Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> Design and Modding >> RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/14/2014 3:33:33 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Francoy:

I like the concept. I can see that it will help the AI by focusing them initially on their very different preferred worlds rather than all being focused on exactly the same targets.

A couple of questions.

Was it your intent for Advanced Research of each planet type to cost the same for each race? i.e. rather than the proportions? For example consider the Ackdarian on a Cheap Research game, it would cost just 240k to get Ocean Colonisation, but 3840k for Adv Ocean Colonisation (to put it in perspective this is same as Beam Superflow). It's also double the norm for that column in the research line ... so maybe reduce it by half?

Due to the many additional technologies it also adds a lot to the research effort (even with that change) so getting to Advanced Colonisation for the 100M module would require a lot longer. So it's probably best for the AI to focus just on the top 3 colony types?

The Terraforming Facility placement would give races that favour Desert, Ice and Volcanic an advantage. Shouldn't the Terraforming Facility require any of the Advanced Colonisation Technologies?



(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 121
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/14/2014 4:09:13 PM   
Francoy


Posts: 107
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
A couple of questions.

Was it your intent for Advanced Research of each planet type to cost the same for each race? i.e. rather than the proportions? For example consider the Ackdarian on a Cheap Research game, it would cost just 240k to get Ocean Colonisation, but 3840k for Adv Ocean Colonisation (to put it in perspective this is same as Beam Superflow). It's also double the norm for that column in the research line ... so maybe reduce it by half?
The modifiers (like ResearchColonizationCostFactorContinental) from the race files don't seem to work on the ABILITIES from the research file (I think it's a bug).
This mod was more like a proof of concept, so i am open to changes on the research costs.



Due to the many additional technologies it also adds a lot to the research effort (even with that change) so getting to Advanced Colonisation for the 100M module would require a lot longer. So it's probably best for the AI to focus just on the top 3 colony types?
I agree, but for the top 3 specific to each race.

The Terraforming Facility placement would give races that favour Desert, Ice and Volcanic an advantage. Shouldn't the Terraforming Facility require any of the Advanced Colonisation Technologies? [/quote]
It was a quick merge with the wonders mod. Yes it could be moved with Advanced Colonisation, But i was thinking that because Desert, Ice and Volcanic are harsh environment it make sense to put it there!

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 122
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/14/2014 4:54:01 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Thanks Francoy, I'll apply those changes for the Alpha, and welcome your feedback when released. It will need some testing as the research orders will have to be customised across all of the races to make it work.

With Terraforming Facilities, keep in mind those worlds are indeed the primary environment for some of these races.

Note I haven't applied any of the other changes (e.g. wonders) and have just focused on Colonisation.


< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/14/2014 5:54:44 PM >

(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 123
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 1:45:33 AM   
Elhazad

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/15/2014
Status: offline
Hey im loving this mod a ton! even tho im very new in the game it makes it a lot more fun and challenging, but its also helping me learn too since the designs aren't trash now hehe. Something i noticed tho, i was playing with the Shandar and after i got the tech to make Carriers the ai never actually designed one. Is this intended?

Imo the point for going fighters is that tho, without using carriers the race is very weak since you just go up to improved concussion (spelling?) missiles then fighters (and that takes a ton to research)

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 124
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 7:32:50 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Welcome to the forums Elhazad!

You didn't see Carriers yet because they are not the pathetic baby ships you have with the default AI. They are Size 1100+ beasts that only become available once you have MegaScale Construction (Size 800).

Obviously that means they don't get unlocked for a while. I combine with Missiles as they are strong in the early game and are required for Missile Bombers anyway. I've also modified Fighter Bays to have a capacity of 6 rather than 4 as per the testing in the Weapon Balance thread. This means that Shandar ships should still be fairly dangerous (indeed I just watched the Shandar mop the floor with a Gizurean home system in the early game).

Please continue to a later stage in the game and let me know how it goes.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/15/2014 8:34:39 AM >

(in reply to Elhazad)
Post #: 125
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 7:56:55 AM   
Blackstork


Posts: 802
Joined: 7/7/2014
Status: offline
I got my time , lurked, and read all the info on first page and seems its a great stuff you doing in here, i will be defenitely trying and may be participating in your discussion here.
Please tell me there are only tweaks to ai and no changes on ui/Haree extended mod so there will be with race/cosmetic mods , because i am more testing than playing lately, but whoa, this seems to be cool stuff.
Did you found any disbalances on AI vs AI ?
I will run some tests soon with your mod!
:)

< Message edited by Blackstork -- 7/15/2014 8:58:24 AM >

(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 126
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 8:16:54 AM   
Elhazad

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/15/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Welcome to the forums Elhazad!

You didn't see Carriers yet because they are not the pathetic baby ships you have with the default AI. They are Size 1100+ beasts that only become available once you have MegaScale Construction (Size 800).

Obviously that means they don't get unlocked for a while. I combine with Missiles as they are strong in the early game and are required for Missile Bombers anyway. I've also modified Fighter Bays to have a capacity of 6 rather than 4 as per the testing in the Weapon Balance thread. This means that Shandar ships should still be fairly dangerous (indeed I just watched the Shandar mop the floor with a Gizurean home system in the early game).

Please continue to a later stage in the game and let me know how it goes.


Now THAT explains a lot lol, well ill keep going, i love fighters a ton so ill keep going with them and see how these massive carriers will do!

Edit: I kept playing it and for some reason most designs have 4-6 missiles tops and a TON of fuel cells, i checked the template and im guessing is due to fighter bays but by the time i can actually build cruisers they cannot fit the fighter bays, i think giving fighter bays to some designs don't work as well until you can build massive sized ships i guess.

< Message edited by Elhazad -- 7/15/2014 9:51:54 AM >

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 127
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 9:05:34 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elhazad
Now THAT explains a lot lol, well ill keep going, i love fighters a ton so ill keep going with them and see how these massive carriers will do!

Edit: I kept playing it and for some reason most designs have 4-6 missiles tops and a TON of fuel cells, i checked the template and im guessing is due to fighter bays but by the time i can actually build cruisers they cannot fit the fighter bays, i think giving fighter bays to some designs don't work as well until you can build massive sized ships i guess.

Yeah unfortunately the game does some weird things when shrinking ships to a lower construction size. Ships probably shouldn't be allowed to be built at all when shrunk unless it can fit say 50% of the weapons of the final design.

Hopefully Elliot can help with this, nothing much I can do, as I just HAVE to have larger ships here!

(in reply to Elhazad)
Post #: 128
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 9:29:30 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Securan Test Game Observations for Elliott to Consider

The AI does not optimise tax rates in this case, it should take advantage of their extra happiness to increase tax rates, but instead Happiness is excessive at +50. Recommend the Securan happiness target is +20, they remain a Happy race, but will improve income.


Elliot this applies to the other happy races as well e.g. the Shandar. Could you please change? Happy and more income ...

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 129
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 1:43:42 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Elhazad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Welcome to the forums Elhazad!

You didn't see Carriers yet because they are not the pathetic baby ships you have with the default AI. They are Size 1100+ beasts that only become available once you have MegaScale Construction (Size 800).

Obviously that means they don't get unlocked for a while. I combine with Missiles as they are strong in the early game and are required for Missile Bombers anyway. I've also modified Fighter Bays to have a capacity of 6 rather than 4 as per the testing in the Weapon Balance thread. This means that Shandar ships should still be fairly dangerous (indeed I just watched the Shandar mop the floor with a Gizurean home system in the early game).

Please continue to a later stage in the game and let me know how it goes.


Now THAT explains a lot lol, well ill keep going, i love fighters a ton so ill keep going with them and see how these massive carriers will do!

Edit: I kept playing it and for some reason most designs have 4-6 missiles tops and a TON of fuel cells, i checked the template and im guessing is due to fighter bays but by the time i can actually build cruisers they cannot fit the fighter bays, i think giving fighter bays to some designs don't work as well until you can build massive sized ships i guess.

Right ... tested some more and thanks to your post I found a quirk in the design templates. Apparently for the AI to build Carriers they must have at least one weapon (not including Fighter Bays). I've added a Missile to the templates and now works. This fix will be in the Alpha Release. This is not covered in the modding manual which states there should be alignment with the warnings with the in-game designer, but there isn't in this respect. Same with Troop Transports, I can design them in-game without weapons, but the templates do not work without a weapon. Turns out that I had a weapon on the Securan Carrier Design but not the Shandar or Mortalen.

I've also reduced the Carrier design is size a bit so that it can be built after Rapid Assembly (Size 650 so Size 975 Carriers) also ensured Rapid Assembly is earlier in the Research orders for the fighter focused races.

Also extra fuel cells are important as I want the AI fleets to spend their time taking action rather than getting refuelled all the time.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/15/2014 3:41:50 PM >

(in reply to Elhazad)
Post #: 130
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 3:57:32 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Francoy, Research Orders are updated and I've added changes to the Policy file Colonisation Priorities to align with the priorities for each race.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/15/2014 5:16:55 PM >

(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 131
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 4:43:13 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackstork
I got my time , lurked, and read all the info on first page and seems its a great stuff you doing in here, i will be defenitely trying and may be participating in your discussion here.
Please tell me there are only tweaks to ai and no changes on ui/Haree extended mod so there will be with race/cosmetic mods , because i am more testing than playing lately, but whoa, this seems to be cool stuff.
Did you found any disbalances on AI vs AI ?
I will run some tests soon with your mod!
:)

Yes the focus of this mod is whatever I can do to help the AI. I have no interest in cosmetic changes.

Please just keep in mind there is only so much I can do with the current modding capabilities but what is available has exceeded my expectations. That said, it requires a lot of testing and a number of the parameters are not well explained.


(in reply to Blackstork)
Post #: 132
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/15/2014 7:56:09 PM   
lurchi


Posts: 319
Joined: 6/10/2014
From: LV-223
Status: offline
Great work you do here, Icemania. I guess it'd be nice if you could set a minimum size in the templates. Maybe next update.
Anyway, does the AI only scale down, or does it scale up as well?

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 133
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 7:46:08 AM   
Elhazad

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/15/2014
Status: offline
Hey i think theres something wrong with Haakonish and their designs, i belive is due to their racial bonus to ship size. The thing is if they have researched up to 400 ship size their bonus takes that to 450 something, however the designs it makes dont take that into consideration properly.

A few examples, at 459 ship size it is doing escorts and frigates properly, however, destroyers, cruisers and even capital ships are showing as build able but the design has no weps or shields/armor or both. Destroyer currently is at 340 out of 459 possible, and no shields nor armor (its researched already)cruiser is however with full shield and armor but no weapons, capitals at 300 something out of 459 possible no shield, armor or weapons.

I decided to check how they did more closely after i, in a another game, steamrolled them so easy, since its making those designs i believe the AI thinks its a good idea to pump out these capitals and cruisers (weaponless) too early and just get rolled.

In another game however i protected them a lot too see how they evolved and after they got 800 ship size researched and area graviton pulse they where the ones rolling over a ton of other races (was fun as hell to watch)

Anyways time to test another race.

Btw... Do Kaltors have special resistance against gravitic weapons or something? 2 of them in the starting system killed about 50 escorts and 25 frigates until i just decided to not build more military ships for a while. They pretty much did 0 dmg to them.

< Message edited by Elhazad -- 7/16/2014 9:16:33 AM >

(in reply to lurchi)
Post #: 134
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 9:48:54 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Elhazad, yes I've mentioned this a few times and have requested developer support, and it's not specific to any race [EDIT: although you are right for races with Military Ship Size bonuses it is even more significant]

The problem is greatest when the game allows designs to be massively shrunk e.g. allowing a Cruiser designed for Size 800 to be built at Size 500. Once you have sufficient construction ship size though, after retrofit, they will match my design intentions.

Hopefully this will get a fix. I quite liked the suggestion from lurchi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lurchi
I guess it'd be nice if you could set a minimum size in the templates. Maybe next update.


Another option might be to only allow build if more than half of the weapons remains on the final shrunk design (since weapons seem to be reduced as a priority when shrunk).

I'll do a test game with the Haakonish now and check out those Giant Kaltors! Good observations, thanks, sounds like I have no choice but to add some blasters to the design templates for Gravitic weapon focused races.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/16/2014 1:22:33 PM >

(in reply to Elhazad)
Post #: 135
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 10:50:09 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Francoy:

I've been putting some more thought into the Research Costs for the new Colonisation Technology Tree using your Mod. For reference the figures below are for Cheap Research.

Stage 1

Status Quo: Colonisation (480k), Marshy Swamp (240k), Continental (240k). The big drawback with this is that it leads to the exact same colonisation strategy for all races.

New: Colonisation (480k), Priority 1 (60k), Priority 2 (120k), Priority 3 (240k). An appropriate colonisation strategy is now applied for each race. Across a range of Empires they will expand more broadly as all planet types are available.

Stage 2

Status Quo: Ocean (960k), Desert (960k) ... also provides pop growth bonus for Marshy Swamp and Continental. For races that start with a Marshy Swamp and Continental this provides an advantage, while others are at a disadvantage. And again there is the exact same colonisation strategy for all races.

New: Adv Priority 1 960k (Priority 1 pop growth doubled), Adv Priority 2 960k (Priority 2 pop growth doubled), Adv Priority 3 960k (Priority 3 pop growth doubled). Each race now gets the same population growth advantages.

Stage 3

Status Quo: Volcanic 3840k (Desert pop growth doubled), Ice 3840k (Ocean pop growth doubled). For races that start with a Volcanic Ice this provides an advantage, others are at a disadvantage. And again there is the exact same colonisation strategy for all races.

New: Priority 4 (480k), Priority 5 (720k), Priority 6 (960k), Adv Priority 4 960k (Priority 4 pop growth doubled), Adv Priority 5 960k (Priority 5 pop growth doubled), Adv Priority 6 960k (Priority 6 pop growth doubled). Each race now gets the same population growth advantages.

Stage 4

Status Quo: Adv Col 7680k (Ice pop growth doubled, Volcanic pop growth doubled). For races that start with a Volcanic or Ice homeworld they do not get a population growth bonus until late in the game.

New: Adv Col 3840k. I've reduced the cost as this technology no longer provides any population growth benefits, just the 100M Massive Colonisation Module.

Overall

While there are more technologies the overall cost of all Colonisation Research is reduced by about 30%. A Colonisation Research Focus becomes more attractive as compared to focusing on Commerce, Research, Entertainment or Happiness.


< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/16/2014 12:43:47 PM >

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 136
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 11:49:52 AM   
Francoy


Posts: 107
Joined: 3/10/2005
Status: offline
Great !
It make sense to reduce the cost of adv col as it provide only access to the last col module.

Did you kept the prerequisite of Cargo tech for the colonisation tech ?
It could help increase the cost of research of colonisation, to keep parity with the vanilla game.

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 137
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 11:54:43 AM   
Tcby


Posts: 342
Joined: 12/16/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Great to see colonisation discussion. I'll be going over the AI mod in my study breaks over the next week. Hopefully I'll be able provide useful feedback at some point. The progress so far, as well as the input from others, is very exciting.

(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 138
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 12:06:38 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Francoy

Great !
It make sense to reduce the cost of adv col as it provide only access to the last col module.

Did you kept the prerequisite of Cargo tech for the colonisation tech ?
It could help increase the cost of research of colonisation, to keep parity with the vanilla game.

Yes I kept the prerequisites but will still be a bit less than parity with vanilla (which I like to help make a colonisation focused game more attractive).

(in reply to Francoy)
Post #: 139
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 12:33:22 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tcby
Great to see colonisation discussion. I'll be going over the AI mod in my study breaks over the next week. Hopefully I'll be able provide useful feedback at some point. The progress so far, as well as the input from others, is very exciting.

I remember our Friendly Challenge discussions ... hopefully this will help that balance a bit.


(in reply to Tcby)
Post #: 140
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 3:21:41 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lurchi
Anyway, does the AI only scale down, or does it scale up as well?

Genius!

I knew there was something wonky with how the Capital Ship templates are implemented in the game ... they seem to scale up as well.

I was also wondering why setting 40% Capital Ships in the Policy files didn't seem to work until later in the game.

I'm still testing but it appears there is a trigger, perhaps at Rapid Assembly Research, which allows Capital Ships to be built. Even if they show in the Ship Designer as buildable the AI will not actually build them until that trigger.

So I might be able to reduce the Capital Ship Designs to Size 650 and then they will scale up as technology allows in any case. The other designs could be readjusted as well to avoid the shrinkage problems.

Why couldn't something this significant be put in the modding manual? I've spend god knows how many hours doing these templates, only to find there is potentially a better solution, completed undocumented ... and now I'm going to have to rework and retest ...




< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/16/2014 4:23:16 PM >

(in reply to lurchi)
Post #: 141
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/16/2014 3:26:55 PM   
DeadlyShoe


Posts: 217
Joined: 6/2/2013
Status: offline
the AI also scales up fleet sizes in the policies~~

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 142
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 12:03:18 AM   
Locarnus


Posts: 275
Joined: 5/30/2010
From: Earth, Sol
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

[...]

Why couldn't something this significant be put in the modding manual? I've spend god knows how many hours doing these templates, only to find there is potentially a better solution, completed undocumented ... and now I'm going to have to rework and retest ...



[...]




Consider this experience to be the unofficial initiation rite to DW:U modding .

It wont get easier, you ll just get accustomed to expect undocumented and unexpected processes, limitations and changes.
I spent more than half the time on those instead of the actual implementation of my ideas, just dont take it too serious, so you dont feel bad when stuff breaks again.

I wish you the best in your efforts.

_____________________________

DW:U BalanceMod v0.9 (extended TechTree)
compatible with DW:U Extended, StarTrek and XPanded

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3624576

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 143
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 2:36:59 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Locarnus:

Out here in the real world I've had plenty of Project Leadership roles, so I expect the unexpected. I'm in the habit of publicising dates that allow for that. So this issue won't effect either completion of the mod or even the July 20th Alpha release date.

That said, I also expect vastly more complete documentation than what we have here. There are a lot of undocumented features in the Policy files e.g. what exactly does a "3" do versus a "4" etc. Those I've planned ahead for anyway realising each change will need testing. But this particular issue is annoying due to the volume of rework.

As this change will provide a better outcome than the current release, the developers have said they will support, and I'm not the type to be easily deflected given how weak the Space 4X market is at the moment ... I'm still motivated to continue this Mod.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/17/2014 11:16:59 AM >

(in reply to Locarnus)
Post #: 144
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 3:24:40 AM   
hewwo

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/22/2010
Status: offline
keep it up Ice;)

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 145
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 9:14:04 AM   
bugbear777

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 6/12/2014
Status: offline

(in reply to hewwo)
Post #: 146
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 10:19:47 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
So I might be able to reduce the Capital Ship Designs to Size 650 and then they will scale up as technology allows in any case. The other designs could be readjusted as well to avoid the shrinkage problems.

Test results are good, no more shrinkage problems with Capital Ships.

But Cruisers are still a problem. They are designed now for Size 500, but the game builds them at Size 300 research, with few or no weapons.

Still needs attention from Elliot.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/17/2014 11:20:02 AM >

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 147
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 10:25:14 AM   
DeadlyShoe


Posts: 217
Joined: 6/2/2013
Status: offline
I'm pretty sure that's purposeful as part of the increased design shrinkage flexibility in the recent patches. it has produced some weird results like that, but at least you see more design variety early game.

Maybe we could have a flag in the design file where say an asterik means the ai won't design this ship if it can't get the full complement of this item into its design.

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 148
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 10:27:28 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1842
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadlyShoe

I'm pretty sure that's purposeful as part of the increased design shrinkage flexibility in the recent patches. it has produced some weird results like that, but at least you see more design variety early game.

Maybe we could have a flag in the design file where say an asterik means the ai won't design this ship if it can't get the full complement of this item into its design.

I like having shrinkage but not when it means a ship has no weapons (or very few) compared to the template. I would set a minimum 50% of weapons ... any lower and it can't be built.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 7/17/2014 11:27:45 AM >

(in reply to DeadlyShoe)
Post #: 149
RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod - 7/17/2014 10:36:38 AM   
DeadlyShoe


Posts: 217
Joined: 6/2/2013
Status: offline
Fair point, it would be good to know what the criteria are.

On the plus side you see things like the standard Human Carrier having 80 armor and 10 fighter bays in the default design file now.

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> Design and Modding >> RE: Possible AI Improvement Mod Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.207