AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent

[PvK]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
...

quote:

---

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

QB, I know you had many thoughts about Organic Armor as well as Armor in general. Perhaps you may elaborate on this topic?
You also touched on the benefits of the 184 se4 gold patch, could you expand on this some more?

Sorry I am not sure what Oleg is saying??? Organic armor seems to be very strong post 184
...

---

Pre-1.84, Organic Armor generated "healing" points every turn, even before it was damaged at all. So in the usual situation, where there are a few turns before a ship gets hit, the ship would accumulate a large amount of "pre-healing". Oftentimes, a ship with much Organic Armor on it would repair all of its destroyed armor, perhaps multiple times, in a single turn, unless all of it was destroyed in a single turn. So, pre-1.84, it could be pretty durn effective (and in a way that didn't make a heck of a lot of sense).

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

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

PvK

[QBrigid]

Thanks PVK.

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

[Fyron]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
Thanks PVK.

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

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

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:

I think the armor skipping weapons are fine as they are. My concern is the fact that Temporals or Crystallites can stack the Armor to there benifit. When the needed help that se4 v1.84 upgrade can give in this area is ignored then this is a concearn to me.

Your original post is an interesting one with players adding to your subject as it applies to Armor stacking and the less then effective means to combat Armor Skipping races when you are for example a Psychic Player.

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

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

Originally posted by JLS:

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

Reply by QBrigid:
�Nope. I like the derection and Posts that you and Fyron discussed about SJ's leaky armor for UNLIMITIED internal support armor and the new AIC Exterior Hull Plating that would be LIMITED to the amount of HULLS a ship has �

If one was to say that the (scaled, Plate Armor) designed by PvK and introduced in Proportions is ABSOLUTELY THE BEST armor in the se4 pre Adamant genertation, would you believe this to be true? You must consider this when you design your Ships and bases, because it is the best and (PvKs Plate Armor) is the TUFFEST to penetrate in se4.

Originally posted by QBrigid:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

- - -

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

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

[Fyron]

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

In the latest Versions of FQM, there are "Mid-life No AST" quadrants, which have only 2 asteroid "fields" in most systems. The quadrant is otherwise identical to the equivalent Mid-life quadrant. This provides an option to keep the other FQM aspects, while not having so many asteroids around. You can easily make No AST Versions of most quadrants, simply by copying the Mid-life ones and changing the first 6 or so lines to match Cluster, Grid, etc. type maps, as most quadrants are identical except for the WP placement fields and such (they have the exact same system entries). This does not apply to the more exotic quadrants though, such as Ancient, Newborn, Old, Paradise, and so on.

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

Fyron does have the feel on the FQM Players pulse

I wish this were true, but unfortunately, only an extremely small minority of FQM players ever mention anything about their feelings on the mod to me, and only after I nag them too...

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

[JLS]

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

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

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

[JLS]

Originally posted by QBrigid:
JLS origionaly had higher Gestation Vat values with earlier Versions of AIC and as I recall you thought this should be reduced then. I also agree we now should go back to the old 2.xx GV Values.

QB, I believe Oleg's current recommendation is for a Facility with increased System reproduction rate for ALL players.

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

= = =
However, as Oleg OA comment points out ,,, Combined with PvK and Fyrons defined OA Posts. We all should agree, this will need to be reevaluated with Organic Race balance considerations to address any recent se4 OA regenerative changes.

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

[Fyron]

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

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

Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy.

[QBrigid]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Thus, the compromise of adding extra quadrants that use systems with few asteroids. Everybody is happy.

You will make the next FQM Version with maps that only have 3 or 4 Asteroides per system.

Thanks Fyron

[QBrigid]

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

I don't want to leave the Psychic tech tree

I believe Oleg's current recommendation is for a Facility with increased System reproduction rate for ALL players.
- - -
The reduction in Organic GV facility values Last year was in part, a compromise of the overall Organic Race benefit package.

Sorry Oleg I misunderstood
Like you guys said, for all players just add a little more reproduction to the AIC system Bio Hospitals.

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

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