XWTMod Beta Thead is Dead.....

[xeryx]

NOTE: I have made alot of changes since this download was posted. Once I finish my testing (should be very soon) and incorperate into the latest patch. I will re-release this mod as verion 1.0. For now I have taken down the links for download. As it is a moot point to have you download. (Because of the new patch, and the many changes) Hopefully in a week I'll repost them. THANK YOU for all your help and Patience.

This mod would fall under Technology and Weapon MOD.

I was truly unsatisfied with the way the AI was building ships. I also did not like the mods for the weapons, fighter weapons, fighters, missiles, etc.

So I have been working on this mod for about 5 weeks now and put on over 100 hrs on it.

I feel that it is still BETA. It will NOT cause any crashes. I have thoroughly tested that. I am not 100% positive all of the things I have put in, work the way I want them too.
I will need help testing them. I feel that this could be a SIGNIFIGANT improvement over the old system.

Here is the list of some changes :

Ship Weapons Mounts:
==============================================
Increased size of Spinals. (To more accurately reflect what they are suppose to do)
Reordered the mounts for efficient computer usage.
(Thanks Visage)
Changed size and cost of some mounts. The PD mount has a Fire rate increase.

Weapons: THESE WORK GREAT!!
=============================================
Switched Mass driver to Gauss cannon positions for theoretical reasons.(Mass drivers are used for Launching LARGE items)
Moved Quark Cannon after Gauss cannon and modified.

Changed all Improvement mods.heres a ahort summary.
-Removed Multifire-Showed no real benefit.
-Removed improved (incorperated other mods)
NEW MODS FOR WEAPONS
*Pulse fire (Beams) 1/2 the fire rate. -20% range, +10% shield and armor piercing.
*Ultra-fire (Mass): 1/2 the fire rate, -20% accuracy
*High density projectiles(Mass)- +20% damage.
*Targeting module- +20% accuracy, -10% space, +20% damage
delta.
*Overloaded (Plasma): 2x Damage point blank
Enveloping (Plasma): still 1/2 shields
*AP: 40% armor piercing
*Shield Piercing: 30% shield damage.
*Continuous: -20 LR damage,+30 Accuracy, 10% shield and Armor piercing.
*FLUX Capacitor (Beams):+20% to near damage,+10% far damage
More to be posted

The computer now uses ALL weapons mods, because of the space costing only .999. It see that as an improvement (Thanks Sirian & Visiage).

Fighters: (AWESOME:Bombers really boost planetary defenses)
==============================================
I renamed the SCFC to Heavy fighter.
*Added Bomber, and Heavy Bomber.
*Added Ecm and Eccm pods to chassis. TEST GOOD
*Added Hard beam , Disintegrator beam, and
-Removed Death beam.

Each fighter weapon now has a Mod. (I am still working on their descriptions). The mods are not as powerful as their ship counterparts.

-Problem: Could NOT change speed of fighters or bombers.

Missiles: NEED MORE TESTING Last thing I've put in.
==============================================
(Removed does not work)I have recalibrated Missile chassis values to reflect range and damage capabilities. I.E. The smaller the missile, the shorter the range

*I added Nova Cluster to missile warhead options, it's a Mirv system. -25% damage, 4 missiles.
*Added an Optical Targeting system for missile chassis.(ECCM)(Works)
*Added ECM generator for missile chassis.
AP- Now has 50% piercing abiliity @ 20% Increase.

Missiles accuracies start at 70% and work up by tech.
I increased warhead strengths.(Up one level)
Proper display of Reloads, and racks.

Other Tech Changes:
==============================================
Tech slowdown: 100 turns = 10 levels
Ship's Armor Doubled= To improve durability of ships.

I have changed many of the tech levels for MANY things.There are a couple of things I felt you should not have at the start of the game.

You will have the fighter base at the start but all of the others you have to research and they are not guaranteed.
Speaking of guarantees, all armors (not Mods (Thicknesses)) are all guaranteed now.
There are more.

This is a BETA Mod. It will not crash the game. I'm just interested in people testing it and giving me thier opinions. I am still working on the descriptions of some things. The normal weapons, fighters, and missiles have way to generic decriptions for my taste. So please at least try this mod so that I can get your feedback. And so that I can improve this mod.

THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

[ID-Fei]

You have said that you have varied the range of the missiles according to their size.

I would like to know how did you do that.... and if there is a way to vary the range of the interceptors. I have a thread about the interceptor range up, but ppl seem to tell me that it is hard-coded.

If you'd like to read it here it is.

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=306697

[xeryx]

I have not had a chance to verifiy, the missiles yet. I am still testing. I have chassis mods that also need tested. As soon as it is posted on the MOO3 mods site I will update post. The Computer handles missiles range different than Fighter ranges. So I don't think that it is possible.

[xeryx]

Can anyone host me! Moo3.mods is going kinda slow.

[Velli]

What's wrong with moo3mods, it's the best place in the net ? Try putting it to the moo3 guardian (www.moo3.at) then.

[xeryx]

I lost thier bookmark, I posted it to them too. hopefully it will be available soon.

[Minor Annoyance]

If you get any information either from your own testing or reports from others on how the range changes on missiles works out be sure to spread it around. I'm very interested in the results.
I never thought to try that and it may be a great way to balance missiles. Another idea I just came up with is to make a missile with extremely short range, but huge dammage and call it a bomb, but since ground bases arn't that hard to kill, they wouldn't be nessesary. But the short range PD missiles may make them actually fire on incoming missiles/fighters instead of enemy ships.

[InfoStorm]

I've mentioned once or twice the need of a "bomb" type weapon, that has no range what so ever... useless in space combat, but because it's there, it should help during the planetary bombardment phase. Does anything think this is possible. It doesn't need to be a missile weapon in the works of the game, if a direct fire works, it would be cool.

Anyone have thought on how to do this?

[Beamup]

It might well work to just make it a powerful weapon with all the range stats set to 1 (it would HAVE to be DF since only they have limited range). This would make it worthless in battle, but unless bombardment considers range, it would be used there. Should be easy to test, too - give it insane stats, put a bunch of it and nothing else on a ship, and have it bombard. If the planet is glassed, it is being counted in bombardment.

But, if range is a factor in bombardment (can't see why it should be, but it might) this wouldn't work well.

This might well confuse the AI, too.

[visage]

How much of this stuff have you tested? I know, I know, you haven't tested all of it :), but I'm wondering what you have.

For example:

Your fighter chassis modify a bunch of stuff that I'm sort of dubious about. What do you think damagcap and fragility do? Has someone found those stats to actually do anything?

I'm fairly certain that missile range changes are impossible. Furthermore, missile accuracy suffers no range dropoff (missiles are always assumed to be attacking from range 0, AFAICT); this means that your accuracy improvement mod isn't going to do much.

Why do you increase the power of missiles? Ah, I see you've generally increased the power of weapons across the board, as well as increasing armor values. Have you also increased shield points? How much armor piercing is in your mod?

Random thing I noticed: WRT the Pulsed mod... You should be aware of what impacts firedlay mods have on Autobuild selection.

[xeryx]

@visage: Damagcap and fragility are hit points and internals respectively. No there is not a range drop off, it effects the base accuracy of the missile. It is handled the same way as damage drop off. So the nuclear warhead has a 70% accuracy rating. When you add the a.t.o.s. system, it should double that accuracy. Therefore, giving it the ability to penetrate ecm. And yes these add ons need more testing. My initial testing has been very limited but seem promising.

The shields have not been increased yet. I want to test the overall power of the weapons and their mods first.

I decreased the range of technilogical advancement for the weapons ( mods ) in hope to extend the life or obsolesence of the weapons.

As far as the pulse and ultra fire, my intention is to have the computer use these mods instead of multi fire. So far, the ai uses all mods correctly. I.E. phasers, which are pulsed (decrease range by 20%) and have the flux capacitor ( extend the range ). For a short range ship, it will use both mods. But for a long range ship, it will only use the flux capacitor.

@minorannoyance Bombs should be possible, all that should be required is to add in the tech. Then change the ranges to an extremely short range. It would still technically be a missile, but would still be counted for planetary bombardment. Sounds like a good idea to me.

I will be doing further testing on missiles this weekend, and will post my results.

My overall goal is to intensify the battles in space combat, and to make it feel more like a battle in Star Wars.

[Beamup]

Originally posted by xeryx
Damagcap and fragility are hit points and internals respectively. No there is not a range drop off, it effects the base accuracy of the missile. It is handled the same way as damage drop off. So the nuclear warhead has a 70% accuracy rating. When you add the a.t.o.s. system, it should double that accuracy. Therefore, giving it the ability to penetrate ecm. And yes these add ons need more testing. My initial testing has been very limited but seem promising.

Why do you think damagcap and fragility are hit points and internals? ESPECIALLY since those are exactly the same thing, not two different quantities? And what makes you think ECM has any effect whatsoever on accuracy? What evidence there is suggests exactly the opposite, AFAIK.

[Bhruic]

"Fragilty" and "DamagCap" are not in the executable, which means that they are not used.

Bh

[xeryx]

"Fragilty" and "DamagCap" are not in the executable, which means that they are not used.

Well if this is true then, I guess the bombers don't get a hp bonus? Are you 100% sure? How were you able to decrypt the EXE.? or what sources do you have?

OOPs. I should have said ECCM, Because the A.T.O.S. system gets both a targeting bonus and ECCM. I should have clarified.

So has anyone been playing it yet?

[rhyssana]

Originally posted by xeryx
<snip>
So has anyone been playing it yet?
have you? what i mean is, have you completed your testing?? have you done as much testing as you plan to do, and now you're just waiting for external feedback???

i ask because although i've downloaded it, i'm not ready to start a new game to play with someone's mods when they haven't done their own testing yet. the specific things you were trying to do sound very interesting, but there are various indications that your methods might not be reliable. so, though i obviously can't speak for anyone else who might've downloaded it, i personally am waiting to hear some results from your testing before i bother looking too closely at it.

that may sound more negative than i mean it - like other modders, i have a very heavily modded game already. in order to use your mod, i will have to merge it into what i've already got (and am happy with). i don't want to take the hour or two to do that unless i've seen your test reports and picked up any fixes you make as a result of your testing. which leads me back to my initial question - have you been playing with it?

thanks - not trying to be rude, and i'm quite interested in your results! i just don't want to take the time to merge unless i feel more confident than i currently do that the resulting game will be worth it...

-rhyssan

[xeryx]

I have also let the computer play, say 100 turns or say 250 then have jumped in and played. I have done some battles. and overall it seems to work pretty well. The combat is definately more accurate for point defences. As long as the I can't see anything, so I'll patrol BUG show up.

I travel for my Job. I spent the last five weeks making the mod. playing when I could.(which is just enough for a few battles) (i have tested the mod enough to know that it wont crash the game) That is why this is a beta. I also know that there are some very good people out there that might have more time and insight than I have. I fully intend on playing it on my next 4 days off. Starting NOW!!!!!!!:D

Use it, if you like. No biggie to me. I just want some feedback. some of the stuff may not work correctly in the game? For one reason or another. I have had a very busy month and I have been lucky to complete it (to BETA)
If you want to help, that's fine, if not do worry about it.
I'm not perfect and I'm sure my mod is not either.

So I would bet that we can't do any worse than Moo3's beta testers, now can we?

Why don't you install it into a seperate directory. and let the computer play for awhile. Then just hop in, an play some battles. I will do that with my laptop and home computer this weekend. I would network test but I've been so busy I forgot to order another copy of moo3? oops!!

@Visage: When I tested the Damage cap, Some of them did last longer than the others. The problem that PEAVED me was that I was unable to change the speed of them. I was hoping that they would launch seperately. They do not, they launch all in one group. I do know for sure that there were some that did survive longer. I do THINK that, those values are used.
I will leave it at that until I test more. I have a network and it would be ideal to test with that. Like I said earlier I need another copy of moo. Maybe I'll find it on sale at Babages.

BTW: I did contemplate, not releasing it in beta form. I was excited that I got everything to work, without crashing the game. So I tested it with the help of the auto turns. I have palyed with this mod for about 10 hours now. I figured that more of you would be as excited as I was, and would be willing to sign on.

These are my results so far,The weapons work great. The fighters and the Bombers work good too. The chassis mods (fighters and Missiles) are what primarily need tested to see if there is even any benefit to having them.

The missile ranges need tested also. I threw them in at the last minute. I will be posting some results tomorow for sure. They probably won't be as scientific as some of you might like.

Thanks for your comments they are greatly appreciated.

[rhyssana]

glad to hear you'll have some time soon (!!! :D !!!) - i've been checking this thread since you posted it, wanting to hear how your testing was going! (well, first waiting to hear that it was available, after the teaser you first posted... :) ) but honestly, i never expected it might crash the game - i want to know if the range mods work, and if you manage to make really different fighters (bombers), and if the ECM/ECCM for fighters does what you'd expect, and does changing accuracy on a missile have any actual effect and ..... that stuff. it all sounds really cool, but i don't have the kind of time/patience to do the really detailed testing needed to see if the specifics work the way you want them to.

i might go ahead and install a second copy of moo3 - that would let me play with it without having to merge in your mods. (and when i say heavily modded, i really mean heavily modded - merging is always such a pain... wish i knew of a free diff tool that deals with unicode! :mad: ) then at least it wouldn't take me all day to merge and find that i don't like something... (i haven't taken any combo mods partly for this reason - guess you'll end up being the reason i lose my excuse if i do this... :p )

oh - another thing. you said you've been working on it for 5 weeks, and i have little concept of time. you're based on the 1.2 patch stuff, right? and a final suggestion: once you're happy with the mod, work with velli to get some cool effects for the missile and fighter stuff you've done. he's done some really nice work on the beam weapons, and it looks like you could use some new combat effects to go with your new fighters and missile mods (minimally, the MIRV effect ought to be captured with new visuals! :) ). get him to make you some pink fighters - he'll love that...! ;)

so. i hope this all works really well, and just the way you planned! obviously it's not going to be perfect starting out - nothing is, to start with. but you've got some interesting ideas and i want to see how they play out. hopefully, the answer will be "quite well, once you make these few tweaks". :) i was rather put off by not seeing any test results by 3 days after you posted the mod, but i'm more optimistic now. will let you know what i see, if i do install a second copy... (i'm really enjoying my current game, so i'm not sure i'll get to it for a while)

-rhyssan

edit: last question. any chance of you adding a list to the readme of just the technames (or the \*xxxxxxxx symbol for it) that you added or changed in wsTechnology? as a merge aid, for when it becomes necessary? thanks!

[rhyssana]

just looking through the readme - it says you need

TECHTABLES.TXT, wSTRINGS.TXT, WEAPONS.TXT, and the FIGHTER.TXT
don't you also need MissileInfo.txt? it looks like it...

(also, just an fyi, you really meant wsTechnology for wstrings. and a total nit but to just prove i didn't miss it, fighter.txt is really fighterweapons.txt :) )

-rhyssan

[xeryx]

Only for the warhead damage increase. That's not really REQUIRED. Only the files listed are required. This is because I sorted the weapons and fighter weapons. I sorted them by class and tech level. I used this for modding purposes. So originally I put the restructured weapons and fighterweaps. in the TechTables.txt file. OOOPS! don't do that. Because the AI picks the fighter weaps. by order in the list. Just like the mounts. So in fear that it would do that with the ship weapons, I took them out of sequential order in the Techtable.txt. I left the Fighter weapons number and the weapons number the changed number. Because if it's using the Techtable for the order of importance of the weapon. Then I shouldn't have to change it in the Weapons, and fighter weapons. I hope that this makes sense.

[xeryx]

Thank you for your support and positive feedback.
Yes, this is done for 1.2.

As for the MIRV thing, (It is supose to multiply damage by 4. not shoot independant warheads. I do not think that that is at all possible) I haven't tested enough to know if I'm getting the 4 x damage yet. When I select that mod, the damage is not increased on the ship design screen. There just maybe some mod types that may not be attachable to chassis. It may have to be done to the warhead. But i thought I'd try it and see.

here's a tip, I used this when making the BETA Mod, I change the teck levels down to 0. I did this for all but the Fighter Chassis mods and the missiles. And the results for the ship weapons and fighters have been great!! The AI actually uses the ship weapons mods correctly. And that is what I spent the most time on and tested the most.

The bomber and heavy bombers work good as far as the damage they create. And I swear that they seemed like they took more damage. But them results could have been afoul.

Just, go out and have some fun with it. If nothing else I hope I've sparked some Ideas for other modders.

So, tomorrow I have to make a road trip in the morning and will be back to test in the afternoon and evening.

[rhyssana]

Originally posted by xeryx
Yes, this is done for 1.2.
:)
i expected so, but since i no longer have any idea how long it's been available... :confused:

As for the MIRV thing, (It is supose to multiply damage by 4. not shoot independant warheads. I do not think that that is at all possible)
i don't believe it's possible either, but you could have the graphical effect look like it did. it'd look really cool! :)

I haven't tested enough to know if I'm getting the 4 x damage yet. When I select that mod, the damage is not increased on the ship design screen. There just maybe some mod types that may not be attachable to chassis. It may have to be done to the warhead. But i thought I'd try it and see.
definitely worth a try, but as you'll find in other threads, you can't put just any modifier on any type tech and have it work - lots of times, not even on those that it looks like it should. one suggestion for testing - make the number really big, like *=1000. you should be able to tell if you're getting damage multiplied by 1000 in combat, even if it doesn't show on the design screen. 4 is harder to tell in testing.

here's a tip, I used this when making the BETA Mod, I change the teck levels down to 0. I did this for all but the Fighter Chassis mods and the missiles. And the results for the ship weapons and fighters have been great!! The AI actually uses the ship weapons mods correctly. And that is what I spent the most time on and tested the most.
that works for most things, but it can make things never be available. i ended up moving to using TL1 instead, and never had any more problems with no-shows. (i didn't try very hard to figure out why they didn't show up, just moved them. but someone else mentioned it in another thread around here somewhere too.)

The bomber and heavy bombers work good as far as the damage they create. And I swear that they seemed like they took more damage. But them results could have been afoul.
again, use really really big numbers to tell if the whole theory is valid, then you can put them back to what you really want to use in the end.

thanks for the file clarification - i looked to see what you'd changed, and thought it was an "essential" part of the mod as a whole. since you're still tweaking numbers, do you plan to balance everything when you're sure you're getting the effects you want? the missileinfo file not being a critical part means that the larger hulls are part of it but higher damage (and smaller!) missiles aren't necessarily. which makes me think the numbers will likely need tweaking to get the battle lengths to come to about what you're looking for. is that a fair statement?

thanks,
-rhyssan

[xeryx]

@Rysanna: Your are right on my wavelength. Balancing will definately be an issue. I increased the warhead strengths, due to the increased effeciveness of PD, pulse and Utrafire make the reapons fire more often. I may have to give missiles less space. But I feel that sometimes missiles are too powerful. What do you think? They are definately needed against planet defenses.

I will take your advice and boost the attributes extremely high and try it that way. For the missile and chassis mods.

I do like the mirv graphic idea, however I don't beleive that you can attach a graphic to options in the spreadsheets.

Thanks for the advice.

[rhyssana]

Originally posted by xeryx
@Rysanna: Your are right on my wavelength. Balancing will definately be an issue. I increased the warhead strengths, due to the increased effeciveness of PD, pulse and Utrafire make the reapons fire more often. I may have to give missiles less space. But I feel that sometimes missiles are too powerful. What do you think? They are definately needed against planet defenses.
they're definitely too powerful most of the time, or so it seems to me. but i'm not sure how your changes to other things will affect that - you might need them to be more powerful, if fewer of them hit!

but you need them to take on a planet, at least early game. which is as it should be - it *should* be very dangerous to take on a built-up planet! but it always seems like an all-or-nothing thing. either you have good enough missiles and the fight's a cakewalk, or you don't and you get creamed without dealing much damage at all. i find this to be less true now that i'm using visage's autobuild mod (along with bits and pieces of others, but that's the primary systemic change). i've only gotten very far in one game with my current set of mods, but the combats already seem way much more balanced. that's why i suggested you get with visage at some point - i like the balance he's achieved so far, and would like to see your mod end up with good balance as well. so i think he might be able to help with (or show you how to figure out) the numbers so the the end result is nicely balanced. :)


I do like the mirv graphic idea, however I don't beleive that you can attach a graphic to options in the spreadsheets.
ugh. you're right. darn!! that was such a cool thought i got lost in it... :(

-rhyssan

[Ron_Lugge]

IIRC, you can only have 1 graphic for missiles anyway - no changes based off of warheads / sizes.

[xeryx]

@ron :So if missiles can only have one graphic, then making energy torpedoes, is that out of the question?.

OK I went ot and BOUGHT another copy of MOO3 (used for $20) But that's better than $40. I've got my network running.
I have set up the Fighters and bombers. And Fighter ECM and ECCM. I will start testing that stuff today!!

It will be much easier to test in a controlled network environment.
So I should be able to get more accurate information.

[xeryx]

Ok, Networking sure makes this 10x easier!!!:p :p :p :p

I built 2 carrier task groups,
#1: Consisted of 2 frigate carriers W/ interceptors, Armed w/ lasers. No chassis mods.
#2: Consited of the same but with ECM and ECCM (Boosted way up for testing)

Enemy: Had 6 frigates armed with 5 light lasers. Light armor no shields. and nothing else.

Battle #1 with TG#1:
Pretty standard fight the enemy was able to destroy the first wave of fighters. ETG(enemy Task Group) only took light damage.

Battle #2 with TG#2:
The fighters CREAMED the ETG!!!. Because they could SEE but not SHOOT the enemy fighters(There we 2 occasions were the ETG could not see the fighters. The fighters were right over the ETG!)
. Only a couple of shots were fired from the ETG.

!!!This concludes that ECM and ECCM, will work as Chassis MODS!!!!

Other lessons learned.(from other prelim tests)
The different Chassis mods of bomber, and heavy bomber damages increases work.

Still under test
I am still unable to verify if the damage cap and fragality work yet that will be my next test.
MORE TO COME

[xeryx]

I won't bore you with details.

Bhuric and Visage are correct the Damage cap and Fragilty, Has no appearant effect.

One of my computers will be tied up tomorrow, so Net testing is out. But I will still be able to test. I will start on missile tests.

[rhyssana]

cool - this is all just what i wanted to know! (so in my arrogance, i'll declare that others wanted to know it too :p )

didn't get to do anything with the mod yet - too many other things going on in my computer atm...

-rhyssan

[xeryx]

The Symbiotic neural interface , for the fighters does not seem to help(Raises Max Accury by 30%). But Max accuracy is very hard to detect. I may try this again with higher values. And I'm sure that Visage tested this with higher values already. As an alternative I can try lowering the Firedelay. Faster reflexes=Faster firing? Sounds good to me.

@Visage: I'm a moron, I never read your post until today. (The Space combat mechanics guide.) But now you can update the fighters section to include ECM and ECCM as moddable items. I wonder if cloaking works? NAH Fighters would be too powerful then.

I am also changing the UNISPACE of the Fighters, Heavy Fighter, Bomber, and Heavy bomber. This is due to how the HP of fighters are calculated (according to visage). I may also need to revise the fighterweapons space as well. It really isn't fair to the laser fighters you know.;)

Balance is the key here, what a fine line to ride. My Bombers are way too powerful. Considering the space to damage ratio. So they are getting bulked up. I do have some ideas about misiles, and a little birdie gave me some very interesting test data. So we can expect some neat things to come.

OOPS! Just found a big blunder on my part. The Techtables file that is in the zip file, does NOT have the changes I made to the fighter weapons.
I will try and get it up on the boards with the fighter changes.

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by xeryx
@Visage: I'm a moron, I never read your post until today. (The Space combat mechanics guide.) But now you can update the fighters section to include ECM and ECCM as moddable items. I wonder if cloaking works? NAH Fighters would be too powerful then.

Cloaking wouldn't have any effect; it is meant for use on the strategic map. It helps make ships harder to detect on the way in, not once in. Thats why all the cloaks have deftgtrng as a modifier.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
Cloaking wouldn't have any effect; it is meant for use on the strategic map. It helps make ships harder to detect on the way in, not once in. Thats why all the cloaks have deftgtrng as a modifier.

Um, DefTgtRg is defensive targetting range, which is the same value that ECM has. In other words, Cloaks have the same effect in combat that ECMs do. Cloaks also have an additional effect ("Cloaking") that makes them harder to spot on the strategic map.

Bh

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Bhruic
Um, DefTgtRg is defensive targetting range, which is the same value that ECM has. In other words, Cloaks have the same effect in combat that ECMs do. Cloaks also have an additional effect ("Cloaking") that makes them harder to spot on the strategic map.

Bh

Isn't that what I just said? :confused:

[Bhruic]

No, you said that cloaking has no effect in combat - only on the strategic map. Somehow you used the fact they have "DefTgtRg" as justification for that, which seemed rather bizarre.

Bh

[Beamup]

No, he said that cloaking has no effect in combat and that cloaking devices also have deftgtrng to give them the same effect in combat...

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Bhruic
No, you said that cloaking has no effect in combat - only on the strategic map. Somehow you used the fact they have "DefTgtRg" as justification for that, which seemed rather bizarre.

Bh

I think you misunderstood me. I meant cloaking as in the modifier, not the device.

[Bhruic]

Ah, ok, that makes sense then. Although it didn't seem like that's what he was referring to, but I suppose that's debatable.

Bh

[xeryx]

Due to some, other things I found or did not find(The Improved fighter weapons list) So after putting them in and testing them. All the damage values for the appropriate weapon were off. After some investigating, I found that the fighterweapons.txt file was in a different order than the order of the weapons in the Techtables.txt, and the tags were old tags (had to fix them). So basically I spent my day between the other chaos', fixing the fighter weapons.
Since the fighter chassis only allows 2 more mods, Due to space constraints on the screen (This also caused a crash). I remove Sybiotic neural interface.:cry: I left ECM and ECCM in.

I will not get to the missile test until Saturday.. Family stuff to do.

I need to know if you all want me to post the updated files?

I was just kidding about the cloaked fighters .

[xeryx]

I will say this, PD works AWESOME.
The AI ALWAYS uses the highest rate of fire short range weapons, mostly the Mass weapons with all the mods over the higher tech short range weapons. Because it is going for the Rate of fire. So the ultrafire and pulse mods blow away the Multifire. The AI is also using the mods correctly for the LR and SR task forces. I will TRY and do some LAN missile testing tomorrow.

My single player findings. The IF ships have about 3-4 times the damage rating of the SR task forces. This is due to the dramatic difference in the PD performance. So far only 1.5x - 2x the damage is getting through. I have lowered the Costs of missile chassis signifigantly. This way your not blowing the money.
To verify ranges, I will have to LAN test.

BOMBERS, AND HEAVY BOMBERS RULE!!!. Especially for planetary defense. You guys are gonna LOVE this mod soon. Mabe if you would help. we could get it done sooner.

I HOPE there aren't any problems with compatibility with the new patch. But when testing is done. We'll have to retest.

[xeryx]

Range is NOT changable! I know you told me so. Mirv did not work as chassis mod. I will have to move Mirv to the Warhead options. Optical computer works. I have to adjust some things in the Missile.txt file to get the accuracys to work better. But they do seem to work. Because not all of my missles hit the Target hulls. I will test this more this weekend. I updated the Fighter weapons descriptions, well to be more descriptive. Fixed some typos in the ws technology file.

I would like some feedback on: For the mirv option I can use multifire which will make muliple missiles, or I can just do the x4 damage. What would you like to see!?

I can also add ECM, to the missiles. Most likely because it worked for the fighters.

Well it is almost complete.

I want to apologize if anyone felt misled. That was not my intentions. Maybe I should have posted this as an ALPHA. but since QS can do it , I can too ;) .

[xeryx]

Removed I.T.A.V. System, Replaced with Nova Cluster launch vehicle. The Nova Cluster take up same space and does 25% less damage per warhead. It launches 4 missiles shortly after leaving the launcher.

Also added an ECM Black Box for the missile chassis. It reduces DefTgtRg by 25% and only cost 15au. WHAT A Deal

Fixed the tech levels for the warheads, they were not evenly spaced in the tech tree.

Testing underway.

Results: (Saved for later)

[Ron_Lugge]

Just to make sure - you are aware that post-patch your spreadsheets won't work? Thats what I heard... (Something to the effect of "I'm trying to collect information on the changes in the spreadsheets to help modders update")

[xeryx]

I heard that they will, check out moo3 guardian there is more info thier. I will also make them compatible. It will take some time, but I'll figure it out. I have all of my stats, on a spreadsheet, all I should have to do is Cut and paste.

Thanks Ron.

[xeryx]

This information is second hand:
It was privately posted to me.
I want to share it with you, as I have been sharing.

It will give insight to missile Accuracy.
=========================================
Another interesting thing I found was regarding Accuracy Deterioation for Missiles.

1) It does exist, but in a very strange way. Meanging you will not normally notice it, and it does not quiet work the way beam weapon works.

2) I have found that by setting the lower Accuracy Range (AccDisSt) to 3000 or higher, you will always (or 99.9% of time), hit at MaxAccry, regardless of the AccDisEn value (I used 3001 and various other values to test this) and regardless how far/close the target ship is. In my test, I had MaxAccry = 1, and had FireDelay modded so my ship fires one missile every second or two. Of all the 100+ missiles fired, I watched and counted each and everyone of them hit the target.

3) Now, if you set AccDisSt smaller, preferablly 2000 or less, while keeping AccDisEn relatively close, say 3000, then you observe Accuracy Deterioation! I did this again by counting hits over a range of 100+ consecutive missiles. Here are my data, bear in mind these are only 1 trials.

Range 2000~3000, 107 consecutive missiles fired, 88% hit
Range 1000~3000, 107 consecutive missiles fired, 78% hit
Range 500~3000, 107 consecutive missiles fired, 68% hit
Range 0~3000, 102 consecutive missiles fired, 64% hit

4) Now, the distance between your ships and the target ship do play a role, although very small. I did some quick test with also 100+ consecutive missiles fired, with my ships being close (within 1 square), and being far (like 10+ squares away), and the accuracy can vary upwards to 10%.

My guess is that all missiles are considered to have travelled some short inherent distance (like 2200~2500 or so), and added to it a very small distance value as a tiny fraction of the distance to target or distance the missiles travelled (which are nearly the same, but I am not sure which is the source here, since my enemy has system speed of 1, so the two distance are effectively the same). This collective sum is then used to compute the accuracy drop off effects. That is why AccDisEn set at higher than 3000 or so will have no effects.

However, note the missile will fire at target and fly to it no matter how far the target is, regardless what your AccDisSt, AccDisEn, DmgDisSt, DmgDisEn values are. So I don't think it is possible to make a missile that will fire at targets that are closer than certain range.

5) Another thing, I have tested before and found that you can have missiles with Damage Dissipation. I have not tested as closely as I did with the Accuracy Deterioation, however, so I can't be sure if the damage computation for such dissipation uses the same "distance" as for the above accuracy computation. Although that can be tested if you want me to.
--------------------------------------------------
From:Gateway103

Interesting!!!

[Minor Annoyance]

Good stuff to hear. If dissapation can be modded like accuracy then I will likely mod the game so the low tech missile chassis (starting with PD) have high accuracy and high damage dissapation, and later chassis (ending with topedo) would have low accuracy and low dissapation.

[visage]

Very wacky. :)

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Minor Annoyance
Good stuff to hear. If dissapation can be modded like accuracy then I will likely mod the game so the low tech missile chassis (starting with PD) have high accuracy and high damage dissapation, and later chassis (ending with topedo) would have low accuracy and low dissapation.

Er... do you have the accuracy reversed or something? Or do you mean to just have torpedo style chassis dissipate? Because having regular missiles dissipate doesn't make sense to me...

[Minor Annoyance]

I meant to have the PD chassis have near perfect accuracy but high dissapation, while eash progressively higher tech chassis would have worse accuracy and less dissapation, untill when it gets the the most high tech chassis (i.e. torpedo) where it would have low accuracy but the dammage is always the same.

[xeryx]

The better the tech the better the accuracy. And Visage does not believe you can do Accuracy for Missile Chassis. I'm not sure on this yet. I'm still testing. The chassis is where I would put the Penalty or bonus for accuracy. For example a torpedo chassis is BIGGER therefore less maneurverable. A point defense missile would have very high accuracy.

Good news about the patch, I converted the Techtables and all other relevant spreadsheet files over. There were not that many changes, that I saw relevant to my mod. Anyway I'm Going to try out this accuracy dropoff with missiles tomorrow. This weekend I'll be converting the wsstrings file to 1.2.5. and adding appropriate descriptions to the not so descriptive sections. If QSI hasn't beat me to it. ;) I'm sure there were alot of changes.

I made more changes to the missile chassis specs, more to the original game. I found my firedlay to high.
So you all have a good one. I'll post again tomorrow after some more testing. I want to find out if Accuracy means anything with missiles.

BTW: If all of this is true then Missilles have to work somewhat similar to DF weapons. We'll leave it at that for now.

[visage]

Originally posted by xeryx
The better the tech the better the accuracy. And Visage does not believe you can do Accuracy for Missile Chassis. I'm not sure on this yet. I'm still testing.

I want to get more details from Gateway on what he was actually doing, but it certainly sounds like you can get some accuracy dropoff by modifying the minimum range...

[xeryx]

he likes his new member status. So he doesn't post on the board.

[visage]

Originally posted by xeryx
he likes his new member status. So he doesn't post on the board.

I've got his email from some conversations we had a while back, actually. :)

[xeryx]

@Visage or anyone else who wants to try this test.

The patch is pretty good so far. Fire delay, negates the PD bug!!!

Now as I have been playing It seems sensors are all F$#@^%. up. It acts as though they are working the opposite as they should be. Has anyon tried to reverse the values of the DEFTGTRG and the OFFTGTRG? BECAUSE with recon ships and recon armada's with great sensor I can't see crap. QSI What GIVES. Must be just the fricken code.

After some long thought, I went and redid Weapon mount Accuracy. I made the Spinals less accurate (putting them under 1.0x) and Made PD mount 1.5 and 1.3 accuracy over the range.
I was making accuracy the same as the Range modifier , for some reason. Now that I've realized you don't need to do that. Maybe these Spinals will not be so deadly.

I raised the FireDlay of the ultra-fire mods from .5 to .6 and lowed the Pulse FireDlay to .6 from .75. Fixed some more typos. And got utterly confused with range accuracy.

BTW: Do we have a Photon Torpedo graphic anywhere? SFC has some maybe we can use.

I'm havig so much fun playing with my mod, I haven't been testing.(not Scientifically) The space battles are getting really intense. I think that I have a pretty good balance. I think I need to lower the cost of missiles, and thier mods. They are getting really expensive. Since it really takes alot of missiles to penetrate the PD.

The AI for the planets and empires is WAY better.

[xeryx]

Things are looking bright!!

I have been working on the Nova cluster today, and (pardon the bad humor) what a cluster. My third Id tag was wrong (since I cut and paste) and I wasn't getting beyond the nuclear Cluster. It took me a coulple of farting around games to notice it. So I fixed that. Then I had to change it's attributes because the Autobuild AI wouldn't use it. So I had to make it use less space. The bad thing is ,for the ai, is that it won't see mutifire and it won't multiply the damage out. So if it has a newer missile with out the Cluster then it uses the newer missile. To compensate for this, I made it's accuracy lower and It's reduced space (20%) should lower the HP enough to make them easier to shoot down. The good news, is that the AI seems to build it's filler Nukes with it. So that will make it better on the defense side. As I have been playing this damn sensor bug seems to be gettiing progressively worse. I thinK I will reinstall the game. It is like they used the wrong version of the game (pre beta) It acts like it use too. So this bug is starting to screw up my testing. I may just install the old patch.

I did have a stroke of terrible luck today. I was editing the wstech file and I was about 50% done when the power tripped the breaker and I lost all the new updates that I have done. I as going through and documenting every change in the tech file. So since my weekend is too far gone and I need a break from this damn game. I should have version 1.0 out next weekend. Sorry it's my fault cause I didn't save my files every 10 min like your should. :cry: We will prevail though.
My favorite thing about this mod is the ultrafire mass weapons. To watch them fire is just awesome. Just a few can go a long way.
Great for PD.
BTW I boosted up the first 4 shield techs shield power.

[Ranges]

Just a short thought i had about bombarding weapons (IE; range 0 DF weapons);

WOuldnt these act as PD in combat?
Even at such close range, they might actually end up destroying missiles. And (duh) that might just not be what's intended..

[Minor Annoyance]

Originally posted by Ranges
Just a short thought i had about bombarding weapons (IE; range 0 DF weapons);

WOuldnt these act as PD in combat?
Even at such close range, they might actually end up destroying missiles. And (duh) that might just not be what's intended..

I don't think accuracy in a factor in bombardment, so they could be made zero accuracy. But then again, weapons intended for PD don't work that well as PD, so I'm not too woried about it making a big difference.:D

[xeryx]

Combat in 1.2.5 is terrible due to sensors. I re-installed it , and the problem has lessened a little. Now my ships are firing the first volley immediately. But there are still blind spots as they approach.

On with the update.
I broke the Nova clusters and AP for missile today!!! Appearantly there is an algorithem for the AI to use a value in the tags in the Techtables. I changed some of the Id tags yesterday. Today during testing. I noticed the AI was not using the AP mod. Now the ap mod takes up more space. On all the other mods the AI will not use a mod unless it takes up less space. So Missile AP is the only mod it does this for. So I decided to use most of the same pieces of the Id Tags for the Nova Cluster. So that the AI would build my Nova's with the spec I wanted. and appearantly it worked. The only problem is with the computer not registering the Multifire as a *3 damage in this case. It dose not see having 3 missiles better than the next warhead. Does anyone have any ideas how I can fool the AI. I do not want to have to resort to using a damage multiplier. If I do that I'll have to have a Mega Warhead. Also changed the fighter armor deflection value to .5 and the shield power to .5. Lowered the tech levels at which the Missile and Fighter chassis options are achieved.

Major change in Planetary defenses.

Fighter Base TL00(cost300), now 150 (70 orig) fighters.

Beam base TL06(cost500); changed Multifire from 10 to 20(but I don't think multifire works here) changed fire delay from 2.5 to 1.5. upped damage multiple from 5 to 6.

Missile base TL12 (cost600): added .75 fire delay. doubled the missiles. increased the damage from *4 to *5

First off I changed the tech levels because at the start of the game there is no way you can build them all. Since we only have one of each base per planet. They really were not very effective at stopping fleets. In Moo2 you could stop most small forces from attacking your planets with these installed. It is not that way here, and my changes only boost the effectiveness about 50% QSI needs to change these rules for the bases to be attached to the military regions. The main reason is the TF limiting rule. If I could have 100 ships in more than one TF in the system then it would be a lot better. It is not that way for now. So hopefully this will help the Warped TF's defend the planets better. I am happy with the improvement though. Especially the beam bases.
I may up it some more though. I want it to be tough to take someones planet. Especially after paying the costs of building them. Give me your opinions on this topic.

Have any of you noticed this about the planetary fighters in 1.2.5? That they are not launching until something gets really close to the planet? This is not good. I suppose the planet is blind too.

found an error on the heavy mount. I must have deleted the range bonus some how. Fixed that. Edited the wstech file some more. We're getting ther folks. Soon.

[visage]

Originally posted by xeryx
I noticed the AI was not using the AP mod. Now the ap mod takes up more space. On all the other mods the AI will not use a mod unless it takes up less space. So Missile AP is the only mod it does this for. So I decided to use most of the same pieces of the Id Tags for the Nova Cluster. So that the AI would build my Nova's with the spec I wanted. and appearantly it worked. The only problem is with the computer not registering the Multifire as a *3 damage in this case. It dose not see having 3 missiles better than the next warhead. Does anyone have any ideas how I can fool the AI. I do not want to have to resort to using a damage multiplier.

"NearDamg *= 1.001, FarDamag *=1.001"

:)

At least, that's been my approach for DF wepaon mods.

Btw, if you manage to characterize when the AI does and does not use missile mods, I'd be happy to hear the list. Previously, it looked to me like the "primary weapon" got all missile mods and the "filler" got none, regardless of stats.

[Ron_Lugge]

Xeryx - have you looked at the patched missile / fighter / beam bases? They are a *LOT* stronger post-patch.

[xeryx]

@visage: You read my ming you old dog!! I have used that exactly!!

But that will not work enough, As the next level missile has more damage. and it will always pick that, over the multifire. So I can either do the super warhead thing, or remove some missile techs and gives more room for these to be used. What do you think? It will use the tech. but you do have to have the fardamage at 1.001. At least the AI will use it though.

They may be tougher, but they're not tough enough!!!!!

[visage]

Originally posted by xeryx
@visage: You read my ming you old dog!! I have used that exactly!!

But that will not work enough, As the next level missile has more damag. and it will alwas pick that over the multifire. So I can either do the super warhead thing, or remove some missile techs and gives more room for these to be used. What do you think? It will use the tech. but you do have to have the fardamage at 1.001.

You really should get that thing cleaned out... :)

Yeah, if you want the mod used when there's a newer and bigger warhead available, you've got a problem.

Of course, multfire is not interesting at all for missiles, since it just launches more missiles.

[xeryx]

It may not be that interesting. But It's a start.

I think that I've made enough changes for now. It's time to get this thing wrapped up and delivered non beta or alpha.

as far as I know, you may be right about the missile Chassis options. When I changed the TA and TB tags, I did not like the wr01 and changed it to wh01 then it would not use the AP mod. AT all. I could use it but the AI would not. It would however use the Chassis mods.

As far as the filler missile I may have been mistaken about it using the ap and nova. I may have been clicked on the other missile by accident. I will have to verify. Recent tests did not have the mods on the filler.

UPDATE!!
I'm updating the wsTech file changes. I will then incoperate into the 1.2.5 wstech file. I expect to be done by the end of the week.

I will then need to run some auto tests for crashes caused by typos, then autoruns for accurate information. I believe that I am done with the TechTables file, with the exception of any errors that pop up.

[0zzyman]

Does it work with the Combat graphics and sound mod
See the post here. (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=300893)

Well I hope so...because (no offense) I would rather have the effects and sound...

[xeryx]

I have not changed the graphics numbers associated with the weapons. So it should be fully compatible.

Small Update: I have finished porting over the wstech. file to be 1.2.5 compatible. I am going to expand some tech descriptions. All the numbers are in there. I will be testing it tonight and tomorrow and fixing any last minute errors and make a new readme. So hopefully tomorrow I can post it.

Thank you for your patience.

[0zzyman]

Should I just wait till tommorrow to download the mod??(If not read in the next five minutes...change tommorrow to today)

[xeryx]

Things look great.

Hang on a little bit longer.

[xeryx]

I just took a look at the Special effect download. You will probably have to compare the two different fighter .txt's. If I have time I will try and include both.

[Ron_Lugge]

IIRC, his fighter.txt is a dead file.

[0zzyman]

Just give me the go ahead for when to download your files...Maybe you can make them compatible and you can combine the mods...

Oh and one more question... Will this be incompatible with previous game files??? Like my game that I just started (turn 28)???

[Minor Annoyance]

Most text files do tack effect with saved games exept for the most important one, techtables.txt, which only takes effect when you start a new game. So the most important part of the mod would not work untill you start again.

[xeryx]

Thanks Ron, didn't have time to check it out.

Ok! this is the deal. My personal relationship is demanding my attention or else!!! If I don't stop modding for a little while.

I am running more tests, after changes I have made.
I decided not to put in my tech slowdown. People can edit that on thier own. I removed 5 missile classes from the game. This give the improvements more time to be used by everyone. I noticed a glitch with fighter bases now. they are not launching fighters very quickly. So I moved the beam base as tech 0, then fighter,and missile. I changed the size of the sensors again. Made the ECCM just a little larger than the originals. Changed detection values of the Ships Targeting Computers, I lowered them, mainly because I gave them a targeting bonus.
I am trying to do a very thorough test. Like I said my time needs to be spent elswhere fo a little while. I have been pretty hard at it. So I'm pushing the release to NO LATER. than SUNDAY ok. I am sorry, but I want to spend some time with her too. I will post the news in a new thread, and in the general forums.

[Carlos113]

About ECCM and the rest, wasn´t it proven by the Fire Elemental guy, Da_Blade and some others that they actually do nothing? : confused :

...her...
Ok, we will let you go... this time... ;):)

[Minor Annoyance]

xeryx has anecdotal evidence that ECMs do work on fighters in his mod.

[Carlos113]

Only for fighters?

*Goes back to add ECCM in some of his ships :D

[xeryx]

I decided to get it done as is, and quit messing with the descriptions. There should be plenty of time for that.
I uploaded it to MOO3 Mods and The Guardian.
I also started a new Post, for the version 1.0 thread.
So as soon as they approve the file they should be posting them.

Thanks.
And yes ECM and ECCM do work, I have witnessed it. I think that it is more appearant with the fighters. Because of RANGE, and when I did the test the enemy only had low level techs. So they were at an unfair advantage. The fighters had the equivalent of level 4 eccm and ecm.

I useed the same values as the ships!!!
All I know, is what I saw. The ships couldn't hit the broadside of a planet.

That is for another day. I am off to see a movie
I hope you enjoy.
Please post any new ideas or bugs to the new thread.
THERE BETTER NOT BE ANY BUGS!!

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by xeryx
I also started a new Post, for the version 1.0 thread.

Here's a link:

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=309148

[Minor Annoyance]

Originally posted by xeryx
...5) Another thing, I have tested before and found that you can have missiles with Damage Dissipation. I have not tested as closely as I did with the Accuracy Deterioation, however, so I can't be sure if the damage computation for such dissipation uses the same "distance" as for the above accuracy computation. Although that can be tested if you want me to.
--------------------------------------------------
From:Gateway103

Interesting!!!
Question. If I wanted to create a missile with damage dissipation due to range, which moddifier would I change, DmgDisSt, DmgDisEn, or both?

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Minor Annoyance
Question. If I wanted to create a missile with damage dissipation due to range, which moddifier would I change, DmgDisSt, DmgDisEn, or both?

IIRC, you can't.

edit:

If you could, it would FarDmg, or DmgDelta - the other two simply affect range, *not* damage.

[visage]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
IIRC, you can't.

edit:

If you could, it would FarDmg, or DmgDelta - the other two simply affect range, *not* damage.

Actually... Gateway's done some work on this subject and come up with some odd results that indicate that if you have a very low DmgDisSt and DmgDisEn you can get dropoff effects for missiles. I don't remember the details offhand and it's not as straightforward as for DF weapons by any means...

[Ron_Lugge]

Interesting.

[2ndACR]

I have been luking for awhile. I have been playing with your mod for about a week. i think it is a great mod. Much better than the patched version of the game. Although i think fighters and bombers are a little too powerful now. Keep up the great work.

[Ron_Lugge]

Actually, I"ve been having the opposite problem - I can't keep the **** fighter's allive long enough for them to do any good! Missiles, however, are *definatly* overpowered.

[xeryx]

Ron: Are you talking the beginning of the game? what techs are available to your fighters? Because the bombers at level 30 are way too powerful!! a couple of large carriers can wipe out an entire system. Armor is a must. I may lower the tech of the armor and shield to compensate.