Pawleus hat geschrieben: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. :}
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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.
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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.
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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. ^^
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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.
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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.
Pawleus hat geschrieben: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. ~~