Ideen / Vorschläge

[Darkness]

@ Pawleus

Such a small map, way to much worlds for me.

It looks like intended. If you have a non-aggression pact you can't enter other majors territory.
If you have a friendship treaty you can enter it but can't use their shipyardrange.
Starting with cooperation you should be able to use their range provided by shipyards (its never possible to use the range of other majors stations).

If you mean the rising prices in the trade menu if you try to buy ressources multiple times then its all right. Thats the market regulation. The more you buy, the less they have, the higher the price will be.

If you mean something else, pls explain it a bit more. ^^

[Wo he hiv]

Meint Contested sectors umstrittene Sektoren wie in Birth of the Federation ? Das fände ich nicht falsch aber wichtig finde ich es auch nicht.

@Pawleus: Books about animals are interesting for me. At the moment I read for example "Woodpeckers of the World The Complete Guide" and "Sabertooth". But I prefer to read a book, not on the PC. Perhaps English books about animals are easier to read for me than novels. Because some of the special words in books about animals come from Latin. In German books about animals these words come from Latin too. So this words are similar. I am an avid reader too. Once I have read a German novel with 377 pages in one day. I hope my text is at least understandable.

[Pawleus]

Such a small map, way to much worlds for me.

I have my next game on 70x70 with much lower density in systems and the slow expansion rate. Unfortunately, it looks like AIs cannot cope well with much larger distances and the slower expansion - I already control in a peaceful way (which is much harder even playing as Humans) about 1/4 of the map and I have met only 1 major and only by a wormhole although I've tried 10 of them and I've built 3 outposts on the other side of them. The turn is 255 so I would expect seeing more of them. It looks to me that smaller and denser maps are better suited for AIs, especially when a player tries to play peacefully. Generally, conquest is much easier for a player than in BotF even with almost no UI help in BotE in this regard. It should be changed (eg. by more often partial losses in troops and even ships while attacking systems - you could loose more ships in this way in BotF than in the actual ship-to-ship combat and in BotE I have yet to see a single ship lost in this way despite of theoretically having more defense installations to build than in BotF), especially the UI help part of it because that part is a balancing issue only for inexperienced players but it's a gameplay issue for all of them.

If you mean the rising prices in the trade menu if you try to buy ressources multiple times then its all right. Thats the market regulation. The more you buy, the less they have, the higher the price will be.

If you mean something else, pls explain it a bit more. ^^

Sorry for not being precise enough - I meant it's progressively more expensive with each transaction when buying items on the build screen. This could also be a kind of market simulation and this is why I am not sure it's a bug.

@Wo he hiv, you don't have to worry about your written English because it looks very good and I repeat because I mean it

About contested sectors, yes, it's a feature from BotF (as I said previously) and I disagree: they serve an important role there. In BotF if you want good relations with a major you need to be really careful which systems you settle and where you build space-stations as to not have contested sectors with them. You can also give them away or demand as part of peace resolutions providing additional meaningful choices to players, especially in multiplayer games (systems in contested sectors cannot be settled unless at war). Using them you can limit the interception area of opponent's forces and prevent him from building spacestations closer to your territory - generally, you can peacefully take away from them a part of their territory (and they can - yours) decreasing their operational depth.
In short, I very like tensions building around contested sectors in BotF not just in multiplayer but even playing against AIs and I would love seeing them in BotE (I was actually very surprised noticing they are not in the game).

[Darkness]

Meint Contested sectors umstrittene Sektoren wie in Birth of the Federation ? Das fände ich nicht falsch aber wichtig finde ich es auch nicht.

Ja genau die.

Noch mal zum Schiffe durchschalten. Mit den Befehlen warten und stationieren kannst du jedem Schiff immer einen Befehl geben, so dass es bei der Auswahl inaktiver Schiffe ignoriert wird.

Bei warten ist das Schiff eine Runde beschäftigt. Bei stationieren, so lange bis du es anwählst und ihm neue Befehle gibst.

Ist sehr zu empfehlen, das zu nutzen. Ich arbeite immer damit weil ich auf die Funktion inaktive Schiffe suchen angewiesen bin. Bei maximaler mapgröße und spätestens wenn du ein Viertel der Karte kontrollierst wird es viel zu zeitaufwändig jede Runde alle Sektoren nach Schiffen abzusuchen, die grad nix zu tun haben. ;]

I have my next game on 70x70 with much lower density in systems and the slow expansion rate. Unfortunately, it looks like AIs cannot cope well with much larger distances and the slower expansion

You are right. Wider range, less worlds and slower expansion lever out most of the advantages of the AI. The bonus the AI get on impossible can't be used well if the next world is 20 rounds away instead of 2.
Its more a x3 build up play than a x4 one. ^^

Thats why I play with the form isles and 8 additional worlds around the homesystem for everyone. So the AI can use the 8 start systems to build up an advantage and have some more worlds nearby.
This way at the moment you reach the enemy they have their fleets and an aceptable science lvl to have some interesting fights.

If you want it the hard way, set world density to 30-50% and maximum allied majors and have fun with overwhelming fleets and hundreds of enemy worlds. xD

Sadly I can't play this way cause I don't like to use the system manager (its personal preference, I know the manager works good ^^). And if you want to handle every world by yourself it doesn't make sense to play a game with thousand worlds. ~~

I already control in a peaceful way (which is much harder even playing as Humans) about 1/4 of the map

Try Heyoun and everything will become easier. They are a money printing machine almost from the start and you will be very fast at a point there you don't know how you could spend all the money.

Generally, conquest is much easier for a player than in BotF even with almost no UI help in BotE in this regard. It should be changed (eg. by more often partial losses in troops and even ships while attacking systems - you could loose more ships in this way in BotF than in the actual ship-to-ship combat and in BotE I have yet to see a single ship lost in this way despite of theoretically having more defense installations to build than in BotF)

I agree. I never liked the way how the algorithm for invasion works. It mostly looks like a all or nothing scenario. Its really hard to win an invasion while losing a part of your troops. Normally you invade with no loss or you can't conquer the world and lose everything. ~~

Same goes for shipfights. I rly miss the 3d combat of botf, where you could fight with a camouflaged fleet of dozens of romulan warbirds against a much bigger federation fleet and define single targets with every ship to sniper out the heavy cruisers or destry halve of the support ships in the first attack. :[

Sorry for not being precise enough - I meant it's progressively more expensive when with each transaction when buying items on the build screen. This could also be a kind of market simulation and this is why I am not sure it's a bug.

It works the same way. If you buy a ship that needs titan, you buy the ressource from the market and reduce the amount of titan that is available. Price will raising for the next ship with titan you build.

[Pawleus]

Sadly I can't play this way cause I don't like to use the system manager (its personal preference, I know the manager works good ^^). And if you want to handle every world by yourself it doesn't make sense to play a game with thousand worlds. ~~

I use the System Manager mainly for fast allocation of workers and in this role it usually works great and is very, very helpful - I recommend it in this role for everyone.

Try Heyoun and everything will become easier. They are a money printing machine almost from the start and you will be very fast at a point there you don't know how you could spend all the money.

Sorry, but you misunderstood me. I am not one of those players that want it to be easier - I want it to be harder while playing mostly to the same rules as AI. This is why I try to play very peacefully against AIs - my game as Khaorons was an exception because I tested their potential for expansion and it is much too powerful (mainly because of the "easy conquering" reasons I mentioned), at least against AIs.

I agree. I never liked the way how the algorithm for invasion works. It mostly looks like a all or nothing scenario. Its really hard to win an invasion while losing a part of your troops. Normally you invade with no loss or you can't conquer the world and lose everything. ~~

It's not just the algorithm and I think it's mostly OK (I've sometimes lost some troops making successful invasions even as Khaorons and as Heyoun it was a rule that my victorious troops were partially eradicated). The main problem is that there are not any system defenses usually (no troops, no defensive installations active etc.) and you fight only against population. Additionally, when you take too little troops you risk loosing all but when you take too much you risk eradicating all population and there is not any UI elements that could help you predict the outcome. The risk is OK but it's too small difference between loosing all troops and killing all population and players have no means to say what the probable outcome will be unless they are experienced enough when they can predict it with quite good certainty - it's bad, especially having multiplayer in mind.

Same goes for shipfights. I rly miss the 3d combat of botf, where you could fight with a camouflaged fleet of dozens of romulan warbirds against a much bigger federation fleet and define single targets with every ship to sniper out the heavy cruisers or destry halve of the support ships in the first attack. :[

Personally, I think that shipfights are an entirely different matter. Of course, such 3D combat would be nice visually, for small scale fights and for testing purposes (as to see what works and what doesn't work so well in our designs against a particular enemy and for the game development purposes) but for the actual gameplay (especially multiplayer) using fleets with more than tens of ships a good auto-resolution of combat (based on the 3D combat, preferably) would be much, much better. I would welcome, though, if we had more options than just attack/avoid/retreat, eg. attack sub-options: fight to the end, retreat when suffering heavy losses, prefer hitting troopships, assault ships etc. AIs should also have such options, of course.

It works the same way. If you buy a ship that needs titan, you buy the ressource from the market and reduce the amount of titan that is available. Price will raising for the next ship with titan you build.

No, no, no - in-game, buying a ship you don't have to buy resources on the market because you have resources from your mines. In-game, as far as I've been able to determine, the costs of buying any item gradually grow with each transaction even if you buy entirely different items (consisted of different resources). I could accept it as a feature but it's not obvious to me and this is why I ask whether or not it's a bug.

[Darkness]

Sorry, but you misunderstood me. I am not one of those players that want it to be easier - I want it to be harder while playing mostly to the same rules as AI.

That would need a team of hundred Harvard programmers, working for ten years on a AI thinking and acting like a human and even then you will not get exactly what you want. ^^
But I understand now what you mean. :}

It's not just the algorithm and I think it's mostly OK (I've sometimes lost some troops making successful invasions even as Khaorons and as Heyoun it was a rule that my victorious troops were partially eradicated).

Weird, I nearly never loosing troops or maybe one of fifty and that is a meaningless loss.

The main problem is that there are not any system defenses usually (no troops, no defensive installations active etc.) and you fight only against population.

._.
Do we play the same game? In the late game I always have do bomb the defense systems or try to invade with giant fleets to exploit (yes I see this as an exploit òó) the evenly distributed dmg split on ships.
That there are no troops to defending the system is right. Something I miss too.

Additionally, when you take too little troops you risk loosing all but when you take too much you risk eradicating all population and there is not any UI elements that could help you predict the outcome.

Showing the chance for win like in shipfights would be useful. I agree.
But I don't have the problems with eradicating population. Maybe only at the start where the population can be rly low (<5). I'm not sure if it is possible to eradicate a world with 50+ population regardless how much troops you use. ^^

Personally, I think that shipfights are an entirely different matter. Of course, such 3D combat would be nice visually, for small scale fights and for testing purposes (as to see what works and what doesn't work so well in our designs against a particular enemy and for the game development purposes) but for the actual gameplay (especially multiplayer) using fleets with more than tens of ships a good auto-resolution of combat (based on the 3D combat, preferably) would be much, much better.

I constructed with the botf udm shipfigths of 3 races, each with ~150 ships and it was awesome.
I never saw a better system for spacefights in an x4 game except a demo of a rebuilded version from the original one by a fan some years ago.
The control you have about your ships, the tactic part and the fun watching it can't be reached by any click and win mechanism.
Sure you need additionally a working autofight system with fast calculation but its not the same.

I would welcome, though, if we had more options than just attack/avoid/retreat, eg. attack sub-options: fight to the end, retreat when suffering heavy losses, prefer hitting troopships, assault ships etc. AIs should also have such options, of course.

Funny, that are all things you could do in botf.
And yes I support this.

No, no, no - in-game, buying a ship you don't have to buy resources on the market because you have resources from your mines. In-game, as far as I've been able to determine, the costs of buying any item gradually grow with each transaction even if you buy entirely different items (consisted of different resources). I could accept it as a feature but it's not obvious to me and this is why I ask whether or not it's a bug.

Oh you are right. I confound this. ^^
Don't know why it works this way. I can't remember anyone giving a statement to this game mechanic. ~~

[Pawleus]

That would need a team of hundred Harvard programmers, working for ten years on a AI thinking and acting like a human and even then you will not get exactly what you want. ^^
But I understand now what you mean. :}

Oh, I know... and I don't think that even such team would cope with it. This is why I said "mostly to the same rules"

Do we play the same game? In the late game I always have do bomb the defense systems or try to invade with giant fleets to exploit (yes I see this as an exploit òó) the evenly distributed dmg split on ships.

Really? I've never encountered active defensive installations in BotE - perhaps I've just never played long enough so I need to try to. It's good to know it's not as bad as I've thought

But I don't have the problems with eradicating population. Maybe only at the start where the population can be rly low (<5). I'm not sure if it is possible to eradicate a world with 50+ population regardless how much troops you use. ^^

Playing as Khaorons it happened to me from time to time that I accidentally eradicated 30+ populations (and even 50+ once, IIRC) using just 1 assault ship and 4 troopships (of the 1st generation) with 8 experienced troops (of the 3rd generation).

I constructed with the botf udm shipfigths of 3 races, each with ~150 ships and it was awesome.
I never saw a better system for spacefights in an x4 game except a demo of a rebuilded version from the original one by a fan some years ago.
The control you have about your ships, the tactic part and the fun watching it can't be reached by any click and win mechanism.
Sure you need additionally a working autofight system with fast calculation but its not the same.

Don't be so fast dismissing possibilities, please - I take it you've never seen how the click and win mechanism is implemented eg. in Space Empires 5 playing with simultaneous turns? If so, knowing both games, I can guarantee you that there is much more tactics involved and much more fun watching fights than in BotF (even despite of SE5 never being entirely finished). I do not propose anything so elaborate as in SE5 (and it's not elaborate enough there even though SE5 is the most complicated space4X I've ever played) because BotE would have to be mostly rewritten then (the games are of different scale - in SE5 it's normal when one side of the battle has hundreds of ships and thousands of units/fighters and an empire has thousands of construction queues in the late game).

I know, though, how good the tactical combat from BotF might get - I've actually suggested recently on a different forum that its improved version would be ideal for new MoO clones. However, I don't consider it essential for BotE (meaning it might add some additional value to the game but it's not necessary) and in multiplayer games it might even be detrimental without good auto-generation, especially if there is a PBEM mode. On the other side, good automatic battles are essential when we consider even only 50+ ships on one side of the battle as a norm. They probably can be refined easier having already 3D manual combat so perhaps from this point of view it's essential, as well

In short, automatic battles don't exclude tactical diversity and can be visually stunning.

[Darkness]

Watching some fights of SE5. Looks interesting. But I don't saw much commands for the fleets. It was always fly to the enemy and attacking him frontal, same for the other side. No commands in between and the behavior of the ships was always the same and straightforeward. -.-

I think we are two different type of players. I hate it to give away my command abilitys to a computer. (thats why I don't play with system manager ^^)
Even an animated autofight is for me the same like seeing two AIs playing chess, interesting but not satisfying. ~~

Maybe SE5 has more options and I simply havn't found a video where they were shown but it doesn't looked for me that it would make a difference if I control the fleets manually instead of autoturn.

But you are right, it looks similar to botf except that the game includes planetary defense and not only pure shipfight.

[Pawleus]

You are watching wrong videos, then. Believe me, I know what I'm saying in this case because I am an extremely good player in SE5 that has played almost all mods for this game (and SE5 is just mainly a platform for mods to the point that it's not worth your time playing its standard version), many in multiplayer (I know it's difficult to believe but it's the only game in my life that I've never lost a game playing against people and I've even joined a game in place of a player that had dropped it in rage when he's got third of his empire in mood not allowing anything to construct in such colonies and the rest close to it ), helped in the creation of some of them, created a mini-mod (actually, you could call it even micro-mod) Racial Colonization in a way that's been considered impossible etc.

OK, perhaps I'll describe you what is possible there (those are not my suggestions for BotE - it's simply to illustrate my point) playing simultaneous turns (even against AIs it's the only way of playing SE5 I consider worth one's time). You can set orders for your ships (I am ignoring units/fighters here for the simplicity of my statement), task forces (groups of ships within fleets) and fleets (groups of task forces) and you do it not even being sure if and when they will be executed (sometimes far in advance of any battle - if you've ever played Stars! it's a similar way but much more complicated). It's also possible to set formations they follow in attack and in defense (different for different task forces and for fleets). The game provides you with some examples of orders (Short Range, Medium Range, Maximum Range, Capture the Colony etc.) that are similar to what AIs utilize but you can modify them or even create entirely new ones limited only by sub-commands the orders are built of, eg. you can make your ships to temporally retreat when their shields/hull are below certain threshold as to regenerate and return in later stages of the battle, you can make them to behave differently depending on the strength of an opponent's fleet, you can prioritize in which order ships should be attacked and at which preferable range, how much concentrated their fire should be, at which moment they should stop firing at a ship (eg. disabling its weapons or engines) or a colony, return fire only when pursued, under which conditions they should try to entirely disengage, when they should break formation, whether or not they should try to capture opponent's ship or colony...

Moreover, because the strategical movement is done in smaller units than a turn you can predict with some probability where the battle will happen, at which moment of a turn, from which directions fleets will appear on the battlefield, whether of not you might be able to make a follow-up attack against the same fleet in the same turn using another fleet, whether or not you might be able to attack a moving fleet using two fleets from different directions at the same moment (it might allow you to destroy their non-combatants much easier), which ships from the fleet should be pursued (the enemy can divide its fleet so you should be ready for it before he would actually do it and it's possible to attack the same ship that runs away with the same fleet several times per turn) etc. It's very nice implementation but unfortunately still far from being perfect with some bugs never addressed - the best automatic battles I've seen with nothing even close to it but with much to improve.

It's mostly not applicable to BotE simply because of large differences in scale and complexity. There are also other reasons eg. the tradition of BotF However, the idea of automatic 3D battles viewable in the next turn might be worth considering if there is ever a 3D module for battles

Edit: I would like you to see not wanting to give the control away having a thousand construction queues even despite of all helping UI tools that are in SE5

[Darkness]

Can you send me a link for an interesting battle where players interacting with the fleets while the fight goes on?

What you are describing Sounds great. ^^

But whatever I prefere Small scale battles with a few hundred of units and turns instead of realtime battles. I hate beeing under pressure cause of time. ~~

Played long enough real time strategy games and bashed players by simply clicking faster. xD

Now I like games like shogi. :]

[Pawleus]

Sorry, but you misunderstood me - with simultaneous turns players in SE5 don't interact with their fleets at all during battles so no fast-clicking would help you. All those behaviors are possible even though orders are set before opposing fleets meet on the strategical level and you see a battle only after its resolution (while you do your next turn) being able to fast forward it and slow to a fraction of real-time speed for moments that are of special interest to you.

BTW, there is also the viewable movement on the strategical level from the resolution of the previous turn where you can see how the opposing forces (and yours, of course) moved within range of your sensors and got to places they are seen in the current turn. It's all very dynamic despite of looking static at first glance. Having many ships that move 4 sectors/turn it might even be considered for BotE but it's far from being essential so I do not suggest implementing anything similar.

Edit: Ah, I could actually recommend something in this regard from SE5. If there is ever a 3D combat in BotE then something similar as the SE5's battle simulator (a tool within the game using designs and knowledge about other empires to test battle scenarios created by a player) could be a very nice addition. It would be far from being as essential in BotE as it is in SE5, though, so it's not a strong recommendation.

[Darkness]

Then its not for me. :[

The round based interaction of botf fights fits more for me. ^^


There was a 2d simulator for bote in older versions. Not much to see but enough to test basic things.

Don't know where its gone. ._.

I think at some point it wasn't compatible with the newer version and nobody feels responsible for an upgrade. ^^

[Pawleus]

All I am saying is that you shouldn't dismiss possibilities not even knowing what their potential is - I am not trying to persuade you to change the way you play and I like the idea of tactical combat from BotF for a space4X of this scale (I've strongly recommended it to be improved upon for new MoO clones!) in singleplayer (much less in multiplayer).


@blotunga, more suggestions if you still have (or ever will have) time for them I know I am somewhat flooding you but if I don't formulate them while playing there is a high chance it will never happen because I have very limited time for it, unfortunately.

1. Minors should return with their fleets to their homesystem after they had retreated. That's a minimum needed (because currently they sometimes don't defend their homesystem at all even having superior fleets) but it could also be nice if in case of war they try to find a nearby undefended enemy colony and bombard it returning only when their homesystem is threatened or a superior fleet sighted. Some of their ships should also behave as if they scout nearby systems even in times of peace. In this way the quadrant seems much more dynamic, the player can't be sure whether or not unknown vessels that move are of a major, accidental tensions arise meeting roaming minor's vessels so it's not so easy to make them like you when they don't and it quickly may deteriorate into war. It would also be nice if minors build with time defensive installations because they are much too easy to conquer, currently, unless they are some of warlikes with population almost impossible to overwhelm by ground forces. Of course AI of majors would have to be changed then as to be able to cope with such minors but thanks to such changes it would also be better making invasions against players so the changes should be done, anyway. All of this was more or less done in BotF so I think with time it should be in BotE, as well (preferably improved ).

2. Contact should be established ship-to-ship if both sides survive the encounter. Currently it isn't even if both sides choose the Hail option and it's necessary to find an opponent's colony which can be very hard if they are heavily defended (because they destroy scouting vessels). In case of majors it's much easier because the contact is established being in their territory. Is there a reason why at least a peaceful encounter (no shots exchanged) doesn't establish contact? (after rethinking it, I consider this suggestion very low priority)

3. AI majors shouldn't so easily give cash to players for nothing (in all cases I received such gifts I didn't even have any substantial fleets close to their borders) - they should at least try to make a deal, eg. Non-aggression pact in exchange for money. All such gifts should also improve relations because otherwise they have no purpose for AI and only help players.

4. Minors (probably majors too) shouldn't send an invitation to a treaty at the turn when they accept the same treaty because it only spams players with worthless diplomatic communicates.

5. Is it intended that colonization happens before fights are performed? As a result there is no way of preventing an opponent's colonization if he has already ordered it. I think there should be a chance of preventing it even then by destroying the colonizer or forcing it to run away. (but I consider it very low priority)

[blotunga]

1. Right now minors don't move around as they have no ShipAI. I'm not sure whether or when this will change. Until August I have time only for maintenance/bugfixing and very small additions. Lots of Todo is on hold.
2. If they both are on hail, contact should happen. If not it's a bug.
3. Probably right, it seems that the AI gives money to the strongest player. Maybe humans should get gifts less often.
4. Known bug, was discussed a bit earlier with Darkness in german. I will need time to check and fix this without breaking other things.
5. If I remember right fights are computed before everything else.

[Wo he hiv]

About contested sectors, yes, it's a feature from BotF (as I said previously) and I disagree: they serve an important role there. In BotF if you want good relations with a major you need to be really careful which systems you settle and where you build space-stations as to not have contested sectors with them. You can also give them away or demand as part of peace resolutions providing additional meaningful choices to players, especially in multiplayer games (systems in contested sectors cannot be settled unless at war). Using them you can limit the interception area of opponent's forces and prevent him from building spacestations closer to your territory - generally, you can peacefully take away from them a part of their territory (and they can - yours) decreasing their operational depth.
In short, I very like tensions building around contested sectors in BotF not just in multiplayer but even playing against AIs and I would love seeing them in BotE (I was actually very surprised noticing they are not in the game).

I know BotF. And I know the role of the contested sectors in BotF. But this Feature isn't important for me. And in BotF it was mostly bad for me.

Noch mal zum Schiffe durchschalten. Mit den Befehlen warten und stationieren kannst du jedem Schiff immer einen Befehl geben, so dass es bei der Auswahl inaktiver Schiffe ignoriert wird.

Bei warten ist das Schiff eine Runde beschäftigt. Bei stationieren, so lange bis du es anwählst und ihm neue Befehle gibst.

Ist sehr zu empfehlen, das zu nutzen. Ich arbeite immer damit weil ich auf die Funktion inaktive Schiffe suchen angewiesen bin. Bei maximaler mapgröße und spätestens wenn du ein Viertel der Karte kontrollierst wird es viel zu zeitaufwändig jede Runde alle Sektoren nach Schiffen abzusuchen, die grad nix zu tun haben. ;]

Danke. Ich wusste nicht genau was "warten" bedeutet und habe es daher nicht verwendet (Stationieren auch nur selten, damit ich die Schiffe nicht vergesse.). Wichtig ist das Durchschalten auch für mich. Zwar spiele ich nicht mit so grossen Karten ("nur" etwa 40x30 Felder) aber mit sehr vielen Systemen (bisher jeweils 80% Systemdichte), da gibt es auch sehr viele Schiffe an verschiedenen Positionen. Und viel zu tun mit den Systemen. Ich nutze den Systemmanager nämlich auch nicht. Und bei 50 + Systemen gibt das dann einiges zu tun.


When I Play the AI builds defense systems too. But only in the late Game. At least 200 turns.