Prerelease 1.201B (Faster starts, low power mode tweaks, more bg updates)

[x4000]

The Latest prerelease is now out: http://www.arcengames.com/share/AIWar1201B.zip

That version is an upgrade from version 1.013, so you have to already have 1.013 (or greater) installed. Just unzip it into your game folder (usually C:\Program Files\Arcen Games\AI War\ unless you specified something else). Please make sure that your unzip process keeps the folder structure from the zip file, rather than just unpacking all of the files into the base target directory.

Why is this now 1.201 instead of 1.014?  Well, this release is just so huge that I felt it needed to be differentiated with a more major version number shift.  People are going to remember this as the release where the economy became flow-based and got more robust, where the AI tactics became way more intelligent in many ways, and where a ton of interface and graphical improvements came into play, amongst other rebalancing and over a dozen new ship types.  It's a whole new game from 1.013 in some respects when it comes to the advanced strategy, so this is something I felt was important to make really clear with the numbering.

What's new since 1.201A:
(Cumulative release notes since 1.013 are attached at the bottom)

-------------------

-The K key can now be used to toggle low-power mode for selected ships.

-The low power mode energy usage is now shown in the hover info for the units that are in that mode.

-When ships are in low-power mode, their shields are now disabled, which makes them more vulnerable to incoming shots.

-Captive Human Settlements now produce 45 metal and crystal, rather than 15, bringing them inline with the new economy.

-Faster Starts:  Players now start out with an Mark II Energy Rector, two Mark II Engineers, and all of their metal/crystal harvester points on their home planet assigned at the start of the game.  This cuts down on the repetitive opening-game actions that players always take, and lets players get right to the actual real game much more quickly.

CHANGES FROM PAST PRERELEASES
--------------

-Engineers can now be paused.

-Erroneously, in the past release paused ships could not move.  Fixed.

-If a placement mode ship had a very high cost of metal or crystal, and a very low cost of the other resource, it would leave the cost of the lower resource as free.  Fixed.

-The "pause" option for ships is now "low power mode."

-Putting ships into low power mode now makes them take only 10% of their normal energy costs to run.  Also, putting ships inside transports makes them no longer require energy until they are ejected from the transport.

-More updates to the nebula graphics by Phil.

[Revenantus]

Shortcut References updated to include the K shortcut. Available Here.

[Echo35]

-Faster Starts:  Players now start out with an Mark II Energy Rector, two Mark II Engineers, and all of their metal/crystal harvester points on their home planet assigned at the start of the game.  This cuts down on the repetitive opening-game actions that players always take, and lets players get right to the actual real game much more quickly.

I just cried a tear of joy 

[tals]

I don't like the starfields now - I think they detract from the actual units - turning them off makes it totally black which is awful so that's not a solution unfortunately- can we have a turn dust option off or just revert it back?

Before (units showing)


After (units showing)


Before (Zoomed Out)


After (Zoomed out)


Tals

[Fiskbit]

Low power mode is kind of exploitable, and the recent energy changes have me really hurting for energy at times (in particular, engineers. I'm constantly picking up engineers due to my leech starships, causing me massive energy costs unless I delete or pause them).

So I want to build a command station. It's 3000 energy (do these really need to cost energy?), but I'm in the red for energy, so I can't build it. My solution is to put all of my engineers into low power mode, which gives me positive energy. I then start building the station, then unpause the engineers and speed up construction of the station with them. I feel like this is exploiting the system.

However, I'm also kind of driven to it. I've got this planet next to me that's currently unowned, and I'm really in need of more reactors. Putting them on my homeworld means I lose a lot to efficiency reductions, so I need to do it on this other planet. However, I can't build a mobile builder or a command station with which to build the reactor because both cost energy and I'm way in the hole. This makes me really wish that command stations in particular didn't cost any energy... The only way I can get this station is to delete ships or to put my ships into low power mode, but then I can take my stuff out of low power mode and now I have all the ships I've wanted with even more energy debt. Since low power mode lets me make my ships use 10% of their normal power at will, I can pause them whenever I want to build stuff I can't otherwise build and then have a fleet with 10 times the energy demand that I can actually support at the cost of cloaking and force fields.

Oh, and I wish it was easier to tell how much energy a group of ships cost. Since I'm having to delete things or pause things a lot to get back into the black, I'm having to check the tooltips a lot, which is slow because I'm doing it ship by ship. I wish I could just select a group and see 'oh, hey, this group I don't need is 40,000 energy' or 'this group here is only 1000 energy, so I don't need to worry about it'.

This isn't me saying I dislike the recent energy changes. Those are well and good. I'm unhappy with the exploits that this causes, though, because you're allowed to go beneath 0 energy. If you don't have enough energy to wake a ship up, you shouldn't be able to do it, since otherwise you can just pause stuff, do what you want, and run that stuff again even further in energy debt. If you don't have enough energy to capture a ship, you shouldn't be able to do that, either (though if you can capture it in pause mode, you should probably still be able to do that). The problem with this line of thought is 'what happens when a reactor blows and you don't have enough energy?' Well, I don't have an answer to that problem, unfortunately. Maybe then you go negative, but only then. And when you pause a reactor? Well, perhaps the player shouldn't be allowed to pause a reactor when that puts him negative. Since I'm currently rather negative at the moment, I see no reason to keep any of my reactors running, since they're a resource drain. This puts me at -218,000 energy for the next few minutes until I can get another reactor up, but the extra resources are totally going to be worth it, since running with them while negative is pointless. Heck, if I'm not being attacked and don't need my force fields up or units cloaked, I may as well have my reactors paused until some enemy ships start appearing so I get more resources.

Allowing negative energy is a dangerous thing.

[tals]

Oh, and I wish it was easier to tell how much energy a group of ships cost. Since I'm having to delete things or pause things a lot to get back into the black, I'm having to check the tooltips a lot, which is slow because I'm doing it ship by ship. I wish I could just select a group and see 'oh, hey, this group I don't need is 40,000 energy' or 'this group here is only 1000 energy, so I don't need to worry about it'.

That would be really useful, maybe have it showing in the list when hovering over the ships (the breakdown on the right) showing for each ship then maybe a total at the bottom of the list

[liq3]

Low power mode is kind of exploitable, and the recent energy changes have me really hurting for energy at times (in particular, engineers. I'm constantly picking up engineers due to my leech starships, causing me massive energy costs unless I delete or pause them).

I don't see any problem with this.

So I want to build a command station. It's 3000 energy (do these really need to cost energy?), but I'm in the red for energy, so I can't build it. My solution is to put all of my engineers into low power mode, which gives me positive energy. I then start building the station, then unpause the engineers and speed up construction of the station with them. I feel like this is exploiting the system.

I agree about stations not costing energy. It feels like it should be that way, especially with the resent changes.

However, I'm also kind of driven to it. I've got this planet next to me that's currently unowned, and I'm really in need of more reactors. Putting them on my homeworld means I lose a lot to efficiency reductions, so I need to do it on this other planet. However, I can't build a mobile builder or a command station with which to build the reactor because both cost energy and I'm way in the hole. This makes me really wish that command stations in particular didn't cost any energy... The only way I can get this station is to delete ships or to put my ships into low power mode, but then I can take my stuff out of low power mode and now I have all the ships I've wanted with even more energy debt. Since low power mode lets me make my ships use 10% of their normal power at will, I can pause them whenever I want to build stuff I can't otherwise build and then have a fleet with 10 times the energy demand that I can actually support at the cost of cloaking and force fields.

I think this is perfectly acceptable. From my experience losing force-fields means no exo-shields, and no-exoshields means any planets getting raided are going to have no harvesters 99% of the time. It also makes you a lot more venerable to losing your home station (or command stations in general).

Oh, and I wish it was easier to tell how much energy a group of ships cost. Since I'm having to delete things or pause things a lot to get back into the black, I'm having to check the tooltips a lot, which is slow because I'm doing it ship by ship. I wish I could just select a group and see 'oh, hey, this group I don't need is 40,000 energy' or 'this group here is only 1000 energy, so I don't need to worry about it'.

I totally agree, this should be a feature! *thinks of Suggestions forum*

This isn't me saying I dislike the recent energy changes. Those are well and good. I'm unhappy with the exploits that this causes, though, because you're allowed to go beneath 0 energy. If you don't have enough energy to wake a ship up, you shouldn't be able to do it, since otherwise you can just pause stuff, do what you want, and run that stuff again even further in energy debt. If you don't have enough energy to capture a ship, you shouldn't be able to do that, either (though if you can capture it in pause mode, you should probably still be able to do that). The problem with this line of thought is 'what happens when a reactor blows and you don't have enough energy?' Well, I don't have an answer to that problem, unfortunately. Maybe then you go negative, but only then. And when you pause a reactor? Well, perhaps the player shouldn't be allowed to pause a reactor when that puts him negative. Since I'm currently rather negative at the moment, I see no reason to keep any of my reactors running, since they're a resource drain. This puts me at -218,000 energy for the next few minutes until I can get another reactor up, but the extra resources are totally going to be worth it, since running with them while negative is pointless. Heck, if I'm not being attacked and don't need my force fields up or units cloaked, I may as well have my reactors paused until some enemy ships start appearing so I get more resources.

Maybe add a delay to turning them back on? Like Mark I, II, III take 30, 60 and 120 seconds respectively. People would be very cautious about turning them off to cheat the system that way.

I also think that units in low power mode shouldn't be allowed to be turned back on while you're in negative energy.

[Zitterbacke]

I will test the new release later, but I want to say something about in-game economy and how I seem to enjoy to play RTS in general regarding that. I like to build up an economy structure in the beginning of a game, when it comes to fighting the enemy I prefer not to have to take care of that a lot, but to dive into the action. And as a valid strategy I usually attack the economy of my enemy, to weaken his resupply. I don't see economy in RTS as a fun-raiser (or the core-principle like in Sim City!), but it can it take some of the fun out for me. If you want to raise the difficulty, I'd prefer to see it in the way an AI behaves in a game (generally, not your game particularly!), not how hard it is to build up your structures mid-game and maintain the inflow to your economics over the point where you just have to keep an eye on it.

I know you do those pre-releases to test new stuff on your audience and get feedback, so I know you won't take this as harsh criticism.

[Bleek]

..another release? I can't keep up! 

[darke]

Bugs and Randoms:

When starting with 8 planets, it only builds 13 Engineer II's rather then the expected 16. I'm guessing it's hitting the limit of normal-number built and the max is multiplied afterwards.

Only 5 Tachyon Drones as well, they're not multiplied like everything else.

Tachyon Drones suck. (That's more of a general observation then anything specific to 8-start-worlds. >.> <.<) Maybe a boost of speed is in order? Or cloak them? Or something? There's really no reason to use them in exchange for the higher level emplacements. And they're really too slow to sweep mines, which is what I end up using scout starships for most.

I get the feeling that 8x the number of each ship is getting a bit excessive, but I'm not going to complain about 2k Mark I parasites too loudly.

Starships don't multiply... but honestly I think that's probably a sane decision, along with missiles non-multiplication. I really can't conceive needing more then 2 nukes anyway.

Advanced Research Station (controlled by the AI) seemed to be trying to head towards my slowly building command center in an attempt to attack it? Convenient since the thing moves dog slow since that way it's closer to my wormhole when I take over it.

On that note, I'm not sure it's physically possible for an Advanced Research Station to move any *slower*.

Using an attack force of nothing-but-starships is considerably less effective then I thought it would be.

Turtle AI's could be meaner. I think the other AI types have been significantly buffed due to increased attack waves, so the non-waving-AI's are a bit weaker as a result. They really need something neat rather then just a metric ton more ships on their planets though.

I wouldn't particularly complain about a Science Lab III that researched at the Science Lab II's speed, but was a little spritelier (say 24 speed?) I would happily pay some knowledge for it.

[x4000]

-Faster Starts:  Players now start out with an Mark II Energy Rector, two Mark II Engineers, and all of their metal/crystal harvester points on their home planet assigned at the start of the game.  This cuts down on the repetitive opening-game actions that players always take, and lets players get right to the actual real game much more quickly.

I just cried a tear of joy 

Thought people might like that!

[x4000]

I don't like the starfields now - I think they detract from the actual units - turning them off makes it totally black which is awful so that's not a solution unfortunately- can we have a turn dust option off or just revert it back?

Hi Tals,

Thanks for registering your opinion.  I'm really not understanding what your complaint is other than you prefer the older versions, though.  The main thing that has changed is that the graphics are now more realistic and higher quality, with more subtle shading.  This actually should generally raise visibility quite a bit, since it has fewer harsh white highlights that can hide ships in them.  Looking at your screenshots this seems to all hold true.

You can always turn off the nebulae, and just leave the stars, by using the "nebula detail" slider on the graphics tab (just slide it all the way to the left).

On the other forum you mentioned wanting to potentially wait on upgrading to the latest version just because of this!?  I'm very surprised this is such a major issue, I think it looks a lot better in general.  More specifics on what the issue is would definitely be appreciated, and I'm also very interested in what other people think about the new nebulae.

[CautiousChaos]

I would agree with Tals that the new nebulae / background makes discerning units more difficult.  I prefer the more vibrant, well-defined nebula and star field compared to the somewhat milky and softer current versions.

I'm still coming to grips with new "low power mode" mechanic.  My suspension of disbelief is strained in reconciling how the stationary energy platforms somehow are linked to the energy requirements of individual ships many planets away.  It would be interesting to see how new players react to the new behaviors compared to more veteran players.
-cc

[x4000]

I would agree with Tals that the new nebulae / background makes discerning units more difficult.  I prefer the more vibrant, well-defined nebula and star field compared to the somewhat milky and softer current versions.

Thanks for letting me know!  I'm surprised by this, but this is something I need to know sooner than later.

I'm still coming to grips with new "low power mode" mechanic.  My suspension of disbelief is strained in reconciling how the stationary energy platforms somehow are linked to the energy requirements of individual ships many planets away.

Well, it's like "houses" in AoE, or whatever.  The energy requirements being a global thing is not new, he low power mode just brings it into stronger relief I suppose.  But points taken, I'll be interested to see how everyone feels about this in general as more people weigh in.  I maintain that this is an optional feature that players don't have to use, but I suppose we shall see.

It would be interesting to see how new players react to the new behaviors compared to more veteran players.

Yes, that is true.  I've thought about that myself.

[darke]

On the other forum you mentioned wanting to potentially wait on upgrading to the latest version just because of this!?  I'm very surprised this is such a major issue, I think it looks a lot better in general.  More specifics on what the issue is would definitely be appreciated, and I'm also very interested in what other people think about the new nebulae.

Can't say I've had any problems with the nebulae. I honestly didn't notice any difference between this version and the previous ones.

On a totally unrelated note, at AI10/8-start-world I do have a few issues seeing the nebulae behind all the ships. >.> <.<

It doesn't help that I seem to be getting regular 10 second lag spikes for about 2 minutes after I kill every wave that comes through the wormhole, when my ships all seem to want to reposition themselves back in their original place. I don't think it particularly likes me having 6k ships in a single pile on auto-attack, on a single world.