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 1 user and 117 guests online.

Online users

  • Arpeegy

Languages

  • English English
  • French French

Browse archives

« May 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 31  
Home » news » forums » Space Empires V » Space Empires V After Action Reports

The extra evil ship design fails its test...

Submitted by Skystrider on Sun, 2006-10-01 00:21. Space Empires V After Action Reports

So my empire just discovered some new weapons, and after making myself a nice solid design, I put it for a test-drive in the simulator.

What's the goal of the ship? To knock out my enemies' weapons and engines, leaving a maintenence-costly broken hull of a ship, that's what! (This tactic owned in SE4!)

But the tachyon cannons and ionic dispersers are all but useless in SE5, because, not only do they no longer penetrate armor, but they can't deal damage to it. I put said ship design against itself in the simulator - all the two ships did was dance around each other until the time expired, because the shots they fired did nothing.

The dispersers/tachyon canons work against un-armored ships, but then I have to reasearch normal weapons to get that far. What's the point of getting the engine-only or weapon-only weapons then? I sure hope this is a bug that will be fixed...

ps - I don't know what these weapons do to sheilds yet, I hadn't gotten the tech.

‹ The Ring of Life Galactic History: Tau Empire ›
» 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.
Mod Designer

It does say exactly that in the description

Submitted by Phoenix-D on Sun, 2006-10-01 11:00.

The idea I suppose is if you have a BIG ship with a lot of internals. Or something. :/

That's one part of the damage types that sadly can't be modded. I think.

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

You should be able to give

Submitted by Thy Reaper on Sun, 2006-10-01 13:17.

You should be able to give the X-only damage types 100% shield and armor piercing effects, like in SE4. I haven't looked through the damage types that much, but I get the feeling this is very possible.

With all these people, you would expect one of them to carry an iguana around...

» login or register to post comments
Mod Designer

Unfortunately not.

Submitted by Phoenix-D on Sun, 2006-10-01 13:27.

The X-only damage types use Special Effects.

From the top of the damagetypes.txt file:
1. If there are special effects, execute them. Skip all remaining steps.

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

They need to skip armor

Submitted by Captain Kwok on Sun, 2006-10-01 16:26.

The special types should skip armor by default though - I'll add that to my list for MM.

-----

Space Empires Depot | Space Food Empires!

» login or register to post comments
Mod Designer

They need to be modable. :P

Submitted by Phoenix-D on Sun, 2006-10-01 16:56.

It'd be best to have the special effects modable as to whether they skip shield and armor or not, like all the other damage types.

» login or register to post comments
AngleWyrm's picture

Here's an iguana for

Submitted by AngleWyrm on Sun, 2006-10-01 20:00.

Here's an iguana for ya:

Damage Type Name                          := Only Weapons
Description                               := Damage which, once armor and shields are penetrated, only causes internal damage to weapons. 
Picture Number                            := 5
Cannot Penetrate Any Kind Of Shields      := TRUE
Cannot Penetrate Any Kind Of Armor        := TRUE
Number Of Vehicle Types                   := 0
Number of Shield Types                    := 0
Number of Armor Types                     := 0
Internal Damage Percent                   := 100
Facility Damage Percent                   := 100
Population Amount Killed Per Damage Point := 0.25
Crew Amount Killed Per Damage Point       := 0
Is Viral Weapon                           := FALSE
Number Of Special Effects                 := 0
Number Of Requirements                    := 1
Requirements Evaluation Availability      := TRUE
Requirements Evaluation Allows Placement  := TRUE
Requirements Evaluation Allows Usage      := 1
Requirement 1 Description                 := Only destroys components that are weapons. 
Requirement 1 Formula                     := Is_Component_Weapon()
Number Of Abilities                       := 0

» login or register to post comments
Mod Designer

Yes, that's the type

Submitted by Phoenix-D on Sun, 2006-10-01 20:21.

And oddly enough it CAN be modded. The way the top of the file reads, modding shouldn't work..but it does, sorta. The cannot penetrate fields are read, and if they are false the weapon skips ALL of that type (you can't make a PPB style weapon damager, in other words).

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

That's a weird looking

Submitted by Thy Reaper on Sun, 2006-10-01 20:41.

That's a weird looking iguana...

--------
With all these people, you would expect one of them to carry an iguana around...

» login or register to post comments
dwiebe18's picture
Mod Designer

I want weapons that can

Submitted by dwiebe18 on Wed, 2006-10-04 02:53.

I want weapons that can target the self destruct device. Unless there is and I missed it somehow.
______________________________________________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe.

» login or register to post comments

Weapon/engine destroying

Submitted by Fishman on Wed, 2006-11-29 23:56.

Weapon/engine destroying damage types can be modified to skip armor and shields. At present it is useless, since it would only damage weapons and engines after you have already blown through shields and armor, but then you don't need a special weapon type to cause internal damage!

dwiebe18 wrote:
I want weapons that can target the self destruct device. Unless there is and I missed it somehow.
Targeting the Self-destruct device seems meaningless, since I've captured ships with self-destruct devices all the time. in SEIV, they'd destroy the ship attempting to board, but in SEV, boarding is accomplished via assault shuttle and th boarding ship has plenty of time to escape the blast zone before any hypothetical explosion occurred. A self-destruct device merely allows you to manually destroy the ship in combat, it does not automatically explode and the AI will not explode the ship.

» login or register to post comments
col.kurtz's picture

Weapon/engine destroying

Submitted by col.kurtz on Thu, 2006-11-30 04:43.

Quote:
Fishman wrote : Weapon/engine destroying damage types can be modified to skip armor and shields. At present it is useless, since it would only damage weapons and engines after you have already blown through shields and armor, but then you don't need a special weapon type to cause internal damage!

I agree, but for balance purpose I guess it would be better if they could just skip armor (not both armor and shields), or maybe these weapons ability to pass thru armor and shields should depend of their tech level.

-------------
Feel lucky earthling ?

» login or register to post comments

I'm not sure what you're

Submitted by Fishman on Thu, 2006-11-30 04:48.

I'm not sure what you're agreeing or disagreeing with, since I basically only stated that the present weapons were useless without making any statement on the balance merits of anything. It would make more sense if they damaged shields normally and ignored armor, as logically weapons and engines would need to be exposed to the outside or else they'd be unable to function properly.

» login or register to post comments
col.kurtz's picture

Well, this is more or less

Submitted by col.kurtz on Thu, 2006-11-30 07:49.

Well, this is more or less what I meant.

-------------
Feel lucky earthling ?

» login or register to post comments
Rilbur's picture

Ship Engines

Submitted by Rilbur on Sat, 2006-12-02 11:37.

Would someone PLEASE explain to me why engines "have" to be on the outside of the ship? Sure, ROCKETS need to be... but names like anti-matter and quantum leave me thinking they're reactionless drives. I. E. instead of spewing a junkload of stuff out your rearend to move forward, you create movement in some other manner. And said other manner by no means has to require contact with the skin of the ship.

Reaction Drive: Uses physics as we understand it, newtons third law for every reaction yada yada yada.

Reactionless Drive: Cheats and somehow produces movement without shoving stuff outside the hull at high speeds. Advantages are (or should be) obvoius.
_______________________
There are 10 types of people in the world:

Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

» login or register to post comments
maran's picture

random thought

Submitted by maran on Sun, 2006-12-03 15:34.

Rilbur wrote:
Would someone PLEASE explain to me why engines "have" to be on the outside of the ship? Sure, ROCKETS need to be... but names like anti-matter and quantum leave me thinking they're reactionless drives.

Just a random thought, maybe the energy created for movement still needs to go somewhere and better it be as far away from the ship as possible?

---

Designing an advanced, diplomatic AI + shipset
Consult the great SEV Wiki

» login or register to post comments
Rilbur's picture

Movement

Submitted by Rilbur on Sun, 2006-12-03 22:31.

maran wrote:
Rilbur wrote:
Would someone PLEASE explain to me why engines "have" to be on the outside of the ship? Sure, ROCKETS need to be... but names like anti-matter and quantum leave me thinking they're reactionless drives.

Just a random thought, maybe the energy created for movement still needs to go somewhere and better it be as far away from the ship as possible?

---

Designing an advanced, diplomatic AI + shipset
Consult the great SEV Wiki

Its applied directly to movement Laughing out loud
_______________________
There are 10 types of people in the world:

Those that understand binary, and those that don't.

» login or register to post comments
Psieye's picture

Getting these weapons to work

Submitted by Psieye on Thu, 2006-12-07 18:59.

I was frustrated when I first came across this problem too. Went to DamageTypes.txt today and changed it to "FALSE" for "cannot penetrate shields/armour". So now they can at least damage shields and armour before only damaging certain components. You could further mod that so that shields and/or armour is completely ignored and damage done straight to internals.

» login or register to post comments

ugh

Submitted by DimmurWyrd on Sat, 2006-12-09 09:26.

Psieye wrote:
I was frustrated when I first came across this problem too. Went to DamageTypes.txt today and changed it to "FALSE" for "cannot penetrate shields/armour". So now they can at least damage shields and armour before only damaging certain components. You could further mod that so that shields and/or armour is completely ignored and damage done straight to internals.

hehe I found that too cheesy in SE:IV myself... massive null space cannons were god weapons hehe... I have 15,000 shields ... well I have 4 massive null space cannons so KABOOM yer toast lol.

Basically I wouldn't mind X destroying weapons being able to bypass armor IF the X item was in the outer hull (and weapons and sensors should be outer hull only) engines might be based on type... ION is definitely reaction driven so outside it goes lol... others who knows. but it would cripple shields even more to make them so useless... however they should definitely take damage from being hit with an X destroyer.

» login or register to post comments

Nullspace Weapons Still Do That

Submitted by Fishman on Wed, 2006-12-13 22:37.

DimmurWyrd wrote:
hehe I found that too cheesy in SE:IV myself... massive null space cannons were god weapons hehe... I have 15,000 shields ... well I have 4 massive null space cannons so KABOOM yer toast lol.
Nullspace weapons STILL do that, they completely ignore all shields and armor. It's the engine/weapon destroyers that now DON'T ignore all shields and armor, which makes them quite useless, as you wouldn't NEED weapon/engine destroying weapons if the enemy ship didn't have shields and armor, a NORMAL weapon would do a quite adequate job turning them into vapor. If you deliberately want to leave crippled wrecks, though, try the alloy burner missiles with your weapon/engine destroyers.

» login or register to post comments

Engines

Submitted by someone on Wed, 2007-04-18 09:39.

DimmurWyrd wrote:

Quote:
engines might be based on type... ION is definitely reaction driven so outside it goes lol... others who knows.

All engines generate energy: Ion engines are probably either super-chemical or fusion, Contra-terrene ones use matter-anti-matter reaction, Jacketed-photon engines harness photons to move the ship and Quantum engines produce the energy with a quantum singularity. All of these are "rockets" and require a way for the energy to get out, the only way to get around this is coherent brownian motion used in the Heart of Gold in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Instead the engines don't all need to be in the outer hull, only the one which lets the ions or particles out and the others being installed in front of it like this:
XX
XX engines in inner hull (will keep ability to move longer when
XX damaged, but vital interiors will be hurt earlier)
XX
II outer hull in the rear of the ship
II

» login or register to post comments

Re: Nullspace Weapons Still Do That

Submitted by Nevyn on Wed, 2007-04-18 12:38.

Null space weapons in V are seekers now, so they can be defended against.

My personal suggestion would be to make the Engine/Weapon destroyers ignore armour, but impact on shields, so that they can be protected against somewhat, but once shields are down(which stop things further away from the hull)

» login or register to post comments
Aurore's picture

Re: The extra evil ship design fails its test...

Submitted by Aurore on Thu, 2007-04-19 02:57.

I believe they should not ignore shields but should do some damage to them. I also think they should ignore only normal armour, not armour derived from special technologies, such as organic.

Aurore

» login or register to post comments

Re: The extra evil ship design fails its test...

Submitted by someone on Sun, 2007-04-22 07:33.

If it doesn't pierce org/crys armor then it must at least damage them because this would add another unfair advantage to org empires. As I posted here earlier, engines can't be completely covered by armor and engine-damaging weapons will be targeted to those parts so they should skip armor. Of course there could be a penalty to damage like "does only 50% dam to engines if ship has armor", to simulate the relatively small non-protected areas.

» 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:

  • clonies
  • Space Empires V 1.71
  • Space Empires V
  • Space Empires V and VI: Expansions and the Future: Tell the Company What's on Your Wish List
  • Explosive expansion start for the AI - Suggestions appreciated.

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:

  • Game Crashes at startup!
  • I am trying to create .emp files for the Default Races but am running into a few issues.
  • Cultural Studies
  • ALT TAB
  • Total Noob Question...
(c) Strategy First, Inc. All rights reserved.