield droppers, and 3 EMG (merc
mirvs). With miniaturized anti-missile rockets at 1 space each, 40 space could
provide an effective screen against such a swarm. 40 space is not much at all,
most of us devote quite a bit more than that to pd weapons when we know we need it.

The swarm you describe would need to be launched by either more than one ship, or a
titan or doomstar. Given equal ship sizes, extremely miniaturized AMR's would skew
such a confrontation in favor of the non-missile ship. Adding fast-missile racks
drops the numbers to 19 chaff, 6 shield droppers, and 3 EMG, which still almost
doubles the swarm, but unless you close to point blank range, the other player will
likely have more than one round to shoot them down. Closing to point blank range
means adding auggies at least, and the ship would also need shields to survive to
get close enough (e.g. if the enemy is using ion pulse cannons, or perhaps a
boarding strategy). Adding those things cuts the swarm size down even more so (16,
4, and 2).

This is still a VERY effective ship design, but that is in the game as we now know
it. AMR's that only require 1 or 2 space could reduce that effectiveness to near
zero...they don't miss too often, and better armor doesn't make missiles survive
more often against them, which can't be said for regular pd weapons.

I'm not trying to get into a contest of who can design the best ship; the strategy
you've detailed is an effective one that most of us have used. All I'm saying is
that miniaturized AMRs that got this small would skew things...335 space filled
with missiles is countered by 40 or 50 on the other ship (or 80 to 100 if they are
2 space each) filled with AMRs. That's all I intended. Of course it's always
possible to launch enough missiles that you could overwhelm any ship, but how many
missile ships would it take to overwhelm a well designed ship that's ready for
them? One on one, 1 or 2 space AMRs would makes a missile ship very likely to be
the loser.

No ship design contest intended (have you ever noticed, though, that such contests
degenerate into hyper-tech level contests, by which time a game against a decent
human opponent would be long over?).

-Victor Bruhn
(Gusset)

S. McCaig

ungelesen,
19.03.2000, 03:00:0019.03.00
an
Hey Gusset,

Dont even bother clarifying with this guy. I actually laughed out loud when
I read his earlier response. Obviously, given similar tech levels and # of
ships, size 1 anti's will do wonders vs missile ships. Of course, missile
ship's are very, very effective in multiplay, but I find it particularly
amusing that Sean seems to feel that he was the originator of the
chaff/shield dropping/emg combo.

Shrug, thanks for the clarification anyway. How's Kali treating you? How's
Cyber doing?

SM

(aka JadeTalon)

S. McCaig

ungelesen,
19.03.2000, 03:00:0019.03.00
an

The Bruhns

ungelesen,
19.03.2000, 03:00:0019.03.00
an

"S. McCaig" wrote:

> Shrug, thanks for the clarification anyway. How's Kali treating you? How's
> Cyber doing?

Kali's still cruising along, activity slowing down for now but getting a game is
not difficult when you want it.

Cyber's still wiping the floor with the rest of us... ;-)

Haven't seen you much lately, what's the matter did you get a life? I think
we've chatted but I don't think I ever had the pleasure of playing against you.
Maybe someday we'll bump into one another with some time to kill.


S. McCaig

ungelesen,
19.03.2000, 03:00:0019.03.00
an
Yeah, I dont think we've played but I have heard about your exploits from
friends ;-)

Im sorta moo'd out. I really have played a zillion games, most of them
online (although not as many as Cyber) and I cant seen to play it anymore.
I fire it up once in awhile solo (only takes a couple of hrs, instead of 3
days). The game is great, but I think I've had my fill. Ask Cyber about
our 16 hr marathon some time. It was pretty fun.

Anyway, Im waiting for Reach for the Stars (later next month) and keeping an
eye on Space Empires IV. Im currently playing Majesty.

Good to talk to you, keep moo'ing!

SM
(JadeTalon)

Sean

ungelesen,
20.03.2000, 03:00:0020.03.00
an
>
>Dont even bother clarifying with this guy. I actually laughed out loud when
>I read his earlier response.

Only if you use them.

>Obviously, given similar tech levels and # of
>ships, size 1 anti's will do wonders vs missile ships.

Again, only if you use them.

> but I find it particularly
>amusing that Sean seems to feel that he was the originator of the
>chaff/shield dropping/emg combo.

IME, I was. I do not contend that noone else came up with the idea as well.

Noone else TOLD me about it, so FOR ME, I came up with it, ON MY OWN.

>How's Kali treating you?

Dunno, haven't been by there very often of late.

BillChin

ungelesen,
20.03.2000, 03:00:0020.03.00
an
A naive question here, would big ships with mulitiple pulsars be
a good way to neutralize a missile fleet? Each pulsar does 2
points of damage to missiles. Bunches of pulsars could take out
any swarm of missiles no matter how many hundreds or thousands
there are, unless there was a lot of space between waves. In
which case you have to have enough ships to cover the larger
area. Anyone try this? Probably not necessary against computer
players as they don't build ships with missiles only.

The downside is that pulsar laden ships would have little other
weaponry and be sitting ducks for fleets with good beam weapons.

A middle of the road strategy might be to build a few ships with
enough pulsars to take out basic missiles and fighters, and let
the heavily armored ones be dealt with antimissiles, ECM and
point defense. Of course upon seeing this, all production would
shift to heavily armored missiles :)
- Bill

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


Michael Sandy

ungelesen,
20.03.2000, 03:00:0020.03.00
an
BillChin <wchin8N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> A naive question here, would big ships with mulitiple pulsars be
> a good way to neutralize a missile fleet? Each pulsar does 2
> points of damage to missiles. Bunches of pulsars could take out
> any swarm of missiles no matter how many hundreds or thousands
> there are, unless there was a lot of space between waves. In
> which case you have to have enough ships to cover the larger
> area. Anyone try this? Probably not necessary against computer
> players as they don't build ships with missiles only.
>
> The downside is that pulsar laden ships would have little other
> weaponry and be sitting ducks for fleets with good beam weapons.
>
> A middle of the road strategy might be to build a few ships with
> enough pulsars to take out basic missiles and fighters, and let
> the heavily armored ones be dealt with antimissiles, ECM and
> point defense. Of course upon seeing this, all production would
> shift to heavily armored missiles :)
> - Bill

It might be interesting to edit the techs to make Pulsars come
earlier. Pulsars go against shields, don't they? So if
you want Pulsars to be effective against fighters and missiles
but not absolute killers against fleets then you reduce their
damage and size.

So, 10 pulsars would whiff against level 3 shields, but totally
wipe out missiles and fighters.


Another way of reducing the early dominance of missiles would
be to make Ship Attack cheaper, or even free. This would
make anti-missile beam weapons more effective, and would also
make beam weapons more damaging earlier.

Michael Sandy

Dwight E. Howell

ungelesen,
20.03.2000, 03:00:0020.03.00
an

Michael Sandy wrote in message
<2000032016...@pm3-01-08.cvo.du.teleport.com>...
I don't see that they dominate expect for a time. The fact that this is
possible tends to make the game more fun than if it was beams always. If
torps had been made more viable in the game that would have been a similar
plus. As it is you only have two effective ways to go although I did find
one other rather nasty system that seem to work after a fashion. The same
for fighter if they had a few more teeth without being the best way they
would be more fun.

The fact that I have to chose the emissions guidiance over structural
analizer makes it a painful choice in some ways.

Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
20.03.2000, 03:00:0020.03.00
an
That is one of the things I'm shooting for... Making missiles less dominant
early game..

I'm doing so by giving ships more health, lessening space requirements of
anti-missile rockets... etc.

I agree that 4 space was a little drastic on the AMR.. But I want to keep
it as low as possible...

5? 6? 7? 8?... what would be best?

Another of my aims is to make the AI's ships a threat.. Humans rarely use
AMR's...

On a side note: I find that normal beams work much better than PD beams..
PD beams have a slight accuracy advantage plus they automatically fire,
however normal beams are also effective against other ships. How many beams
you have doesn't matter, its how much damage your beams do that takes
missiles and fighters out.

Now, since I'm trying to give the CP's a hand in beating the tricky hunam
players. It should be widely known that that is my chief aim with the
modifications I am making.

Making the CP races better as a whole was one step..

Creating uber-death races was another interesting addition...

With Repulsive at -14 picks, I've come up with two very mean races that like
chewing on humans...

Darloks: +20 spy , Unification, Subterranean, Warlord, Repulsive

Silicoids: Lithovore(+8), Tolerant(+8), High-G(+4), Warlord(+4),
Repulsive(-14)

Yeah, these guys are bastards... I've lost many a game because of these
overpowered bruisers... and loved it... =D


I'd like to pose a question.. would you give 30 space to have 4 of your
best PD guns strapped onto little engines and launched from you ship?

sure, those 4 PD guns always hit, and have almost infinite range..

However, they can be shot down, shields prevent much of the damage, and must
return to the ship after firing 4 times... for 30 space that doesn't
minaturize OR gain modifications.

My question is: are fighter bays worth the space?

could it be toned down to 25.. or even 20?!?

tell me what you think...

Sean

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an
Slight note, I believe the v1.31 patch made ulsars and ship explosions only
even HIT missiles and fighters 50% of the time.

Sean

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an
>I'm doing so by giving ships more health, lessening space requirements of
>anti-missile rockets... etc.
>
>I agree that 4 space was a little drastic on the AMR.. But I want to keep
>it as low as possible...
>
>5? 6? 7? 8?... what would be best?
>

8

But if you weaken missiles in teh early game, you MUST work similar wonders on
beams for the LATE game.

The Bruhns

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an

"Arc.Smiloid" wrote:

> 5? 6? 7? 8?... what would be best?
>

> Another of my aims is to make the AI's ships a threat.. Humans rarely use
> AMR's...

Since I was so obnoxiously critical about having them too small (thanks for not
taking it wrong :-), I feel obligated to at least respond to this question.
Unfortunately, my response fell into that category of being willing to say I
don't like the idea, yet I don't have a better one ;-). That said, I would have
to try a number of games with this setting, but 8 would be a good place to
start. It's comparable space to a 360 pd af laser or a 360 af mass driver, but
as the game progressed it would become more and more superior, since it's power
against missiles would not diminish like the pd weapons as missile tech
progresses.

> On a side note: I find that normal beams work much better than PD beams..
> PD beams have a slight accuracy advantage plus they automatically fire,
> however normal beams are also effective against other ships. How many beams
> you have doesn't matter, its how much damage your beams do that takes
> missiles and fighters out.

Against CP this is very true. Humans are aware of it, though, and tend to close
to point blank range if possible to take normal weapons out of the picture.

Incidentally (and I left out the quote from your message that this applies to,
sorry), I believe a fighter actually carries a REGULAR version of a beam
weapon. The PD option is merely a requirement that the weapon must meet before
it can be loaded on a fighter, but it does get a regular version. As proof I
offer this: a swarm of fighters armed with mass drivers can damage/destroy a
ship with Class 3 shields. However, a ship firing pd mass drivers at the same
ship will never hit it, because C3 shields means that, before they absorb any
damage, the shield out-and-out blocks 3 points of damage, which is all a pd mass
driver can do (hence the name 'class 3' shields). Sorry if this was no news,
but there's enough confusion on the 2 issues that I thought I'd say it for the
benefit of anyone new to the game who did not know.

> Now, since I'm trying to give the CP's a hand in beating the tricky hunam
> players. It should be widely known that that is my chief aim with the
> modifications I am making.

OK, that's good to know, you probably stated it earlier and I just missed it.

> My question is: are fighter bays worth the space?
>
> could it be toned down to 25.. or even 20?!?

Sure, give it a try at 20. Might make fighters have longer staying power as a
weapon. However, it might make it possible for a single cruiser full of
interceptors to kill some of the monsters earlier in the game than is normally
seen...you might want to think about if that is possible and if you want things
that way.

This and the smaller AMRs would make the tech choice a difficult one (re-hull,
AMR, or fighters?), to which a player has to commit very early. Personally I
would see this as a very good thing, right now everyone chooses re-hull without
blinking. I'm all for anything that causes people to have to make choices in
this game (did I ever mention that I don't like creative? ;-)

In other posts people have spoken about lowering the beam offense racial pick
costs. Personally, I am against it, but I could be wrong, it may make the game
better. Here's my thoughts: Without that pick, players are usually forced to
rely on missiles, which is fine. However, with +50 beams, you don't have to be,
and personally in the early and mid games I prefer to use beam weapons (just ask
anyone on Kali what my favorite race pick is...) Generally, one on one at equal
tech levels, that pick allows me to have an edge in combat, because my opponents
usually don't take it, and nobody is willing or crazy enough to forego Research
Labs or Supercomputers in order to get a decent battle computer, and a Battle
Scanner by itself isn't really enough, especially with AF mass drivers. So
since I'm willing to toss in the 4 race picks for it, I get the combat
advantages it brings; it's like a free positronic computer from the start
(electronic computer at 25% + 50% beam offense = +75%). That all said, I don't
think it should be any cheaper: if you are serious about not needing to use
missiles, you should have to pay for it and forego the added research or
production bonus that you might otherwise take with those 4 race picks. I must
note that my not taking the added research or production hurts me quite a bit by
the mid or late game against talented competition. (there's that "choices"
thing I've been harping on, just say the word and I'll stop...)

Of course, here again I'm speaking of multiplayer games, and I'm one person
among many that probably has thoughts on the subject. For the AI based game my
thoughts may be worthy of the round file.

-Victor Bruhn
(Gusset)

BillChin

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an
Nope, only ship explosions, and it looks like only fighters for
that.
> From the 1.31 readme.txt
> Fighters have a 50% chance to avoid the effects of any ship
> self-destruct or warp core breach explosions.

I don't think that would be fair about pulsars as they take up a
lot of space and have limited value against most fleets. They
do more damage against bigger ships (24 is max), but you have to
close to point blank range and keep your own ships away from the
pulsar ship. Pulsars are on the same tree as lightning shield.
You'd need to go up a couple of levels from there to get decent
miniaturization. I figure about 10 pulsars would be needed to
kill most missiles and fighters. I believe eight pulsars fills
up a battleship without miniaturization. For that reason this
strategy is extreme, and only for playing against human players
who build missiles and fighters all the time.

About making repulsive -14, seems like every human player would
take that especially on impossible difficulty when all the
computer players want to do is crush you.

For a more balanced game, I think Unification, Lithomore and
Tolerant need to be toned down. One or more of these three seem
to present in every custom race that plays well. I would not
raise the cost, but perhaps increase some of the base abilities
so other races can compete. Make each farmer produce three food
as the starting level (production and research already start at
three per population), making Uni and Litho slightly less
valuable. Allow one more production on each planet before
pollution occurs, making Tolerant slightly less valuable. These
two minor changes produce big changes in play balance. The big
three would still be great picks but perhaps not as dominant as
they are now.

Perhaps to make Creative less powerful, allow going back on
research trees at double cost. Say, you have automatic factory,
but want planetary missile base, put in the ability to go back
for 300 rp instead of 150 rp.

What is the deal with all the farmers anyway? You have warp
drive, and 50% of your population is farmers? I think the U. S.
passed that mark around 1900 and the current figure is less than
5%.

Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an

"Sean" <gm...@aol.com.xanth> wrote in message
news:20000321095853...@ng-co1.aol.com...

> >I'm doing so by giving ships more health, lessening space requirements of
> >anti-missile rockets... etc.
> >
> >I agree that 4 space was a little drastic on the AMR.. But I want to
keep
> >it as low as possible...
> >
> >5? 6? 7? 8?... what would be best?
> >
>
> 8

sounds good, I'll give it a test fling..

> But if you weaken missiles in teh early game, you MUST work similar
wonders on
> beams for the LATE game.

I have done so by increasing size and cost a bit for structural analyzer and
achilles.

A few ideas I have:
- Modify accuracy bonuses of computers:
Electric +40
Optronic +50
Positronic +60
Cybertronic +70
Moleculartronic +80
Gives early beams a +15% greater chance of hitting and allows ships to
actually dodge late-game beam attacks.

-Modify late-game beams.. Probably just weaken them.

-Hope you can come up with some ideas..

Again, thanks for the critisisms. Your opinions are greatly appreciated.

Shane Terpstra

ungelesen,
21.03.2000, 03:00:0021.03.00
an

If fighters could only be hit by the PD variation of weapons, rather than
also being fair game for the standard sized guns... That would give them
a bit more worth as well; but then wouldn't the standard mounts of
Interceptors not work on other fighters? Argh! I suppose that monsters
currently mounting standard weaponry could be modifed and given
some PD weapons, in addition to these. I've always loved fighters and
torpedoes, (beams are great too), but in Moo2 these two units/weapons
just don't stack up.

Sean

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an
>> My question is: are fighter bays worth the space?
>>
>> could it be toned down to 25.. or even 20?!?
>
>Sure, give it a try at 20. Might make fighters have longer staying power as
>a
>weapon. However, it might make it possible for a single cruiser full of
>interceptors to kill some of the monsters earlier in the game than is
>normally
>seen...you might want to think about if that is possible and if you want
>things
>that way.
>

Personally, I'd just like to see them MINATURISE ... and I'm fairly sure
theywould have one small bit of data (an on/off switch if you will) that tells
the computer if it can or cannot miniaturise.

Let them miniaturise, and when you're far enough advanced ... they get VERY
small.

Though, on second thought, 1/3 rate of miniaturisation would be better. That
might work, if there's some sort of "look-up table" for size based on tech.
=o) Then instead of dropping to 1/4 size in FIVE levels, it'd do it in ten or
FIFTEEN levels, which is a chunkof research. =o)

Hell, even COMBINED with the base 20 size ...

As a side affair, I'd also like to see planetary Fighter Bases improved:
instead of refilling in TEN turns (by which time they're usually dead) let them
refill as fast as torpedos: every other turn. Then ... WATCH OUT ... heh.
True SWARMS of fighters, since I'e seen bases dropping 40 interceptors at a
time. After 10 turns, that's be 200 fighters, minues losses.

I would EVEN be willing to hazard a "replace them all every turn" attempt. Bt
if so ... then the base itself would need to becoem MUCH more expensive, both
to build AND maintain. =o)

Then again, the smaller Fighter bay and possible *shrinking* fighter bay would,
itself, boost the Fighter Base as well .. a NEEDED addition.

Shane Terpstra

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an

That and the ability to redirect a squadron to another target,
(ship, missile, fighter, etc...), would make fighters worth their
weight in gold as a defensive item. If used properly that is.
Especially in the early game. Hmm... Kamakaze fighters??
Maybe...

The Bruhns

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an

Shane Terpstra wrote:

Yes, now there's an injustice, not being able to direct your fighters
after launch. Kinda makes me wonder why they didn't just treat the
fighter swarm as a ship as far as tactical control goes...every round
giving you the option of changing their target. I guess it had
something to do with them having limited shots to fire before needing to
return to their launch point, either that or the programmers just had
other things to do and this one slipped through the cracks perhaps.

Simon Juncal

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an
"Arc.Smiloid" wrote:
> I'd like to pose a question.. would you give 30 space to have 4 of your
> best PD guns strapped onto little engines and launched from you ship?

As others have pointed out the PD modification is only the requirement
that must be met before your fighters can use that beam, not the actual
beam they use.



> sure, those 4 PD guns always hit, and have almost infinite range..

Yes but can take a while to get on target, sometimes "moving on" to
ships you've marked for boarding/takover (with Dauntless GS).



> However, they can be shot down, shields prevent much of the damage, and must
> return to the ship after firing 4 times... for 30 space that doesn't
> minaturize OR gain modifications.

To tell you how effective I've always found fighters to be, I've never
realized they returned after 4 turns... they've always either been
wiped out (against superior tech) or the combat only lasted 4 or 5
turns with the fighters moving on to new ships.



> My question is: are fighter bays worth the space?

Hell yeah, I don't know about multiplayer but anything that requires
no refitting... is effectively 4 or your best beam weapons at the cost
of 30 space, and is independent of your ship once launched, has a
high utility...

How much are 4 phasors going to cost you (space wise)? after a quite
a bit of research they will get down to 10x4 = 40 space, meanwhile
when they are only slightly miniaturized (just gotten the HM and PD
modification) you can fit 4 or them on your ship for 30 space, via
fighters... Add to this that they have no range penalties, and they
continue to fire even if your ship is destroyed, they soak up enemy
beam weapons, can attack enemy fighters, get the "dauntless GS"
advantage like missiles...

I use fighters even into hyper advanced games... they slowly become
less and less useful, however even at their least useful they
tend to absorb the majority of the enemy's first turn worth of
beam attacks.

> could it be toned down to 25.. or even 20?!?

30 is perfect, and I love fighters... I'd love to be able to pack
100 of them on one carrier ship... but it's not necessary and would
make the large carrier strategy a breeze in single play.

Fighters get automatically upgraded for shield, armor, computer and
beam weapon, if you have PD'able phasors, class X shield, Xentronium
Armor (or whatever that Orion armor is), the best computer, if you
have 16 fighter bays (I do 4 to a slot usually, almost always a lot
more than 16 total) that's 64 fighters, which will almost certainly
destroy any CP ship within a turn or two, a little longer for a
doomstar, but the only CP race that ever seems to get Doomstar
construction are the Psilons.

IMHO you could make the CP's harder by making Titan and Doomstar
construction either already researched or always available regardless
of creative/normal/uncreative. I've never bought the idea that a
simple "larger ship" progression should be an actual tech advance,
that is one of the few things in the tech tree I have a real problem
with. Like the early techs that give you all in the category, if you
could tie them together with the other advances at that level, the
game would be more challenging in single play. If you can treat them
like Colony/Outpost/Transport (i.e. you get all of them for your
research), I'd say go for it...

It sucks realizing, late in a game that your closest competitor,
with similar tech level is 100% doomed, by the fact that his
biggest ship is a battleship, which your titans and DS's can
obliterate and/or capture almost at will, because they can fit
10 times more stuff, and have a lot more marines.

--
Simon co List Admin Capi...@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/

Andreas Koch

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an

> doomstar, but the only CP race that ever seems to get Doomstar
> construction are the Psilons.
>

Hmmm... had that with various other races too - if you wait long
enought until they are hype-tech.


> It sucks realizing, late in a game that your closest competitor,
> with similar tech level is 100% doomed, by the fact that his
> biggest ship is a battleship, which your titans and DS's can
> obliterate and/or capture almost at will, because they can fit
> 10 times more stuff, and have a lot more marines.

Hm... in MY games MOST Races seem to develop titans...
Are you playing with the latest patches and difficult or
better rating ?

Andreas


Martin Leslie Leuschen

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an
One place where fgts are useful is a combat-heavy race.
With +50 Att and +50 Def, fgts can kill a lot of stuff.

Regards,
maritnl


Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
22.03.2000, 03:00:0022.03.00
an
Learn something everyday.. Now that you bring it up, I do remember fighters
being equipped with normal beam weapons.

However, fighters are going to be facing stiff resistance from the new AMR's
And I have dropped interceptors to 25 space for a test go. Untill of course
I find a way to modify how healthy fighters are.

Nuclear missiles, Merc, Pulson, Zeon are at 10, 20, 30, 40 damage now..

Beams have been weakened into a few categories of weaponry. High-damage,
Range, average, and special.

High-Damage beams are generally large in space and cost deal lots of damage
but suffer greatly at long distances. Fusion Cannon, Graviton Cannon,
Plasma Cannon, Mauler, Death Ray

Range beams are basic space and cost, deal average damage and suffer nothing
from range. Mass Driver, Gauss cannon, Disruptor

Average beams are basic space and cost, an average between High-Damage and
Range dealing more damage than ranged weapons, but suffer some when ranged.
Laser Cannon, Neutron Blaster, Phasor, Particle Beam.

Ship hulls are set like so:
New Old
Class Armor Hull Armor Hull
Frigate 50 50 4 4
Destroyer 70 70 10 10
Cruiser 130 130 30 30
Battleship 200 200 50 50
Star Base 250 250 60 60

Armor modifiers are as such:
New Old
Titanium 100% 100%
Tritanium 150% 200%
Zortrium 200% 400%
Neutronium 250% 600%
Adamantium 300% 800%
Xentronium 400% 1000%
(I realise this will make Antaran attacks nearly impossible to stop..
Frigates with 400 health. But is that so bad? =)
(I left out Titans, Doom Stars, and Stations after the Star Base because I
want to focus on making a balance with these before moving on.)

Thoughts, Comments, Flames.. all widely appreciated.

Tony Suessine

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an
Arc.Smiloid <jho...@icrossroads.com> wrote in message
news:38d96...@skyview.icrossroads.com...

> Armor modifiers are as such:
> New Old
> Titanium 100% 100%
> Tritanium 150% 200%
> Zortrium 200% 400%
> Neutronium 250% 600%
> Adamantium 300% 800%
> Xentronium 400% 1000%

I love the xarmor part. Unfortunately, once you capture
an ANt you have the game. Though capturing would
more difficult. A successful raid on Antares, if done
with EMG mercs, would cinch the game. I suppose
Lith/dem/ahw would inch ahead of uni/tol as the best
race. Take orion and win (i seem to get xarmor 2 of
3 times)

Tony


Jeremy D. Balsley

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an

Sickening thought for today for the hacker types modifying MOO2. PD
Stellar Converters. Squadron of Fighters. Need I say more? :)

Michael Sandy

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an
BillChin <wchin8N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> About making repulsive -14, seems like every human player would
> take that especially on impossible difficulty when all the
> computer players want to do is crush you.

Humans can't take more than -10 in negative picks.

Michael Sandy

plub...@my-deja.com

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an
In article <20000321192932...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,

gm...@aol.com.xanth (Sean) wrote:
> Personally, I'd just like to see them MINATURISE ... and I'm fairly
sure
> theywould have one small bit of data (an on/off switch if you will)
that tells
> the computer if it can or cannot miniaturise.
>
> Let them miniaturise, and when you're far enough advanced ... they
get VERY
> small.
>
> Though, on second thought, 1/3 rate of miniaturisation would be
better. That
> might work, if there's some sort of "look-up table" for size based on
tech.
> =o) Then instead of dropping to 1/4 size in FIVE levels, it'd do it
in ten or
> FIFTEEN levels, which is a chunkof research. =o)
I'm not sure yet, but as far as I remember the mooniac data,
miniaturisation rate is always the same. But looking for a switch is a
good idea.

> Hell, even COMBINED with the base 20 size ...
>
> As a side affair, I'd also like to see planetary Fighter Bases
improved:
> instead of refilling in TEN turns (by which time they're usually
dead) let them
> refill as fast as torpedos: every other turn. Then ... WATCH OUT ...
heh.
> True SWARMS of fighters, since I'e seen bases dropping 40
interceptors at a
> time. After 10 turns, that's be 200 fighters, minues losses.
>
> I would EVEN be willing to hazard a "replace them all every turn"
attempt. Bt
> if so ... then the base itself would need to becoem MUCH more
expensive, both
> to build AND maintain. =o)
>
> Then again, the smaller Fighter bay and possible *shrinking* fighter
bay would,
> itself, boost the Fighter Base as well .. a NEEDED addition.
Don't think this will work; rules state the exact number (40 equals 300
space). A check with heavies (16 = 320) rather suggests the numbers
might be fix. But I'll give it a try.
- Peter


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Dwight E. Howell

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an

Jeremy D. Balsley wrote in message ...

>
>Sickening thought for today for the hacker types modifying MOO2. PD
>Stellar Converters. Squadron of Fighters. Need I say more? :)
>
>

That would make them a lot more effective I suppose.

plub...@my-deja.com

ungelesen,
23.03.2000, 03:00:0023.03.00
an
In article <38d96...@skyview.icrossroads.com>,
"Arc.Smiloid" <jho...@icrossroads.com> wrote:

> However, fighters are going to be facing stiff resistance from the
new AMR's

Read somewhere that this was stated in the rules, but I think it was
changed. Never seen fighters been attacked by AMRs.

> Armor modifiers are as such:
> New Old
> Titanium 100% 100%
> Tritanium 150% 200%
> Zortrium 200% 400%
> Neutronium 250% 600%
> Adamantium 300% 800%
> Xentronium 400% 1000%

Big question: which editor do you use for this?? Right now I toy around
with OCL, but I can't change armor factor with it.

S. McCaig

ungelesen,
24.03.2000, 03:00:0024.03.00
an
> As others have pointed out the PD modification is only the requirement
> that must be met before your fighters can use that beam, not the actual
> beam they use.

Im fairly sure that the 4 fighters/squadron have the PD version of the beam
weapon. I believe that the 4 fighters hit as one though, allowing their
damage to be added, then applied to shields/armour, allowing class III
shields to be overcome via pd mass drivers. Im almost 100% sure that a
squad of 4 pd massdriver fighters do 12 pts of damage total and not 24 as
would be the case given regular drivers. Since pd drivers are damage = 3,
and there are 4 fighters per squad. This can be tested, but watch the fact
that fighters often fire twice in rapid succession (end of one rnd,
beginning of another?) so that it may appear they did 24 damage. Just fire
up a multi game with a bud, use cheat codes, and test it out. I've done
plenty of tests like this, but a long time ago, and I cant remember for 100%
sure whether this is the case. Also, I know that they dont get the effects
of the battle scanner :-( but do upgrade their comps even without the
mothership upgrading. They definitely do not gain any mods available for
the pd beam they are using


From someone who was obsessed with fighters in multiplay for a long, long
time, they just dont cut the mustard when compared to ever improving missile
tech. Once nukes go mirv, the fighter ships are in a heap of trouble. Once
Mercs go mirv, fighters cant even come close to competing.

If I had my way regarding improving fighters, I think a general boost to
their speed, the ability to manually retarget each round, slightly improved
armour, and slightly greater chance to hit than current computer tech
(like, 10% or so) are more necessary than shrinking them. I'd take more
armour or greater hit % over smaller size anyday. You can fit 12 squads on
a bb, or 9 or so with heavy armour. Thats plenty. Particularly if they
survive long enough to return to the carrier to be repaired/refueled.
Remember, all enveloping weapons (fusion mod, or plasma, stellars etc) hit 4
times. So, a single plasma beam (regular) will kill an entire squad of
fighters if it hits. The fighters are less armoured than missiles
( Doesnt take long to remove the teeth of a mothership.

> Hell yeah, I don't know about multiplayer but anything that requires
> no refitting... is effectively 4 or your best beam weapons at the cost
> of 30 space, and is independent of your ship once launched, has a
> high utility...

Fighters are weak in multiplay. Without computer tech they cant hit much,
and without reinforced hull, the mothership always dies before the missile
boat it has to go up against. Not to mention the fighters are slower than
the missiles.

>
> Fighters get automatically upgraded for shield, armor, computer and
> beam weapon, if you have PD'able phasors, class X shield, Xentronium
> Armor (or whatever that Orion armor is), the best computer, if you

Unfortunately, fighters dont gain shield tech. Thats a shame. That would
add quite a bit to their survivability. That alone might help them out, but
the most glaring weakness is against missile ships, since you cant retarget
them after firing, and they are slower than the missiles, with the same
engine tech.

JT

(Obsessed with Naval tactics/carrier groups in mooII)


Arc.Smiloid

ungelesen,
24.03.2000, 03:00:0024.03.00
an
> Sickening thought for today for the hacker types modifying MOO2. PD
> Stellar Converters. Squadron of Fighters. Need I say more? :)

Whats worse is that:

PD on stellar converters qualifies them for use on fighters =]

So, now you have interceptors equipped with a Stellar Converter each!!
OUCH!! each fighter does 1600 ENV damage!!

That my friends... is death.

EvilBill

ungelesen,
25.03.2000, 03:00:0025.03.00
an
"Arc.Smiloid" <jho...@icrossroads.com> wrote in message

D'OH!
;)

--
Hugh: "Resistance is... NOT futile."
EvilBill's home page: http://members.xoom.com/EvilBill/
E-mail: evil...@nutter.swinternet.co.uk. ICQ number: 37464244
Get paid to surf the web: http://www.alladvantage.com/join.asp?refid=dtd-950

Simon Juncal

ungelesen,
25.03.2000, 03:00:0025.03.00
an
"S. McCaig" wrote:
> Fighters are weak in multiplay. Without computer tech they cant hit much,
> and without reinforced hull, the mothership always dies before the missile
> boat it has to go up against. Not to mention the fighters are slower than
> the missiles.

Welp you hit the crux of the argument, you're leaning towards
multiplayer, while I'm thinking of single play... the CP's
simply don't ever build missile boats which makes fighters
viable even into hyperadvanced tech levels...

Now I've had Kali for years now, but I've seen all of 1 or 2
games of Moo2 in the launcher, and chat servers that are
usually entirely empty or have at most 2 or 3 people on them.
My point here is what takes precedence? Multiplayer against
increasingly rare to nonexistent opponents or the single play?

Sean

ungelesen,
25.03.2000, 03:00:0025.03.00
an
>Now I've had Kali for years now, but I've seen all of 1 or 2
>games of Moo2 in the launcher, and chat servers that are
>usually entirely empty or have at most 2 or 3 people on them.
>My point here is what takes precedence? Multiplayer against
>increasingly rare to nonexistent opponents or the single play?

Go to Server #597

Check the link to the Kali MOO2 League

LOTS of members. But it's a world-wide league, so yes, except nights,
weekends, and weekend nights (in order from least to most likely to succeed),
finding opponents can be tough.

But never never NEVER use the launcher. It uses the HIGHLY unstable Windows
version. ugh!

Andreas Koch

ungelesen,
25.03.2000, 03:00:0025.03.00
an

"Arc.Smiloid" schrieb:

> PD on stellar converters qualifies them for use on fighters =]
>
> So, now you have interceptors equipped with a Stellar Converter each!!
> OUCH!! each fighter does 1600 ENV damage!!
>
> That my friends... is death.

Destroy every planet in this Galaxy ? [Yes][Sure]

Andreas


The Bruhns

ungelesen,
25.03.2000, 03:00:0025.03.00
an

Simon Juncal wrote:

> Now I've had Kali for years now, but I've seen all of 1 or 2
> games of Moo2 in the launcher, and chat servers that are
> usually entirely empty or have at most 2 or 3 people on them.
> My point here is what takes precedence? Multiplayer against
> increasingly rare to nonexistent opponents or the single play?

You must be looking in the wrong place. We don't use the launcher, we gather at
server #597, particularly nights/weekends. We're there, and games are being
played. Sometimes you have to wait a bit to get 4+ player games going, but
they're pretty easy to get into especially on weekends. Check out the Kali MOO2
league (http://www.pixelexiq.com/moo2), they've got a good DOS Setup link on the
main page that will help you get set up.

People are more than happy to help players new to multiplay get up and running,
also, so don't be shy on the server.

Considering the age of this game, there is a nicely sized community out there
that plays.

-Victor Bruhn
(Gusset)

Andreas Koch

ungelesen,
26.03.2000, 03:00:0026.03.00
an


> But never never NEVER use the launcher. It uses the HIGHLY unstable Windows
> version. ugh!

Highly? Does this refer the the win version of MOO2 itself? It works
pretty
stable for me... except scrolling down large ship stacks and some AI
actions that seem to crash the game sometimes ... will these be gone if
using the
DOS-Version ?


Andreas

Sean

ungelesen,
26.03.2000, 03:00:0026.03.00
an
>
>Highly? Does this refer the the win version of MOO2 itself? It works
>pretty
>stable for me... except scrolling down large ship stacks and some AI
>actions that seem to crash the game sometimes ... will these be gone if
>using the
>DOS-Version ?

Unstable in the sense that, in MULTIPLAYER, the game randomly crashes or hangs.

Oleg

ungelesen,
27.03.2000, 03:00:0027.03.00
an
S. McCaig wrote:

> Im fairly sure that the 4 fighters/squadron have the PD version of the beam
> weapon. I believe that the 4 fighters hit as one though, allowing their
> damage to be added, then applied to shields/armour, allowing class III
> shields to be overcome via pd mass drivers. Im almost 100% sure that a
> squad of 4 pd massdriver fighters do 12 pts of damage total and not 24 as
> would be the case given regular drivers.


Well, you are wrong on this one. 1 fighter squadron with MD does
24 damage to unshielded target, 20 to cI shielded target and 12 to
c3 shields. I've made a hotseat game and checked it all.
There is no question whatsoever that fighters (and heavy fighters)
are equiped with regular beams. What the Moo manual tried to say is
that anly lasers, fussion beams, mass drivers, phasers and partical
beams can be used by fighters The criteria is the availability of
PD modification although it is not used per se on fighters.


> From someone who was obsessed with fighters in multiplay for a long, long
> time, they just dont cut the mustard when compared to ever improving missile
> tech. Once nukes go mirv, the fighter ships are in a heap of trouble. Once
> Mercs go mirv, fighters cant even come close to competing.
>
>

> (Obsessed with Naval tactics/carrier groups in mooII)

Did you play the X-wing scenario for Moo2?? I had so much fun playing
it. For example, I found one very interesting feature of bombers:

Everyone knows that bombers in moo2 are practicaly useless.
They have to travel to target, drop one bomb, travel back, etc.
And all this time they are exposed to fire and die very quickly.

But they can be devastating if launched from point
blank distance:

Carrier ship has low initiative (or it can be achieved by pressing
"wait"), and once enemy finishes its turn, should move close to
enemy ships and launch bombers. In this case, only the point
defence weapons of the targeted ship can fire. At the
beginning of the next turn, bombers immediately return to the
mother ship _before_ any enemy ships could fire. More importanly,
this reurn trip is _free_ !! When it is your turn, all
bombers are refuelled, loaded and ready to fire again. Using
this tactics, it is possible to bombard enemy ships every single turn
and your bombers are always protected by ship's shield and armour.
This is not a case for fighters which hang up in space after firing
and are exposed to enemy fire.


It would be interesting to increase drastialy the damage done by
bombs and the shielding factor of planetary shields, so only bombs
could be used effectively against planet. It could revitalise bombers
and boast AI ships which always carry few bombs on board.


unfortunately, lightning field finishes bombers very quickly
regardles of any tricks :(


Oleg.

S. McCaig

ungelesen,
28.03.2000, 03:00:0028.03.00
an
>
> Well, you are wrong on this one. 1 fighter squadron with MD does
> 24 damage to unshielded target, 20 to cI shielded target and 12 to
> c3 shields. I've made a hotseat game and checked it all.
> There is no question whatsoever that fighters (and heavy fighters)
> are equiped with regular beams. What the Moo manual tried to say is
> that anly lasers, fussion beams, mass drivers, phasers and partical
> beams can be used by fighters The criteria is the availability of
> PD modification although it is not used per se on fighters.
>

Hey, thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of the way fighters work.
Im pretty sure I've done the same experiment as you but vs a buddy on the
net. I have no idea why I believed things were different than the way you
state them. It has been quite a long time, but I think I woulda remembered
;-)

Anyway, holy crap, phasor'd fighters with regular beams...

SM

Allen antworten
Dem Autor antworten
Weiterleiten
0 neue Nachrichten