AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent - Page 130

Spoo · #**1291** January 29th, 2004, 07:39 PM

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

As I understand it:

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

JLS · #**1292** January 29th, 2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I agree with you that their comments were a bit sarcastic. I have aked them to be more careful in the future.

Spoo the moderaters have asked for the Fyron subject to be closed.
We would like to continue AIC related Topics only on this thread.

Thanks, JLS.

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

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

geoschmo · #**1293** January 29th, 2004, 07:43 PM

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

Geoschmo

Spoo · #**1294** January 29th, 2004, 11:11 PM

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

Grand Lord Vito · #**1295** January 30th, 2004, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by Loser:
Nice explanation.

Now break up that monster, you grammar-savage.

Maybe I should make it one single sentence. With no caps. And no punctuation.

thank you fyron your views are explained fine
it was just some of the comments i did not understand

JLS · #**1296** January 30th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:
I suggest to lower the cost of Starliner

With the AIC 4.0 changes, perhaps the time has come to balance this allowing OS* (off) to be a little more competitive with OS* on.

- - -

Quote:

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

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

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

- - -

Quote:

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

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

- - -

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?

- - -

Quote:

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

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

- - - - - -

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

- - -

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

= = = = =

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

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

oleg · #**1297** January 30th, 2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

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

??? PvK' plain armor is exactly the Leaky Armor !

It is just how you call it

JLS · #**1298** January 30th, 2004, 04:46 PM

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

Quote:

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

Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed?

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

JLS · #**1299** January 30th, 2004, 05:07 PM

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

PvK Proportions Armor Plates.

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

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

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

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

= = = =

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

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

oleg · #**1300** January 30th, 2004, 05:46 PM

Quote:

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

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

Not intending to dishonorably pick Fyrons post apart. The first sentence eludes to Leaky Armor not having ARMOR ABILITY. Is that sentence misunderstood and is this what PvK proposed?

Fyron' explanation is exactly what Proportions/AIC "plain" armor is - no armor ability and a lot of hit points

_Ablative_ armor in this mod is a SEIV standard armor