Having ground combat like in Netpanzer 0.8 ( Source available!)

how do I make these lists you did moe in this thread with the first proposal? and another question, is this purely 3D related or does the title "3D programs and development" means development as a whole, not only 3D-related?

Hated ground stuff in imperial galactica 2, so i wouldnt be a fan if it was implimented.

of course with the possibility of auto-battling, skeet .

So is about BOTE then or Supremacy?

as I recently found out, both games have a strong possibility to be code-wise interchangeable so I'd say, unless otherwise stated, all these things are for both games.

Just wondering because I have already figured out a plot for the sequel to BOTE while I was in the shower one night. Another night while in the shower I came up with another idea (that seems to happen to me a lot) for the sequel to the sequel. So I was thinking, why not put a bit extra effort into the patch and make it an entirely independent game?

sure that would qualify as never-ending task .

This thread can be for either Supremacy and BOTE. As Mal said, the combat system MAY be interchangeable if we've extremely lucky, which would mean that anything implemented in one game would require absolutely no effort implementing into the other because they have the same engine.

Non combat-specific things would obviously need to be separated though. I'll separate them when someone comes up with a game-specific one - like a continuing storyline, Fox.

I just realized something that needs to be figured out early on. What kind of combat system would be implemented? RTS or TBS?

both as it seems. We have 2 guys, one programming an RTS one and the other TBS.

Oh yeah, I never announced that on the forums, did I? It's only in the staffroom...

I'll make a thread on it.

Ok. I know I'm beating a dead horse, here. And I can almost hear everyone say, "Oh, dear God, NO!! Not *him* again! Not THIS again!" Still, here are my requests:

1) STL.
2) Modability of the number of tech levels to at least 20, if not more.
3) Ship list capacity of at least 64 if not 128 or more per race. (So they can slowly climb up that tech-tree ladder)
4) Building list capacity similarly increased per race.

what's STL again?

the rest of the points are easily moddable. No problem to do that (except the techs, but that's also a minor problem for sir p. to solve) with the current editors. Doubt however, that so many people will ever get at tech 20 in their games...

STL: Slower Than Light. For sleeper ships and the like. I've been pestering *everyone* since the I learned of BotFII for STL so I could mod a game that starts with the player at pre-warp tech levels on only one planet. I actually already have 20 tech levels (mostly)...Though, frankly, they need alot more work, and little of the tech objects are there, which is, of course, where the most work is done anyway.

2, 3, and 4 are already possible in Supremacy, ZDarby. It just requires some simple modding.

ZDarby

My bad. Thanks, Mal .

Would it be possible to implement STL as speeds with decimal points though, Mike? I think we've mentioned this before, but I forgot what your reply was. ZDarby and anyone wanting to make an early mod would be happy then.

It'll be much more complex than that MoE. Just think about how important it then would get where exactly you are IN that sector, saying, it could be a dozen different fleets actually crawling in one sector and no fight ever would occur. It would so slow down the game, I doubt it becomes practical. I guess STL is merely than a more refined grid on a huge galaxy map, i.e. not 20 ly diameter but only 2 ly and much more space in between planet systems. A small or tiny map wouldn't be playable or only with 2-3 different majors showing only a small section of a usual non-STL small or tiny map..

Random event and mission editors would be nice, if its anything like legacys mission script tools i would like even more.

Mwahaha then i'd be able to implement my

I can't think of any way to make STL work elegantly with the current map system. Let's say you have a speed of 0.25, and you set a course for the next sector. Three turns go by, and then you cancel the order for some reason. The next turn, you give the same order. You now have to take 4 more turns, because you have no way of knowing where you are in the sector. Also, this would easily confuse many players, as their ships would appear to not be moving. I don't like the feature, and I don't think it adds anything to the game, especially considering how large the maps are. Ships that move that slowly would just be a pain.

well, or you do it by stretching the map like I said above, but then it would be the same effect as reducing star density and increasing distance plus you loose the huge maps and you get ships later on in the FTL-period which have speeds of 12 and higher...

so, agreed, it's very tedious.

Oh well, never mind...so what about the editors, Mike?

Could do the map like this, i think its cool lookin and modern but still kinda tile based just hiden the tiles lol.

It's not really a grid based system, more a 'choke' point system where you can only travel along certain star lanes, though if i can remember correctly in moo3 you could go direct but it slowed your movement to a crawl.

As a game i don't think that system works, no doubt implemented to add some strategy it just simply fails

Regards Wolfe

I'm glad to hear the other stuff I want already exists!

Concerning STL:

First and foremost: The programmers don't like STL? Then, that's fine. You're putting in the work, I don't mind if you choose not to implement something. This has been my opinion from the start and will continue to be my opinion 'till BotF5 and beyond. However, I'll continue to be a gadfly and suggest the notion.

As to implementation in 2.5, I would suggest that a vessel or fleet traveling at STL would not be contactable. In other words, you can't turn them back and you can't fight them. You would only be able to give them orders or engage them in combat when they finally arrive at their destination. Yes: this is inaccurate to real life but you give things up for a video game.

While they are between sectors, their continued existence would be a shown as ships icon in the destination sector that was ghosted (contrast reduced). When you clicked on the icon, the ship information would appear as normal but a message would give the time of arrival and all the order's buttons would be muted out. As an alien to the vessel or fleet, you could only get the information of when it arrived , not what was in the fleet. (This is all very similar to how it was handled in Star Wars: Rebellion.)

In the event of a trip of multiple sectors, each new sector in route would be a "destination". In other words, if it takes five turns to go from sector to sector and there are three sectors to travel, you get to contact the fleet on days 0, 5, 10 and 15 --starting sector, first sector, second sector and final destination, respectively. To avoid the problem of having fractional times between sectors, restrict the 'STL speeds' so that it's not '.111111' but simply '9' --9 turns to travel a sector....Obviously, I don't know how the program manages speeds internally. However, I think, if I were programming it, I'd represent these STL speeds as negative numbers. I don't even know if that's possible here, but....

As to boring, that's up to the modder, I would think. Bad mods are boring.