Prerelease 1.010B (More Minor UI Tweaks)

[Admiral]

What if, generators became less efficient as more were constructed in a single system? This means that it would not be vital to spread the player's energy production around the map, but doing so would provide greater returns on the resources invested in the generators.

I quite like this idea, as long as it is scaled to the number of planets you have. I.e., if you have only one planet, there should be no harm in building all your generators in ... one planet.

Cheers!

[Revenantus]

What if, generators became less efficient as more were constructed in a single system? This means that it would not be vital to spread the player's energy production around the map, but doing so would provide greater returns on the resources invested in the generators.

I quite like this idea, as long as it is scaled to the number of planets you have. I.e., if you have only one planet, there should be no harm in building all your generators in ... one planet.

Cheers!

Although, if you have only one planet, your energy requirements are likely to be minimal.

[Admiral]

Personally, I feel that the standard Force Field Generators should also incur an ongoing resource cost, in exchange for costing slightly less to build. It would make for more interesting strategic decisions if I had to decide when would be the appropriate time to take it offline - these decisions already exist for Harvester Exo-Shields.

You know, I think that is a great idea.  I'll look at doing that -- I think it's a cool idea.  Do you see this as being related to turning on and off the force fields, or just deleting the force fields when you don't want them?

I don't really like this idea. That force fields use energy - even a lot of it - is fine. I can't imagine why a force field would need to use crystal or metal on an ongoing basis. I mean, not that we have "force fields" in any real sense, but you never heard Scotty say "Capt'n, I cannae keep the shields up!" "Scotty, we need shields now or we're all dead!" "Capt'n, I need more metal!!!"

I mean, basically, shield emitters are solid state devices. I could imagine periodic replacement (along the lines of the typical ablation that a lightbulb filament has, or the erosion of the engine bell on an ion drive) might be necessary, but a constant ongoing drain on resource production? Doesn't feel plausible.

Cheers!

[Admiral]

Something very minor but annoying: I would like to be able to press RETURN (ENTER) to exit the ship rename window, when in the ship text input box, please.

Ship rename window?  I'm not sure to what you are referring -- maybe the planet rename window?  For that one, it doesn't register Enter in that field because of the multi-line textbox below it.  Registering the Enter key for the planet name, but not the planet notes, seems inconsistent.

Yes, I meant the Planet Rename.

And I don't think it is inconsistent. That's typical behavior on modern modal dialog boxes... I can submit this post by hitting enter in the Subject line field, but not in the text box.

Cheers!

[x4000]

What if, generators became less efficient as more were constructed in a single system? This means that it would not be vital to spread the player's energy production around the map, but doing so would provide greater returns on the resources invested in the generators.

I quite like this idea, as long as it is scaled to the number of planets you have. I.e., if you have only one planet, there should be no harm in building all your generators in ... one planet.

Cheers!

Although, if you have only one planet, your energy requirements are likely to be minimal.

Quite so.  I've implemented this for the next release as a flat 20%/40% reduction per additional Mark I/II reactor per planet (the reduction is also per-type, so your Mark I and II reactors reduce independently of one another).  If you only have one planet, this really shouldn't affect you too much...

[x4000]

Something very minor but annoying: I would like to be able to press RETURN (ENTER) to exit the ship rename window, when in the ship text input box, please.

Ship rename window?  I'm not sure to what you are referring -- maybe the planet rename window?  For that one, it doesn't register Enter in that field because of the multi-line textbox below it.  Registering the Enter key for the planet name, but not the planet notes, seems inconsistent.

Yes, I meant the Planet Rename.

And I don't think it is inconsistent. That's typical behavior on modern modal dialog boxes... I can submit this post by hitting enter in the Subject line field, but not in the text box.

Cheers!

Can you really?  Well, I'll be.  Added to the list, then.

[Admiral]

Although, if you have only one planet, your energy requirements are likely to be minimal.

At the beginning of the game, yes. But, not at the end when you're about to suffer your final, ignominious defeat at your home planet with a fleet of 3,000 ships in your last stand...

[x4000]

Personally, I feel that the standard Force Field Generators should also incur an ongoing resource cost, in exchange for costing slightly less to build. It would make for more interesting strategic decisions if I had to decide when would be the appropriate time to take it offline - these decisions already exist for Harvester Exo-Shields.

You know, I think that is a great idea.  I'll look at doing that -- I think it's a cool idea.  Do you see this as being related to turning on and off the force fields, or just deleting the force fields when you don't want them?

I don't really like this idea. That force fields use energy - even a lot of it - is fine. I can't imagine why a force field would need to use crystal or metal on an ongoing basis. I mean, not that we have "force fields" in any real sense, but you never heard Scotty say "Capt'n, I cannae keep the shields up!" "Scotty, we need shields now or we're all dead!" "Capt'n, I need more metal!!!"

I mean, basically, shield emitters are solid state devices. I could imagine periodic replacement (along the lines of the typical ablation that a lightbulb filament has, or the erosion of the engine bell on an ion drive) might be necessary, but a constant ongoing drain on resource production? Doesn't feel plausible.

Cheers!

I've been starting to think something along the same lines with this one, but not because of the thematic reasons.  Just gameplay-wise, I think I like the cost structure of force fields as they are.  In this next release, force fields are gaining both regen and a larger radius, which I think will make them a lot more useful in general.  Plus, the AI will now properly use more than just Mark III force fields (and there was much rejoicing).  So, I think I'll leave it at that for force field updates for now...

[x4000]

Although, if you have only one planet, your energy requirements are likely to be minimal.

At the beginning of the game, yes. But, not at the end when you're about to suffer your final, ignominious defeat at your home planet with a fleet of 3,000 ships in your last stand...

Oh -- well, that's true.  That's an interesting "kick me when I'm down" penalty.  Your ability to field a huge fleet of ships will severely contract as you lose more ground.  That's actually kind of interesting to me, because it will help to amplify the power struggle if things start going poorly later in the game.  It might increase the ratio of defeats to stalemates, which I like.

[Revenantus]

Personally, I feel that the standard Force Field Generators should also incur an ongoing resource cost, in exchange for costing slightly less to build. It would make for more interesting strategic decisions if I had to decide when would be the appropriate time to take it offline - these decisions already exist for Harvester Exo-Shields.

You know, I think that is a great idea.  I'll look at doing that -- I think it's a cool idea.  Do you see this as being related to turning on and off the force fields, or just deleting the force fields when you don't want them?

I don't really like this idea. That force fields use energy - even a lot of it - is fine. I can't imagine why a force field would need to use crystal or metal on an ongoing basis. I mean, not that we have "force fields" in any real sense, but you never heard Scotty say "Capt'n, I cannae keep the shields up!" "Scotty, we need shields now or we're all dead!" "Capt'n, I need more metal!!!"

I mean, basically, shield emitters are solid state devices. I could imagine periodic replacement (along the lines of the typical ablation that a lightbulb filament has, or the erosion of the engine bell on an ion drive) might be necessary, but a constant ongoing drain on resource production? Doesn't feel plausible.

Cheers!

I've been starting to think something along the same lines with this one, but not because of the thematic reasons.  Just gameplay-wise, I think I like the cost structure of force fields as they are.  In this next release, force fields are gaining both regen and a larger radius, which I think will make them a lot more useful in general.  Plus, the AI will now properly use more than just Mark III force fields (and there was much rejoicing).  So, I think I'll leave it at that for force field updates for now...

I initially suggested force field generators should incur an ongoing cost because this would make them consistent with Harvester Exo-Shields, which I feel are far more interesting in terms of game play mechanics.

It seems odd to have to reconcile two devices that appear very similar but have fundamental differences influencing their usage.

[Admiral]

I initially suggested force field generators should incur an ongoing cost because this would make them consistent with Harvester Exo-Shields, which I feel are far more interesting in terms of game play mechanics.

It seems odd to have to reconcile two devices that appear very similar but have fundamental differences influencing their usage.

Good point. I built an Exo-shield once, and that was before the change that made them unlimited & resource hogging.

However, not knowing what an "Exo-shield" is (as opposed to a non-Exo shield), I could posit this rationale: Harvesters with them harvest fewer resources because the manpower is diverted to maintenance of the shield. Or, is it slave power? I can't ever keep my Klingon prison harvesters straight...

Cheers!

[Revenantus]

Although, if you have only one planet, your energy requirements are likely to be minimal.

At the beginning of the game, yes. But, not at the end when you're about to suffer your final, ignominious defeat at your home planet with a fleet of 3,000 ships in your last stand...

Oh -- well, that's true.  That's an interesting "kick me when I'm down" penalty.  Your ability to field a huge fleet of ships will severely contract as you lose more ground.  That's actually kind of interesting to me, because it will help to amplify the power struggle if things start going poorly later in the game.  It might increase the ratio of defeats to stalemates, which I like.

This situation isn't entirely unprecedented - if the AI is gaining ground then your resource production and potentially manufacturing capacity will fall.

It's just another factor affecting how likely you are to be 'steam-rolled' in the event of a catastrophic mistake/oversight.

[Admiral]

Oh -- well, that's true.  That's an interesting "kick me when I'm down" penalty.  Your ability to field a huge fleet of ships will severely contract as you lose more ground.  That's actually kind of interesting to me, because it will help to amplify the power struggle if things start going poorly later in the game.  It might increase the ratio of defeats to stalemates, which I like.

On the other hand, the "generators are less efficient when grouped in a large territory but still as efficient when grouped in a small one" is reasonable if you assume that power transmission suffers losses over distance. That's why we didn't build a ton of nuclear plants in Wyoming in the 60s and 70s, with tons of cables going everywhere. (Was there some other purpose to the existence of Wyoming of which I'm unaware?)

Cheers!

[Revenantus]

I initially suggested force field generators should incur an ongoing cost because this would make them consistent with Harvester Exo-Shields, which I feel are far more interesting in terms of game play mechanics.

It seems odd to have to reconcile two devices that appear very similar but have fundamental differences influencing their usage.

Good point. I built an Exo-shield once, and that was before the change that made them unlimited & resource hogging.

However, not knowing what an "Exo-shield" is (as opposed to a non-Exo shield), I could posit this rationale: Harvesters with them harvest fewer resources because the manpower is diverted to maintenance of the shield. Or, is it slave power? I can't ever keep my Klingon prison harvesters straight...

Cheers!

Moving away from the situation where we attempt to rationalize every gameplay mechanic for a moment;

Do you think that the ongoing cost of forcefields creates more or less interesting situations in gameplay terms?

[x4000]

However, not knowing what an "Exo-shield" is (as opposed to a non-Exo shield), I could posit this rationale: Harvesters with them harvest fewer resources because the manpower is diverted to maintenance of the shield.

That's the general idea I was going for with the harvesters exoshields, yes.  They are intrinsically tied to JUST a particular resource harvester, and they provide much better protection for it for the cost, so an ongoing "maintenance cost" seemed appropriate here.

Revenantus, I can also see why you'd want to make the two consistent, and part of me agrees with that, but in thinking about implementation I think this is one that would add more confusion and complexity (not the good kind) than it would solve.  Usually I try to be as consistent as possible, but exo-shields and just general force fields are kind of two different things.  If I implement per-space-dock exo-shields in the future, I'll probably make those similarly cheap and good, but with some sort of cost related to the dock (increased build times, or inability for engineers to assist building, etc).

This situation isn't entirely unprecedented - if the AI is gaining ground then your resource production and potentially manufacturing capacity will fall.

It's just another factor affecting how likely you are to be 'steam-rolled' in the event of a catastrophic mistake/oversight.

Good point.  I don't think this will make a super-huge difference until the very last few minutes of a defeat, which by that point is probably predetermined, anyway.  But, if you do survive at the last bastion, then getting another planet or two back becomes an even bigger priority.  Since the AI does not re-colonize, that's probably a recoverable situation....