Home Crush your enemies... and create an EMPIRE!!! Space Empires V -- BUY NOW!!!

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

Navigation

  • news
    • archive
    • blogs
    • books
    • forums
    • recent posts
    • groups
  • image galleries
  • projects & downloads
  • search
  • create content
  • news aggregator

Search

Who's online

There are currently 4 users and 157 guests online.

Online users

  • GambitUK
  • evilhamburger
  • Randallw
  • OmnusDestoth

Languages

  • English English
  • French French

Browse archives

« September 2008  
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Home » news » forums » Support & Feedback » Scenarios & Mods » SE:V MODs

IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-22 18:18. SE:V MODs

Inter-Related Conversion v 0.7b

New version, improve uppon v0.7a (savegames should be compatible, but a fresh game is better). Fix a few quirks of 0.7a and improve a few things. Included scripts for thoses that want to peek at what i did or want to try their hands at fixing the diplomacy (i do my best but more manpower on this may yield more results).

So here it is, the new and improved 0.7b.

The mod :
http://www.rogepost.com/n/8030789206 (yeah, still the damn rogepost Sad )

The readme :

http://www.rogepost.com/n/7583134409

‹ Help needed: linefeeds Making small ships more valuable ›
» login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

neutron bombs

Submitted by majorhavoc on Tue, 2007-01-23 03:28.

Why did you make neutron bombs so anemic? Now bombardment is next to useless. Of course I came to that realization after I outfitted my latest creation with neutron bombs.

» login or register to post comments

Oups...

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-23 05:02.

majorhavoc wrote:
Why did you make neutron bombs so anemic? Now bombardment is next to useless. Of course I came to that realization after I outfitted my latest creation with neutron bombs.

That's surely due to the change i made to the population damage. The fighter ones are useless, but the ship ones are supposed to kill. Next version i will use my altered population system, it should put the neutron and plague bombs back on track.

» login or register to post comments

Thank You

Submitted by evilginger on Tue, 2007-01-23 05:16.

Just finished the game with 0.7a which I won because when I finally forced the Xianti to surrender I ended up with a score 4 times that of the next best player but it was good and the first Xianti war was close. The second wisent as I had significantly better ships if not bigger and they had been at war with just about every one else in the mean time and lost half their systems. Sergetti organic cruisers where better than mine on every score except weapons (worse) and engines(same) and one on one I lost fights with them. However I was in a position to out number them and so win that way. The AI also changes its weapons sets the Xianti fought the first war with zero g weapons and the second with meson cannon They also developed shields between the two wars.

This Mod works my only issue is that the AI still keeps changing its mind about alliances or some of them do but that might just be me not the game

» login or register to post comments

Diplomacy is difficult to fix...

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-23 05:31.

evilginger wrote:
The AI also changes its weapons sets the Xianti fought the first war with zero g weapons and the second with meson cannon They also developed shields between the two wars.

Good, that mean my code work as it's supposed to. And the fact it can keep up with the player is good too. Did you boost the AI production and research?

Quote:
This Mod works my only issue is that the AI still keeps changing its mind about alliances or some of them do but that might just be me not the game

Yes, that's an issue i'm scatching my head with. The AI break treaties a bit too often and i can't figure out why. I thought it was due to the anger, but i seen a receptive AI break treaty on me. Maybe it's related to the new score system. I include my scripts in this version, if someone want to dig into the diplomacy file and help me figure out what's wrong...

Another problem with the current version diplomacy is that the AI will propose treaty elements that the opposing faction will most likely refuse. The code for accepting or refuse treaty work fine, it's the offering part that is buggy. I believe it's due to some changes i made to the global settings (at the end there are variables for diplomacy). I'll try to fix that this week...

» login or register to post comments

all its own work

Submitted by evilginger on Tue, 2007-01-23 05:49.

. No the upgrade was all the AI's own work indeed it took me a while to realise it was using Meson weapons since the fire effect looks like cannon in tactical combat. I was not until I started scanning ships that I noticed.

one thing none of the AI's used as far as I could tell was fighters but that might just have been that game but not general it did use drones some of which did have no warheads in them during the first Xianti war but by the time of the second they had significant numbers of warheads on board and destroyed a lot of my fighters and damaged a couple of my ships including crippling one of my state of the art light cruisers under the guns of a planet which pounded the hulk to bits. I don’t like losing ships so this was painful, I was also rather proud of my light cruiser design as it was a multi role ship with torpedoes and polaron cannon

» login or register to post comments

Fighters...

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-23 06:55.

evilginger wrote:
. No the upgrade was all the AI's own work indeed it took me a while to realise it was using Meson weapons since the fire effect looks like cannon in tactical combat. I was not until I started scanning ships that I noticed.

Good Smiling

Quote:
one thing none of the AI's used as far as I could tell was fighters but that might just have been that game but not general it did use drones some of which did have no warheads in them during the first Xianti war but by the time of the second they had significant numbers of warheads on board and destroyed a lot of my fighters and damaged a couple of my ships including crippling one of my state of the art light cruisers under the guns of a planet which pounded the hulk to bits. I don’t like losing ships so this was painful, I was also rather proud of my light cruiser design as it was a multi role ship with torpedoes and polaron cannon

Hum... As far as i know, they should get warheads before they get drones... At least, in 0.7b they should Smiling. As for fighters, some race don't use them (same for drones). But in my tests i seen fighters and mines so that might be due to race preferences than any bug. In 0.7b, you should see more units, i increased the production ratio of them relative to ships. Well see Smiling.

» login or register to post comments

Hi Fallen Angel, i recently

Submitted by Bob Morane on Tue, 2007-01-23 09:17.

Hi Fallen Angel, i recently tested your mod, and noticed weapons have multi tracking in their description. Combat Sensors increase MT even further. How did you enabled it, i thought it was impossible in SE V?

» login or register to post comments

Re: Hi Fallen Angel, i recently

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-23 19:25.

Bob Morane wrote:
Hi Fallen Angel, i recently tested your mod, and noticed weapons have multi tracking in their description. Combat Sensors increase MT even further. How did you enabled it, i thought it was impossible in SE V?

LOL. First time i'm called that. Nothing special, i found the ability in the description file, along many others. This one works (many don't), it's obvious for planets or when swating lots of missiles and fighters. Not sure it works like it did in previous incarnations of SE, but in SEV it allow the ships to quickly switch targets or attack several weak ones (though it's rare for ships to split their fire, but common for planets). Only the best componment with this ability is used, the others are just backups.

» login or register to post comments
boromeo's picture

Bug !

Submitted by boromeo on Tue, 2007-01-23 21:54.

there seems to have a problem with version 0.7B , if i choose the terran confederation , the game seems about to start but i am returned to the game menu , that doesn't happen if i choose another race

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Wed, 2007-01-24 00:07.

Multi tracking does cause fleets or groups of ships to split fire. They will fire on more than one target rather than blindly chasing one which they are out of range of ignoring others which are in range. I have seen this quite a lot of this in fleet actions. Just about the only splitting of fire I have seen from an individual ship is the firing of auto cannon at drones whilst firing cannon at ships which are in range of the cannon but not the auto cannon. Planets I agree split fire freely and this makes multi weapon weapons platforms particularly nasty.

I have also seen troops on planets as opposed to just Militia which is good and they also engage multiple targets if multiple targets are in range. However if you manually target stuff it seems to void this ability and the units ships will go back to chasing the designated target to the exclusion of all else

» login or register to post comments

AI and prioroty to facilities

Submitted by Bob Morane on Wed, 2007-01-24 05:05.

Hmm, there is a nasty side effect to prioritizing facilities over ships/units. Overall it's a good idea to first build up your colony before producing military vehicles, but in the early game, as homeworlds don't start full of facilities, th AI will first build them up! This means they will have nothing to defend for quite a few turns. In my game right now, my closest neighbors, the Xiatis, are one system away (i mean there is one nebula system between me and them), i have been able to first build 6 colony ships (3 planet start), then some explorers, then when i saw he was undefended, i built a troop ship and some troops and was still able to invade it .He had a first frigate defending his planets when i reached him, but i just out-manoeuvered it and unloaded my 10 troops. I expected some militia fight, but there was nothing to defend the planet and i conquered it without firing a single weapon.

Strangely enough, a few turns later while i was expecting a war declaration, the xiaty contacted me to ask for a non aggression treaty.

Oh, and, sorry for your name

» login or register to post comments

Re: Bug !

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 06:03.

boromeo wrote:
there seems to have a problem with version 0.7B , if i choose the terran confederation , the game seems about to start but i am returned to the game menu , that doesn't happen if i choose another race

Strange, i mostly use terrans when i test my builds, they should work...

» login or register to post comments

Re: AI and prioroty to facilities

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 06:10.

Bob Morane wrote:
Hmm, there is a nasty side effect to prioritizing facilities over ships/units. Overall it's a good idea to first build up your colony before producing military vehicles, but in the early game, as homeworlds don't start full of facilities, th AI will first build them up! This means they will have nothing to defend for quite a few turns. In my game right now, my closest neighbors, the Xiatis, are one system away (i mean there is one nebula system between me and them), i have been able to first build 6 colony ships (3 planet start), then some explorers, then when i saw he was undefended, i built a troop ship and some troops and was still able to invade it .He had a first frigate defending his planets when i reached him, but i just out-manoeuvered it and unloaded my 10 troops. I expected some militia fight, but there was nothing to defend the planet and i conquered it without firing a single weapon.

Well, that can be easily fixed by adding extra starting facilities so the homeworlds are next to full when the game start. I did priorise facility building because the AI had a tendency to never finish building up it's worlds once they had enough production for ships. You can easily fix that yourself. Next build i will make sure the AI can start colonizing right away.

Quote:
Strangely enough, a few turns later while i was expecting a war declaration, the xiaty contacted me to ask for a non aggression treaty.

Maybe they felt they were in no position to fight back at that point. The diplomacy work in strange ways at time, i haven't figured it out completly yet.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 06:15.

evilginger wrote:
I have also seen troops on planets as opposed to just Militia which is good and they also engage multiple targets if multiple targets are in range. However if you manually target stuff it seems to void this ability and the units ships will go back to chasing the designated target to the exclusion of all else

I guess it's assumed you want that target destroyed in priority, if you don't pick target they do as they see fit.

» login or register to post comments

One thing to look for...

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 06:18.

I did make a change to population happiness but i'm not sure it all work as intended. In my test i did not see the state change, though i seen messages saying population was growing happier or angrier. Anyone managed to get it's population jubilant?

» login or register to post comments
ekolis's picture
Mod Designer

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by ekolis on Wed, 2007-01-24 09:37.

Hey, if multiplex tracking actually works, does that mean PDC can be fixed???

~~~
Check out the 21st Century Mod!

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b "multiplex tracking"

Submitted by Badger on Wed, 2007-01-24 09:40.

[ Ah- ha!
another Starfire holdover!

we're everywhere!

b]Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...[/b]

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 14:52.

ekolis wrote:
Hey, if multiplex tracking actually works, does that mean PDC can be fixed???

What do you want to be fixed exactly?

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Badger on Wed, 2007-01-24 15:07.

speaking for myself, i would like a "defensive fire" option-

i hate it when i tell ships not to shoot up civilians and it turns off my POINT DEFENSE...

Anyone who wants power; by definition, cannot be trusted with it...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 15:15.

Badger wrote:
speaking for myself, i would like a "defensive fire" option-

i hate it when i tell ships not to shoot up civilians and it turns off my POINT DEFENSE...

I can't code such thing with the tools i have. But i should point out that civilians are hard to kill with normal weapons in my mod, and that secondary and point defense cannot shoot at planets.

Btw, i read about the notorious parthian(sp) shot that plague stock and BM... Is it an issue in my mod or all the changes i made nerfed that issue?

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Wed, 2007-01-24 18:46.

I don’t think so as missiles are not starting weapons as they are in Stock and balance Mod and Pd capable weapons are very common. I have pulled it off but I had to use a destroyer hull to do it successfully on an AI frigate I fired three Nuclear missiles at the thing and it shot enough down that it took me nearly the duration of the combat to cripple the frigate. That said the destroyer was not hit by cannon fire When I tried it with a frigate with two missiles it was a waste of effort since the AI frigate shot down all the incoming missiles and neither ship was at all damaged the Ai frigate couldn’t catch me and my missiles couldn’t hit it.

In a multi ship action an all missile ship group is likely only to be able to retreat successfully from what I have seen. Missile ships are nasty in mixed groups but only for fire support of canon armed ships or with cannon and missiles. Your AI dosent obsess about cannon weapons as the one in stock does and if it does you are going to be firing tl 10 ish missiles at tl 30-40 point defence capable secondary weapons.

Missiles die to easily to point defence fire for the firing over your shoulder technique to work well Torpedoes are better for it as they can withstand point defence fire but they don’t have the range and take even more research effort to get and require you to advance two techs to improve them.

In short the IRM is balanced in this respect.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 19:03.

evilginger wrote:
In short the IRM is balanced in this respect.

Good to read, it means i did my job correctly Smiling.

» login or register to post comments
boromeo's picture

Re: Bug !

Submitted by boromeo on Wed, 2007-01-24 22:00.

I tried another game choosing the terran confederation but again was returned to the main menu, could someone try a quick game choosing the terran confederation and tell me if the same thing happens ?

Actually i;m playin a game being the Xiati and when i saved the game i could see that on the 7 cpu controlled players the terran confederation is there and the game is going fine, it's only when on quick start using the terran confederation that i am returned to the menu

like i said i'd like someone to try choosing the terran confederation in a quick start game and tell me if the same thing happens
Thank you

» login or register to post comments

Re: Bug !

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 22:05.

boromeo wrote:
like i said i'd like someone to try choosing the terran confederation in a quick start game and tell me if the same thing happens Thank you

Do you use any custom files along IRM? There might be some conflict...

» login or register to post comments
boromeo's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by boromeo on Wed, 2007-01-24 22:20.

No i installed space empires V the 1.20 patch and then your mod and balance mod , i don't have any problem choosing the terran confederation with vanilla game and the balance mod , only with yours that i have this problem , i didn't install other files like shipsets , nothing at all, so could u try a quick start game and choose the terran confederation and see if it returns u to the main menu ?

Would appreciate it

also i wanted to install version 0.7a to see if there was that same problem but i couldn't download it on your download link the file wasn't there anymore

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Wed, 2007-01-24 23:02.

boromeo wrote:
No i installed space empires V the 1.20 patch and then your mod and balance mod , i don't have any problem choosing the terran confederation with vanilla game and the balance mod , only with yours that i have this problem , i didn't install other files like shipsets , nothing at all, so could u try a quick start game and choose the terran confederation and see if it returns u to the main menu ?

Would appreciate it

I test my mod using the Terrans 90% of the time, and it run fine. And i ran it today. But the terrans have someting the other race don't : they have new ship names (i disliked the stock ones, so i made a new one combining several i found on the net). It's the only things the Terrans in my mod have the others don't. Never had any problem running the Terrans so far. When the game start having problems, i just defrag and scan the hd then everything works again...

Quote:
also i wanted to install version 0.7a to see if there was that same problem but i couldn't download it on your download link the file wasn't there anymore

I kill the old version whenever i post a new one, but i guess i could leave the old ones in the future, rogepost will kill them after 100 days of inactivity. I just feel that i should remove my junk after they are no longer of use...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Thu, 2007-01-25 02:33.

I am using the Terans in a non quick start game at the moment and having no problems except that having given the AI max bonus I am currently clawing my way back from eight place at the start. I haven’t fought a war yet but I have latched my star to the coat tails of the number one empire and a neutral AI which is currently second I am third though my fleet would blow a way in a strong wind .

I also ran the 7a test as a quick start game with the Terans again with no problems.

» login or register to post comments
boromeo's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by boromeo on Fri, 2007-01-26 10:18.

Something odd happened to me , there was 4 enemy destroyers against one of my planets, the planet had no defenses at all and the 4 destroyers were shooting at it , but still, no damage was done to my planet not even 1 single person died

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Fri, 2007-01-26 10:31.

Bombarding planets in IRM is a bit pointless especialy if you are not using bombardment weapons as it takes a lot of anti ship fire to do single precentages of damage to a planet. the only way to easly kill a planet is a salvo of anti planet drones.

I also think fallen haven has been making changes to the planetry population which may also have contributed

» login or register to post comments

Installation questions

Submitted by javaslinger on Fri, 2007-01-26 12:08.

Script sources file, where does it go?

If it's in the gametypes folder where it unzips to, I get an error because I think the game thinks it's a mod....

I put the interelated-mod folder in the gametypes folder....

Thanks,

Javaslinger

» login or register to post comments
gaultesian's picture

unable to access weapons

Submitted by gaultesian on Fri, 2007-01-26 12:54.

Hi There,

After reading this thread for some time I decided to download your mod. Looks good, but I noticed that I could not access any weapons techs. When I restarted the game and used the cheat ~ALLTECH~ to see the complete listing techs to see if I had to research something else, the only weapons that came up were warheads and the engine overload weapon.

I am not sure what is going on here in terms of why the weapons are not showing up on my tech screen, or why I don't have access to weapons at all.

Sincerely,

Gaultesian

» login or register to post comments

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by evilginger on Fri, 2007-01-26 13:07.

This is odd for whilst The mod makes weapons a bit more of an effort to get especially the more advanced ones you should start with access to Zero g weapons troop weapons and warheads. All of these are at TL0 but are cheap to research. 2500 1000 and 2000 points respectively in a quick start game.

You will of course not see these on the design screen in the first turn but I have seldom needed guns in turn one as even if an AI starts in your system it will start in the same boat as you.

More complex and better weapons require several techs to be researched if you have an idea of what weapons you are after I could help with the prerequisites

» login or register to post comments

Re: Installation questions

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Fri, 2007-01-26 13:33.

javaslinger wrote:
Script sources file, where does it go?

If it's in the gametypes folder where it unzips to, I get an error because I think the game thinks it's a mod....

I put the interelated-mod folder in the gametypes folder....

Thanks,

Javaslinger

If you don't intent on modding them, you can just discard them (ie delete), they are not nessessary to play. The only thing you need is the dirrectory with the mod, the scripts are destined to modders. Maybe i should add some lines in the readme about thoses, but i don't always include them...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Fri, 2007-01-26 13:52.

evilginger wrote:
Bombarding planets in IRM is a bit pointless especialy if you are not using bombardment weapons as it takes a lot of anti ship fire to do single precentages of damage to a planet. the only way to easly kill a planet is a salvo of anti planet drones.

I also think fallen haven has been making changes to the planetry population which may also have contributed

I'm trying to find a better way to handle planetary bombardment. But i find it silly that a level one gun can kill millions of colonists. So right now, colonists are invulnerable to normal gun fire (you can raze all buildings and cargo though). The way it works, you need to do a certain amount of damage per shot before casualties start to register, and it's not cumulative. It's not what i want it to be, but it's what the game allow me to do.

But i'm fiddling with the idea of multiplying population so they represent thousands instead of millions of colonists. The only problem is the game that will keep the M (or B) next to the population number. My tests shown it can work and allow small gunfire to kill something while making it hard to depopulate a planet, but the Ms and Bs annoy me and can confuse new players...

» login or register to post comments
gaultesian's picture

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by gaultesian on Fri, 2007-01-26 14:01.

No, I am not interested in finding and having weapons in the first few rounds. I played the game for over 2 years last night (20 rounds), and still could not access weapons. When I was curious as what type of weapons I would be able to access, I used the ALLTECH cheat and then went over to the ship design window to see what weapons I could access.

None were available.

When I went and started a new game, I wanted to test out what type of weapons I would get by using the "All technologies" studied options in the game setup screen. Again, I could not access any weapons, nor could I research any other fields (all research maxed out and all of the research was greyed out).

I have installed this mod correctly, but it wants me to play in the ultimate pacifist format - no weapons in space.

Sincerely,

Gaultesian

» login or register to post comments

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Fri, 2007-01-26 14:06.

gaultesian wrote:
No, I am not interested in finding and having weapons in the first few rounds. I played the game for over 2 years last night (20 rounds), and still could not access weapons. When I was curious as what type of weapons I would be able to access, I used the ALLTECH cheat and then went over to the ship design window to see what weapons I could access.

None were available.

Strange thing, it never happened to me. I believe you should check where you have copied the files, it's not supposed to be that way.

» login or register to post comments

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by evilginger on Fri, 2007-01-26 14:17.

Thats odd as you should see the basic weapons on the reserch screen straight off and there are a very wide variety of weapons more than in stock I think in the full tree. I would be inclined to re download and reinstall the mod in case it hasent unpacked properly though its never done that with me.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Brad on Fri, 2007-01-26 15:58.

Fallen Haven wrote:
I'm trying to find a better way to handle planetary bombardment. But i find it silly that a level one gun can kill millions of colonists. So right now, colonists are invulnerable to normal gun fire (you can raze all buildings and cargo though). The way it works, you need to do a certain amount of damage per shot before casualties start to register, and it's not cumulative. It's not what i want it to be, but it's what the game allow me to do.

How did you go about this, out of curiosity? In my Ground Combat mod I wanted to encourage invasion rather than extermination so I just lowered the damage done to population in all the entries in damagetypes.txt (down to about .001 IIRC) and added a new damage type - Bombardment - used by napalm and the like which retained the default .25. Thus allowing orbital weapons to destroy a planet's infrastructure but requiring a determined assault from a dedicated force to actually kill off the population.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Fri, 2007-01-26 17:09.

Brad wrote:
How did you go about this, out of curiosity? In my Ground Combat mod I wanted to encourage invasion rather than extermination so I just lowered the damage done to population in all the entries in damagetypes.txt (down to about .001 IIRC) and added a new damage type - Bombardment - used by napalm and the like which retained the default .25. Thus allowing orbital weapons to destroy a planet's infrastructure but requiring a determined assault from a dedicated force to actually kill off the population.

In damagetype.txt, i reduced the damage to population to something like 0.005. If the calculated damage is less than one, no population is killed. I tryied raising population structure or increasing the damage needed to kill one, but it does not seem to work. Population structure seem to only be used to show structure points remaining on the planet, it can be set to zero and it don't change a thing. Damage "to kill one pop" seem to take effect only when there is facilities or cargo left on the planet (if at all), but once there is nothing else, population dies at an alarming rate...

» login or register to post comments
Psieye's picture

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by Psieye on Fri, 2007-01-26 18:43.

gaultesian wrote:
Hi There,

After reading this thread for some time I decided to download your mod. Looks good, but I noticed that I could not access any weapons techs. When I restarted the game and used the cheat ~ALLTECH~ to see the complete listing techs to see if I had to research something else, the only weapons that came up were warheads and the engine overload weapon.

I am not sure what is going on here in terms of why the weapons are not showing up on my tech screen, or why I don't have access to weapons at all.

Sincerely,

Gaultesian


Actually, I had that problem too. But I was in Japanese Language mode at that time, so tried switching the environment to English for SE V using AppLocale. That solved it for me - so check what your computer is doing with non-Unicode text.

I'm going to wait until the next SE V patch comes out (this Monday, so not long) and then the next version of IRM before I look at it properly but it certainly does look promising. I kinda wish SE V would have a patch to not have stuff simply display "1mT minerals produced" though (and IRM uses big numbers) - some significant figures are needed to make sense of that...

Furthermore, I really hope they fix drones so that the "many suicide warheads on the battlefield all combined" bug, "can't aim drones" bug and "initial unit supplies denied if you launch into existing unit group" bug are squished - only then will 'missile drones' be balanced/usable/fair. Still... that just means I avoid using drones except in small numbers on single targets...

---Sig---
Playing Touhou games (Go here if interested . No, nobody else is that good/insane as that replay). No rush for SE V bug fixing.

» login or register to post comments
gaultesian's picture

Re: unable to access weapons

Submitted by gaultesian on Fri, 2007-01-26 19:48.

Ok, I just tried it again.

I realize my problem now. I was loading up a pre-set game that I had saved before, as well as a race that I had custom made before and consequently these may have been shagging it all up.

It works fine now with a brand new set of pre-game parameters and with a new custom made race (as well as the quick start races as I just tried it out).

Sincerely,

Gaultesian

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Brad on Fri, 2007-01-26 20:12.

Fallen Haven wrote:
I tryied raising population structure or increasing the damage needed to kill one, but it does not seem to work.

I found exactly the same thing.

Fallen Haven wrote:
Damage "to kill one pop" seem to take effect only when there is facilities or cargo left on the planet (if at all), but once there is nothing else, population dies at an alarming rate...

I didn't find this at all. I just tested it in a simulator with a maxed out Terran auto-complete attack dreadnought (seven lvl100 AP beams and five lvl100 Graviton Hellbores) against a beginning homeworld (pop 4,000, 19 facilities, some 20,000 supplies and ordnance, no other cargo). The first salvo totally destroyed all facilities and cargo, but it took nearly ten and a half minutes to kill all the population (also reduced the dread to less than 2,000 supplies out of over 60,000 and took about 60% of its ordnance).

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b Bug report

Submitted by evilginger on Fri, 2007-01-26 21:44.

Intermittent bug

Nameless star system occasionally on large maps you will come across a warp point to and on the other side of that is an nameless star system. I have not seen this in stock but I was wondering if you had edited the system names file at some point or increased the number of systems on a large map there being usually less than 100 systems on a standard large map and 120+ names in the system names file which is more than enough

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b Bug report

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Sat, 2007-01-27 07:59.

evilginger wrote:
Intermittent bug

Nameless star system occasionally on large maps you will come across a warp point to and on the other side of that is an nameless star system. I have not seen this in stock but I was wondering if you had edited the system names file at some point or increased the number of systems on a large map there being usually less than 100 systems on a standard large map and 120+ names in the system names file which is more than enough

Yes, in a previous version a changed the system name file for a custom one and i also changed the number of systems and empires that spawn in the game. I haven't tested it much, it's quite possible that something like that happen. But asside being a nameless star, does it create any problems?

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Sat, 2007-01-27 08:04.

Brad wrote:
I didn't find this at all. I just tested it in a simulator with a maxed out Terran auto-complete attack dreadnought (seven lvl100 AP beams and five lvl100 Graviton Hellbores) against a beginning homeworld (pop 4,000, 19 facilities, some 20,000 supplies and ordnance, no other cargo). The first salvo totally destroyed all facilities and cargo, but it took nearly ten and a half minutes to kill all the population (also reduced the dread to less than 2,000 supplies out of over 60,000 and took about 60% of its ordnance).

I had set "damage to kill pop" to something like 20000 but they still died real quickly... Maybe my test ships were just too powerful.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b Bug report

Submitted by evilginger on Sat, 2007-01-27 08:24.

None but there is another similar issue where you get two diferent systems with exactly the same name a few systems appart again this only happens on large maps and beyond confusing the player causes no problem.

» login or register to post comments
tverdoon's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by tverdoon on Sun, 2007-01-28 09:09.

Did anything happen to planet happiness between 0.7a and 0.7b? Using the same race build as from my 0.7a game I started a brand new 0.7b game. Whereas my population was generally jubilant last game now they're all indifferent, despite police troops etc. The only other difference was I gave the AI a low bonus (vs no bonus in my 0.7a game).

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Sun, 2007-01-28 15:50.

Yes, i did change it, and a while ago i asked if it was working properly. It seem not as they never seem to go above Indifferent. I will fix that in the next version, after the patch is released. It might take me a few days though.

Meanwhile you can change it yourself. In the settings.txt, the section about happiness... Just return the values to stock values. Sorry, but i don't have access to my game right now...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Orzelek16 on Sun, 2007-01-28 17:01.

Questions:
1. What do I need to kill 1M of people? Frigate with 4 nuclear bombs lvl 1 can't do any damage to planet.
2. Amount of minerals etc mined by facilities. Is this intentional that mineral miner on 1 lvl mines 6000 per turn?

» login or register to post comments
tverdoon's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by tverdoon on Sun, 2007-01-28 17:01.

Thanks for the reply! I'll mod the settings tonite.

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Badger on Sun, 2007-01-28 17:06.

and here i was researching psychology in abject horror!

good observation there!

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Sun, 2007-01-28 18:09.

Orzelek16 wrote:
Questions: 1. What do I need to kill 1M of people? Frigate with 4 nuclear bombs lvl 1 can't do any damage to planet. 2. Amount of minerals etc mined by facilities. Is this intentional that mineral miner on 1 lvl mines 6000 per turn?

Nuclear bombs should do the trick. Higher level weapons can also kill pop when they do enough damage. I believe 1000 kt of damage is needed. But i plan to change that in the next version so you can kill some population without bombs...

Yes, i changed how much facility produce, but also the bonus for population. In this game we always run out of minerals so i decided to increase it a bit. Still subject to be ballanced again though.

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b: bombardment

Submitted by Badger on Sun, 2007-01-28 18:26.

Historical and Recnt experience has taught us that bombardment is great for attrition- especially with increasingly-accurate targetting-

but almost never for finishing off..

i would suggest it might be effcetive for REDUCING populations- quite well and easily- but past a certain point, say? 25%, you're going to have to just SCOUR to kill the last of 'em...

i was using conventional weapons for this example, but i suppose we can assume populations will find radioactive/biological shelters, too...

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

IRM v 0.7b: If I may Respectfully suggest?

Submitted by Badger on Sun, 2007-01-28 18:29.

i am really impressed by how you handled so much of the Tech stuff..

just a question: the "autocannon" version of the DUC, isn't that effectively point-defense?

why not enable it BY getting the point-defense upgrade and not get both at once?

Obviat the need for point-defense cannon - since that is effectively what he DUC autocannon is ( but more flavorful and useful a version IMO)...?

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b: If I may Respectfully suggest?

Submitted by evilginger on Sun, 2007-01-28 19:20.

True but having some sort of PD earlier and earlier than any seeker weapon giving it a tech level edge makes missile boats more balanced as pretty much any target can have some PD and missiles especially fired from maximum range tend not to make it through. Fire them from optimum range you risk damage from cannon fire at long range. Makes you work and that’s the point

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

let them eat cake.

Submitted by Badger on Sun, 2007-01-28 19:38.

evilginger wrote:
True but having some sort of PD earlier and earlier than any seeker weapon giving it a tech level edge makes missile boats more balanced as pretty much any target can have some PD and missiles especially fired from maximum range tend not to make it through. Fire them from optimum range you risk damage from cannon fire at long range. Makes you work and that’s the point

I would say, just like my ongoing comment that giving longest-range weapon away for NO research is a mistake (IRM doesn't)

... i also opine that the CURE for a weapon (or tactic) should not exist BEFORE it is a problem.

You SHOULD have to work for it-- the solution to missiles, that is. Until then, suffer.

the argument over efficacy of REAL LIFE PD is still unresolved...

by which i mean, in-use missiles have existed sinve the V-1's
and "star wars" defenses are still questionable...

(i did not say, ineffective - i am saying - debated)

My point: 62? years later, we are still R&Ding point defense.
Lets make them research THAT. I agree you should work for it, just disagree over which part.
Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: let them eat cake.

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 08:06.

Badger wrote:
True but having some sort of PD earlier and earlier than any seeker weapon giving it a tech level edge makes missile boats more balanced as pretty much any target can have some PD and missiles especially fired from maximum range tend not to make it through. Fire them from optimum range you risk damage from cannon fire at long range. Makes you work and that’s the point

They are not true point defense, they are cannons that can take shots at missiles, but they are not as good as true PDs (slow firing, not as accurate as true PDs). Plus they will favor shooting at ships leaving the door wide open for missiles to get in. Autocannons are more useful to kill armored fighters/drones or finishing off crippled ships.

Quote:
... i also opine that the CURE for a weapon (or tactic) should not exist BEFORE it is a problem.

They are not the cure, they won't stop every missiles you throw at them. Also they are weak against heavily armored ships, using many of thoses on any design significantly reduce your overall firepower.

Quote:
the argument over efficacy of REAL LIFE PD is still unresolved...

Real Life "point defense" exist, but basically they are miniguns that fire tons of bullets in hope that a few of them damage the missile, they are not the one shot, one kill type of defense. Shooting at missile in space is likely to be much easier as there is no wind, gravity or friction to reduce the effectiveness anti-missile weapons. Of course, targetting a missile that jam your sensors isn't an easy task.

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

MisQuoted

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 10:08.

Fallen Haven wrote:
Badger wrote:
True but having some sort of PD earlier and earlier than any seeker weapon giving it a tech level edge makes missile boats more balanced as pretty much any target can have some PD and missiles especially fired from maximum range tend not to make it through. Fire them from optimum range you risk damage from cannon fire at long range. Makes you work and that’s the point
...

Evil-Ginger -which may be worse than a Cheshire?- said that.
For anyone lost, i said that i liked Fallen's "autocannon" DUC that have dual-purpose role (anti-ship/anti-missile) - but I opined that they should be a benefit of PD research.

And Fallen: most PD right now is actually AntiMissile Missiles.. yes, we have Phalanx systems, various other anti-air guns, and lets not forget Chaff and ECM - all of it - but the most-relied-upon element is AntiAir(missile) Missile systems - pretty much "bomblet missile".
And with no offense intended, SO FAR, PD in space is FAR more difficult than terrestrial pd.
Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Mon, 2007-01-29 10:45.

Off topic
1 for badgers information far worse then any thing from Cheshire “woosy" county that that is Eye-wink

Back on topic
2 When you do get proper PD in IRM you realise how much better it is and comes to realise that the auto canon weapons are the game equivalent of strapping a GPMG to every inch of available railing on a ships and putting up a wall of heavy calibre bullets for an incoming missile to fly through, every time the radar alarm goes off.

3 that they favour shooting at ships to PD work explains why they are less effective than proper PD in multi ship fur balls as the will shoot at ships in range given the chance. It being more likely that a ship will be in range at this point

Historically
4 Pathian horse archery was backed by charges from massively armoured polarm wielding cavalry to break the last knots of resistance.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Mon, 2007-01-29 10:53.

1.25 is here and I have down loaded it but I am laying off installing it till Falen Haven has had a look at how it affects his MOD. Not that I dont think another patch is a good thing but an IRM which will work with it is even better.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Riptokus on Mon, 2007-01-29 14:37.

Badger, actually there are 2 kinds of PD, the kind designed to intercept missiles before they hit their target, and the kind that keep missiles from killing you. The intercept kind are what you listed, but we have some VERY EFFECTIVE PD for our "Wet Navy" RL ships, and it doesn't use missiles Eye-wink

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

3 things, dangit! 1 useful?

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 15:03.

1. Playing IRM
And having some little difficulty with the AI making silly ships again(not always by any means, but occaisionally.. missile ships with no pd..cannon ships with just cannon)
And i wondered if a great solution to some of the ...Issuesthat have gotten discussed is maybe to just SUBSTITUTE F-Angel's "Depleted Uranium AutoCannon" for the DUC the AI loves, ALTOGETHER.
Not only does it make more sense as a weapon ANYWAY, AND have more flavor, the fact that it is dual-purpose should give the AI a little assissance.

DUC this, DUC tha - FH making it targetable against more types of targets, as far as i'm concerned, solves the whole issue.
Is it perfect? No! that's the point - un-specialized weapons AREN'T. But the AI doesn't handle "specialized" all that well anyway. It's all about "general Purpose" when yr talking about a mediocre planner.
(so, Badger, why do YOu use Gen Purpose weapons AND "utility ships" that do 3 things at once?...Uh.. SHUT UP!)

2.

Riptokus wrote:
Badger, actually there are 2 kinds of PD, the kind designed to intercept missiles before they hit their target, and the kind that keep missiles from killing you. The intercept kind are what you listed, but we have some VERY EFFECTIVE PD for our "Wet Navy" RL ships, and it doesn't use missiles ;)

WAY more than 2, actually.. USN uses chaff, phalanx, ecm, and above all else, various SAM's..
Anyway, the effectiveness is still one of those things you can sit sround and debate with navy boys and armchair captains...
Look , chump, wanna just play Harpoon? Or don't you have some pretty ships to CAD? ;P
3.
evilginger wrote:

1 for badgers information far worse then any thing from Cheshire “woosy" county that that is

and here i always wondered if it was you guys or cheshires that were really the mean ones...
Watch those Siamese...
( i wonder which Kzinti are?)

what's really disturbing is i was looking for a pic of a ginger for ya, and up came "Culinary Uses"... kinda spooked me.

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by evilginger on Mon, 2007-01-29 15:20.

The real question of the moment is how does 1.25 effect the Inter related Mod? I would give it a go but I am in the middle of a game at the moment and I don’t like patching stuff mid game just in case

On a side note root ginger makes stewed badger taste great, it was always something I took on survival exercises along with pepper coriander and some cheese wire.

» login or register to post comments

Re: MisQuoted

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 16:00.

Badger wrote:
And Fallen: most PD right now is actually AntiMissile Missiles.. yes, we have Phalanx systems, various other anti-air guns, and lets not forget Chaff and ECM - all of it - but the most-relied-upon element is

I knew that but i had more in mind anti-missile cannons when i replied. Of course, there are many other ways to stop missiles, though few are truly effective. No matter how many of thoses you have, there are still a chance they get through or still cause damage even if they have been hit.

» login or register to post comments

Re: 3 things, dangit! 1 useful?

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 16:05.

Badger wrote:
1. Playing IRM And having some little difficulty with the AI making silly ships again(not always by any means, but occaisionally.. missile ships with no pd..cannon ships with just cannon)

You may not have realised it yet, but i created thoses designs as specialist ships. They are not silly, they are just not made to be used alone but in a balanced fleet. The AI do have generalist ship design that has a bit of everything. It's on purpose that i don't make them use PD weapons, it takes away space that can be used for more armor, shields and main weapons.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 16:07.

evilginger wrote:
The real question of the moment is how does 1.25 effect the Inter related Mod? I would give it a go but I am in the middle of a game at the moment and I don’t like patching stuff mid game just in case

On a side note root ginger makes stewed badger taste great, it was always something I took on survival exercises along with pepper coriander and some cheese wire.

I will install the patch in a few minutes, i will soon see how much work i will need to update my mod...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Orzelek16 on Mon, 2007-01-29 16:23.

Back to population killing - by 1000k you mean that one nuclear bomb should kill 1M of population?
Because one nuclear bomb gives 1500-2000 and it still can't kill any population...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 16:41.

Orzelek16 wrote:
Back to population killing - by 1000k you mean that one nuclear bomb should kill 1M of population? Because one nuclear bomb gives 1500-2000 and it still can't kill any population...

I guess it need to be fixed, it was supposed to work. Seem i messed it up somewhere. But don't worry, next version will be out soon, i'm working on this.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Szun on Mon, 2007-01-29 19:22.

Hi I am new to IRM

I played the mod for 90 turns and found a few things:

1) all weaponplatforms have no slots in designscreen -> unusable
2) Organic colony ships miss the "max engine 12" entry I could put 16+ in for speed 21 with lvl1 ion-engines Laughing out loud
3) the 4 AI's i played against i only found 1 so far and i got 200 more techlevels Sticking out tongue maybe they do need a bonus in the next game
4) the engine speeds on the higher techlevels need a look at, lvl 8 Ion in a frigate gave me 15 speed, lvl 5 in the 2nd level 15, lvl5 in 3rd lvl 15...??? so i asume lvl5 in quantum give 15 as well? ..or i miss something...

all in all i like the mod, even tho the techtree gives me a headache at times, but nothing that wont change with (game)time.

Szun

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 19:37.

Szun wrote:
1) all weaponplatforms have no slots in designscreen -> unusable

Not sure what you mean, weapon platforms works, i can design them, so does the AI...

Quote:
2) Organic colony ships miss the "max engine 12" entry I could put 16+ in for speed 21 with lvl1 ion-engines Laughing out loud

Fixed now.

Quote:
3) the 4 AI's i played against i only found 1 so far and i got 200 more techlevels Sticking out tongue maybe they do need a bonus in the next game

Strange, about everyone told me they could keep up... You may not have installed all the files...

Quote:
4) the engine speeds on the higher techlevels need a look at, lvl 8 Ion in a frigate gave me 15 speed, lvl 5 in the 2nd level 15, lvl5 in 3rd lvl 15...??? so i asume lvl5 in quantum give 15 as well? ..or i miss something...

The level of the engine matter, they get a small bonus to speed. So a level 10 ion will beat a low level contra-terrene, but at equal level, the more expensive engine should be faster.

Quote:
all in all i like the mod, even tho the techtree gives me a headache at times, but nothing that wont change with (game)time.

Take some time to get used to. You can also suggest changes to it, if they go along the spirit of the mod, i might include them.

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

fallen angel ;) Mod'd Mod?

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 20:29.

so - the IRM is giving me a probby-

the AI is doing TERRIBLE about the cannons and missiles thing...

and then i made fighters.

It's helpless.

So- I sort of mod'd your mod...
I turned all DUC's into autocannons
(the first time i did it wrong and the old AC's turned into mass drivers!!! OOps.)
- to try my own suggestion.

suddenly, NO Ai ship is without at least rudimentary PD - well, except that little missile boat i just ate up...

So far, so good. I'll get back to you on this little experiment...

ps: i editted this after i noticed i'd misssed posts..

The problem is the current AI -even your improved one-
Just doesn't Handle Specialized ANYTHING well.

i had this problem before with the Ai making 30 varieties of "utility" ships - a poor handler of specialists, needs generalists.
But lets try proof in the pudding, shall we?

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

IT'S WORKING! IT'S WORKING! IT'S WORKING!

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 20:54.

The Xianti who WERE totally helpless with their 3 DUC frigates?

Just fought off a squad of Fighters!
some neutral race I had pushed to the point of Oblivion?

Just shot down Nuclear missiles!

I'm Loving This!

Love! Love! lOve!

I think i just wargasmed

Ok BUT ONE THING.

Wanna tell me why my 40 Marines can't take a colony ship?
They didn't even kill 1 for 1!

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: IT'S WORKING! IT'S WORKING! IT'S WORKING!

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 21:53.

Badger wrote:
Wanna tell me why my 40 Marines can't take a colony ship? They didn't even kill 1 for 1!

Colony ship only have 1 crew quarter. But crew fight at half the strenght of a marine (0.5). At equal numbers, marines should kill off the crew... How many crew does that ship had?

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

marines vs. kik-butt colonists!

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 22:01.

yeah i felt like the american revolution up in heah!

i ahd 4 squads (40) vs. a crew of 50... i will ook into all the mods & details for ya innna sec-- fair?

what, Fh, you're not interested in the OTHER 1/2 of my msg?

ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING ITS WORKING Smiling ITS WORKING ITS WORKING :)

» login or register to post comments
Badger's picture

Re: marines vs. kik-butt colonists! PT 2

Submitted by Badger on Mon, 2007-01-29 22:25.

wow!

these guys ARe tough!

tried it again. two boarding frigates...

the first went in and staus:
37 crew (at 19 str) vs. 34 mnarines (34)
then: second look: 29 vs 9

then there were none

i sent in the second ship.
by the time i checked it was 23 crew, 30 marines

then, 12 crew, 9 marines
then
Silence. 12 crew - NO MARINES.

i checked the racial abilitiies: its the Tiyyod...
they Do get +10% to hit, +5% dmg, but that says for vechicles only...

no security stations...


i'm PRETTY SURE I didn't get the
"can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag"
racial trait...

any clues?

Troll? No, Sir, I am a BADGER!

» login or register to post comments

Re: marines vs. kik-butt colonists! PT 2

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Mon, 2007-01-29 22:36.

Badger wrote:
i'm PRETTY SURE I didn't get the "can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag" racial trait...

any clues?

Strange, they should not be that difficult to kill... Unless there is a crew experience factor somewhere.

» login or register to post comments
Psieye's picture

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Psieye on Mon, 2007-01-29 23:34.

Ship Hijacking has quite a lot of randomness to my experience. You can start with double the defence crew's firepower and still lose, then insert another ship's marines in separately and win much more easily. This is why I have fleets of kidnappers, not lone ships. Also, consider Toxic Injectors (kill crew) and Tractor Beams to make your life easier.

The above applied to Balance Mod, but the mechanics of ship hijacking is the same I think.
---Sig---
Playing Touhou games (Go here if interested . No, nobody else is that good/insane as that replay). No rush for SE V bug fixing.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Szun on Tue, 2007-01-30 15:58.

btw i used the TNG shipset and i had no slotlayout on the Weaponplatforms..maybe its a issue witht he shipset..i dont know
as i understand the "override" file in mod should make the layout and not the shipset so i dont understand whats wrong..
any ideas?

i started a new game with patch 1.25 and got me the Klingon shipset...i will see if the layout works there if i get to the WP tech

btw i copied all the files but the scripts (do i need those?) to gametype folder, worked with all the other mods i got so i dont see how i missinstalled unless the scripts are needed in there as well. I did see apost about them and your statement was they are only for moders use ...so i left them out..no big deal to copy them as well...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-30 18:20.

Szun wrote:
btw i copied all the files but the scripts (do i need those?) to gametype folder, worked with all the other mods i got so i dont see how i missinstalled unless the scripts are needed in there as well. I did see apost about them and your statement was they are only for moders use ...so i left them out..no big deal to copy them as well...

I did not try any shipset yet so i have no idea if they can work or not with my mod. The compiled scripts are needed, the uncompiled ones are just there if you wish to mod them.

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Szun on Tue, 2007-01-30 18:37.

well the klingon set WP layout is working fine and since the game choose to use the TNG empire i copied the terran scripts for them in the hopes they may work better then the ones for the default game.
Why the TNG platform didnt show a layout escapes me tbh

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-01-30 18:55.

Szun wrote:
well the klingon set WP layout is working fine and since the game choose to use the TNG empire i copied the terran scripts for them in the hopes they may work better then the ones for the default game. Why the TNG platform didnt show a layout escapes me tbh

The klingons would work wonder with the Sithrak AI, but the TNG would need a special AI if you want them to stay close to the Star Trek spirit. For exemple TNG humans would favor beam weapons and torpedoes, unlike the Terran AI of my mod...

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Szun on Wed, 2007-01-31 01:31.

i actually only got the ships for thier looks:D
the TNG wasnt intended as a AI option..but i couldnt find the "AI=NO" in empirefiles ...yet ... i know its somewhere!!! lol

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by zelos on Tue, 2007-03-13 01:10.

i cant download this file

» login or register to post comments

Re: IRM v 0.7b

Submitted by Fallen Haven on Tue, 2007-03-13 01:33.

zelos wrote:
i cant download this file

The link has been dead for a long time, the current version is 0.8e. New versions comming shortly.

» login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Now on STEAM

Now on STEAM!Space Empires V via STEAMSpace Empires IV via STEAMSTEAM online by Valve Corporation

Popular content

Today's:

  • Ship Capture Issues
  • Space Empires V
  • Space Empires V and VI: Expansions and the Future: Tell the Company What's on Your Wish List
  • Hows the current AI?
  • SE5 Multimedia Pack

All time:

  • Space Empires V and VI: Expansions and the Future: Tell the Company What's on Your Wish List
  • Space Empires V
  • Gritty Galaxy Fleet Clash
  • Damn Dirty Bugs/Annoyances
  • Space Empires V: General Thoughts, Observations, and Suggestions

Last viewed:

  • Running SEV Minimized
  • Space Empires V 1.63
  • Head of Snake or Hydrae
  • PBW Game Daily Turns Looking for Players
  • Star Wars SEV ship set available
(c) Strategy First, Inc. All rights reserved.