Nomination thread: New features/bugfixes for Yitzi's patch

[Yitzi]

My list of features and bugfixes in order:
Features:
1. Enableing the various probe team options. This would mean getting the Scripts for #DECIPHER, #NODECIPHER, #ADVDECIPHER1, #ADVENERGY, and #ADVENERGY1 working. Fixing ADVDECIPHER1 and ADVENERGY1 would probably require changing the base level of probe team morale.

This would have multiplier 2 for enabling #DECIPHER/#NODECIPHER, multiplier 2 for enabling #ADVENERGY, and multiplier 1 for PROBE morale changes (which include a change to base level of probe morale as well as a few other things.)

2. Adding the various potential bonuses to the CITIZENS section of the alpha file. The bonuses are mentioned in the Help.txt file under the heading #CITIZENHECK.

This would be multiplier 1.

3. Adding a combat defense/attack bonus for Energy weapons versus projectile armor and Projectile weapons versus Energy armor.

This would be multiplier 2.
 

4. Adding Commerce penalities to the negative SOCIAL, ECONOMY effects.

This would be multiplier 1.

5 Adding variables to control the bonus you get from secret projects like the Neural Amp, Dream Twister, and base facilities like Perimeter Defense, Tachyon Field, and Aerospace Complexes.

This would be multiplier 2.

6. Making the Telepathic Matrix give +2 PROBE instead of +2 Probe team morale.

This would be multiplier 1.

Bugfixes:
1. Getting the Faction Bonus COMMFREQ working

This would be multiplier 1.

along with fixing the graphical bug that occurs in the SE faction social bonus/penalty display when using the SOCIAL, TALENT effect. I have attempted to fix the SOCIAL TALENT bug myself but my attempts have made the game unstable.

If you mean that it doesn't display, doing it myself would be a no-go; if you give me a description of how you tried to fix it, I may be able to fix the instability, but that would still be multiplier 1/4 with no guarantee of success.  In any case, it would count as a feature, not a bugfix.

2. Fixing the road attack combat bonus

Already done.

and seperating the variables that control the bonuses for Mobile vs. Rough and Mobile vs. Base

Counts as a feature rather than bugfix, multiplier 2.

3. Fixing the FACTENERGYBON display in the Faction Budget/Economic window (I think it is the F3 shortcut display???).

Multiplier 1.

For instance, changing it so that say the Monsoon landmark gives nutrient+energy instead of just nutrients.
Or even changing the output to zero.

That sort of information needs to be stored somewhere, though, and that means reworking something to make room.

I would've thought the landmark yield info is already stored somewhere? Or is its 'storage' space to small to add info?

I think its storage space only holds the names; the effects are hardcoded.

[gwillybj]

Here's a minor one that I don't expect will get much mileage:

A pet peeve I have is hitting the "d" instead of the "s" or "f" when I have made just one terraforming enhancement, and having that be destroyed because the key for Destroy is "d" and there is no confirmation dialogue (as there is when there are two or more enhancements and it wants to know which one to destroy). Can that be changed to "Shift+D" (and have plain "d" be unassigned)?

I've built a road, want a farm, hit the "d" instead of the "f", and the road is destroyed. Or, I have a farm, want to add solar, hit "d" instead of "s", and lose the farm.

[Yitzi]

Here's a minor one that I don't expect will get much mileage:

A pet peeve I have is hitting the "d" instead of the "s" or "f" when I have made just one terraforming enhancement, and having that be destroyed because the key for Destroy is "d" and there is no confirmation dialogue (as there is when there are two or more enhancements and it wants to know which one to destroy). Can that be changed to "Shift+D" (and have plain "d" be unassigned)?

I've built a road, want a farm, hit the "d" instead of the "f", and the road is destroyed. Or, I have a farm, want to add solar, hit "d" instead of "s", and lose the farm.

Only one problem: shift-d is used for disband.

However, it would, I think, be possible to add a confirmation dialogue when destroying enhancements in your own territory.  You can nominate that if you want (it'd be multiplier 1, and not dependent on alphax.txt.)

[gwillybj]

oops - I disband so rarely that I forgot it.
The confirmation for each "destroy" order in home territory would be nice.

[TarMinyatur]

How about a rule in alphax.txt to affect the scrambling of needlejets?

1, 25 ; Scrambling {0 = disable, 1 = enable for units with < x% damage}

It is frustrating when a heavily damaged Needlejet scrambles to intercept enemy bombers with no chance to win.

It would probably make more sense to have it be based on the situation; even if it's heavily damaged, it might be better to lose the needlejet than whatever the unit was originally attacking, and depending on the relative weapon strengths it might have the advantage even with damage.

Perhaps have it scramble if either the unit being attacked costs more than it does, or it has a better than 50% chance of winning?

Hmm...I'm not sure the cost comparison of units makes for good gameplay (unless you are playing the Morganites or Spartans).

The combat prediction seems logical and good for gameplay overall. So perhaps the percentage could be an alphax.txt variable so it could be finely tuned. 50% is a good starting point, but that might be too high or too low.

[Dio]

Would it be acceptable to have the probe team targetted tech steal and the decreased survival and success percentage for stealing energy credits count as a single nomination?

[Yitzi]

Hmm...I'm not sure the cost comparison of units makes for good gameplay (unless you are playing the Morganites or Spartans).

Why not?  Wouldn't you rather lose a 20 mineral interceptor than a 30 mineral crawler?

The combat prediction seems logical and good for gameplay overall. So perhaps the percentage could be an alphax.txt variable so it could be finely tuned. 50% is a good starting point, but that might be too high or too low.

That could be done...and 0% would then mean always intercept, and 100% would mean never intercept.

Would it be acceptable to have the probe team targetted tech steal and the decreased survival and success percentage for stealing energy credits count as a single nomination?

Since they are fundamentally independent changes, no.  Of course, stuff that doesn't win this time can still make it into future patches...

[Dio]

My first nomination for a new feature is for targeted probe team tech steal. My second nomination for a new feature is a bonus to Energy weapons versus Projectile based Armor and a bonus to Projectile weapons versus Energy based Armor.

[TarMinyatur]

Hmm...I'm not sure the cost comparison of units makes for good gameplay (unless you are playing the Morganites or Spartans).

Wouldn't you rather lose a 20 mineral interceptor than a 30 mineral crawler?

Yes. But I am thinking about the inverse situation.

Interceptors shouldn't remain idle while their comrades are being bombed, regardless of their mineral costs. They scramble to defend. That is their duty as air-superiority units. Only Morgan would keep them locked up in a hangar.

It is not the duty of Interceptors to go on statistically hopeless missions, however. So if the chance of winning is reasonable, they take to the skies. 

[Yitzi]

Hmm...I'm not sure the cost comparison of units makes for good gameplay (unless you are playing the Morganites or Spartans).

Wouldn't you rather lose a 20 mineral interceptor than a 30 mineral crawler?

Yes. But I am thinking about the inverse situation.

Interceptors shouldn't remain idle while their comrades are being bombed, regardless of their mineral costs. They scramble to defend. That is their duty as air-superiority units. Only Morgan would keep them locked up in a hangar.

It is not the duty of Interceptors to go on statistically hopeless missions, however. So if the chance of winning is reasonable, they take to the skies.

Except that in SMAC/X there is no such thing as a statistically hopeless mission.  Even if the interceptor will definitely die without doing any damage, it will still prevent the attacker from harming whatever it had originally been attacking.  So if the chance of winning is reasonable or it will save a unit more valuable than the interceptor itself, they should intercept.

[TarMinyatur]

It is not the duty of Interceptors to go on statistically hopeless missions, however. So if the chance of winning is reasonable, they take to the skies.

Except that in SMAC/X there is no such thing as a statistically hopeless mission.  Even if the interceptor will definitely die without doing any damage, it will still prevent the attacker from harming whatever it had originally been attacking.  So if the chance of winning is reasonable or it will save a unit more valuable than the interceptor itself, they should intercept.

I see your point. But I believe that a highly damaged Needlejet's greatest priority is to get repaired such that it can potently fight another day. It shouldn't sacrifice itself simply because another unit happens to have required 10 more minerals to be built than itself. There is more to the concept of value than mineral investment.

If I have a crippled 4-row Interceptor and, let's say, a dozen 5-row Sentinels, which type is more valuable to my faction? I'd say the jet is more valuable than the infantry, especially after it is repaired.

Yes, of course I should withdraw my damaged jet from hostile areas so that it can be repaired, but sometimes that isn't possible.

[Yitzi]

I see your point. But I believe that a highly damaged Needlejet's greatest priority is to get repaired such that it can potently fight another day. It shouldn't sacrifice itself simply because another unit happens to have required 10 more minerals to be built than itself. There is more to the concept of value than mineral investment.

If I have a crippled 4-row Interceptor and, let's say, a dozen 5-row Sentinels, which type is more valuable to my faction? I'd say the jet is more valuable than the infantry, especially after it is repaired.

Then why did you build the infantry, if it costs more and is worth less?

[TarMinyatur]

A force of 13 Interceptors is ineffective. The jet is valuable due to its rarity in the scenario I depicted.

[Yitzi]

A force of 13 Interceptors is ineffective. The jet is valuable due to its rarity in the scenario I depicted.

And it might be that you got some of each to be covered either way, and now you've lost enough interceptors that it's worth more?  I can buy that, but that means that things get a lot more complicated and can't really be easily based on an automatic system (as sometimes the interceptor will be worth more, and sometimes those sentinels will be worth more).

How's this for a change: Instead of placing the limits as suggested before, say that interceptors (in human-controlled factions) on hold position won't intercept (so that if you're saving it for whatever reason you can do so), but interceptors using the sleep command will.  That way, you can hold-position your damaged interceptor, but if you want it out there anyway it can do so.

[TarMinyatur]

Use the "hold" key to prevent scrambling? Intuitive. Yes, that'll work.