New Aczanny redaction - work finished.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sergey Ivanov schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> Last time, i finished new Aczanny redaction, and downloaded it into
> home page (www.aczanny.narod.ru). Now, i wait your opinions before send
> changes to Tim.

Don't like the changes on the guest quarters on some ships. Ever heared
from steal ship plan or sabotage ships missions ? To get a change to
defence this you must have 2 HGs on board. So IMHO guests of 5 should be
possible on all ships if not an important point speaks against it.

Miss the Pod Bays on the Sparrowhawk and the it need more metals and
engines make it more costly special for the Aczanny if they got no Ghips
or Mines. In the past I often used them as "low" tech ships and
Transporters. And sometimes the Incaceration Baem had something to do.

Frigate, not sure if the Red Med Lab is a little over the top with 1
food, 1 supply, 1 med, and 3 mc for each native. Depends on natives in
game when the ship can be build.

Digger, max speed of 20 ? Typo ?
Not sure if the Part. Fountain is better then the Laser Mining Drill, maybe

Phaeton, think only 3000 Ord is a bit low. And the 30 SWs with the 10
Pds worked fine for me but think they are not a must.

Miss the Mining Device on the Nest and the ECM. And if it is a good idea
to lower the Construction Bay size that now the Nest can only be build
on Base seems me not so good too.

At the Rock I have often used some Gatlings as Large Weapons so miss the
150KT mount.

Not sure if the Bomb Pods are worth their money, as they costs 110 MC in
Ord if normaly made (100 Ords use 10 Sups + 1 MC). Never saw a effect
from them, only flying around but never reaching the enemy ships. Maybe
cause I had never more then 15-20 in a combat. And the Troops are always
back on the ship after building them on a ship by Cargo Desk and the
Pods are empty as the transfer button was ON.

GU: looks okay for the price.

Fighers: Not sure about, as I often not see the stats corresponding with
the behaviour I see in my combats and now under the new combat rules I
had not enough fights to say much. But with the new Rules like SC
immunity ET not work 100% and PDs are upgraded on high mass ships it
seems me not so a good idea to have no 1/10/10 Armor instead the old
5/10/15. Not sure about the combat quickness.
Not sure if I would ever build a Typ 2 fighter, think not or only to use
them as cover for the T3's in the long range wings.


Are the Aczanny now immune to the effects of crime or not like lower the
growth and such things. Not sure and will not test it. But as the Contra
prices are now lower since host 193 the Aczanny's money problem at the
first truns may only become greater then before.

Bye-Bye JoSch.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

you have any idea how make Seagull more useful?



Well, they already seem to be the fighter with missiles, though not
sure how useful they will be. Maybe make thier missiles special to
destroy bases from orbital strikes.

'Seagull missiles have 300% blast against bases'

-or-

'Seagull missiles damage bases as 500mm cannons'

or something like that.

This way they can have a cool use without making them useful against
ships, which is a point you are trying to maintain, I believe.

Just some thoughts...

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sergey Ivanov schrieb:
> Don't like the changes on the guest quarters on some ships. Ever heared
>
> from steal ship plan or sabotage ships missions ? To get a change to
> defence this you must have 2 HGs on board. So IMHO guests of 5 should
> be
> possible on all ships if not an important point speaks against it.
>
>
> Only on two swarmers, Sparrow and Digger guest quarters drop to zero.
> But, i think, all this ships simply not need this type of protection.

Sorry, but at the Hooby Class and Peregrine are no numbers for
passengers shown, so I think 0.
That's then 4 ships included the Scout and the Digger.

Special the Scout as IIRR the mine immunity is bound to the ship maybe a
good target for spy attacks or it is really annoying if you spent much
turns to position it deep in enemy areas and it gets to easy destroyed
by a sabotage action. So lower the guest to 3 if you want but let there
be 3 guests.
And for me the Digger was no swarmer in my games, I have max place 2
over some planets for mining proposal. Which reason shall be there to
use swarms of it ? For the fuel I used swarms of Shadow Hawks as they
are cheaper and offer better fighting ability with their Ram Scoop.

> Digger, max speed of 20 ? Typo ?
>
> It's not need more speed for fuel gathering. If you need better speed -
> tow it.

And which ship shall tow it ? there is no cheap ship which can tow it ?
I see only the costly Vulture, Gerfalcon or Rok for it ;-((.
I must not move it for Ram Scope, but send it to planets to let the
Fountain run and for this movings the old speed of 90 was not good but
enough.

> Phaeton, think only 3000 Ord is a bit low. And the 30 SWs with the 10
> Pds worked fine for me but think they are not a must.
>
> 3000 Ord - but Pod Bay also. So, this look like unlimited ordance, that
> can be dropped not more 3000 each two turns.

Okay, oversee the Pod Bay there, sorry.

> 30 SW + 10 PD make this ship strong. But now it's chaper in minerals
> and moneys (also, it's need only one engine), and look like better
> swarmship.
>
>
> Miss the Mining Device on the Nest and the ECM. And if it is a good
> idea
> to lower the Construction Bay size that now the Nest can only be build
> on Base seems me not so good too.
>
>
> Nest have ECM. But now, this is battlestation, and simply not need
> mining device.
> And yes, it cannot respawn self. Are respawning look useful? I think,
> not.

I have moved them a lot, the are good enough to stand alone against
smaller ships or fleets and place the Grav Wells some LYs away from the
"impoortant" Base where the Nest was build. The Mining was a reason to
place it over some worlds too and so I send it out and let if fly around
up to 100-120 LYs. Thne let the mining run and place the metals via
Cargo Desk in Pods which sometimes a quicker ship bring to a ship yard.
That are in long time games, in short time games it is not worth to let
it fly 6 or more turns.
But is a food to sup converter usefull under high food consumtions as
they only get food from farms ? Or a Mob Rapair plant if the Nests is
always over a Base ? It's only usefull if the Nests is moving with maybe
a fleet.

You are right with the ECM.

> At the Rock I have often used some Gatlings as Large Weapons so miss
> the
> 150KT mount.
>
>
> Primary, Aczanny designed without big weapon slots. Now, i slighty
> change this idea. 8*50 kt. weapon have Goshawk, and this look good.
> Rock now have 50 kt mounts, and 80 Attack Bonus - this make it mush
> more dangerous with Phasors and PTT. Make it's mounts useful with GP
> owerpower this ship.

Your decision. But remember there are some ways like Holo Decoys to
counter or stop PTTs and one (or later more) races in game where Ord
Weapons make only half damage. And Ord cost money too, can not be made
from thin air.

> Not sure if the Bomb Pods are worth their money, as they costs 110 MC
> in
> Ord if normaly made (100 Ords use 10 Sups + 1 MC). Never saw a effect
> from them, only flying around but never reaching the enemy ships. Maybe
>
> cause I had never more then 15-20 in a combat. And the Troops are
> always
>
>
> I use Bomb-Pods for additional ground base protection. And easy make
> 100-200 over big bases.
>
>
> back on the ship after building them on a ship by Cargo Desk and the
> Pods are empty as the transfer button was ON.
>
>
> This is a bug.
>
> Primary Cargo Desk designed not for war using, but for mineral storing.
> It's both our misunderstandig with Tim that make it primary for Bomb
> Pods.
>
>
> GU: looks okay for the price.
>
>
> And now, Aczanny GA slighty more powerful.
>
>
>
> Fighers: Not sure about, as I often not see the stats corresponding
> with
> the behaviour I see in my combats and now under the new combat rules I
> had not enough fights to say much. But with the new Rules like SC
> immunity ET not work 100% and PDs are upgraded on high mass ships it
> seems me not so a good idea to have no 1/10/10 Armor instead the old
> 5/10/15. Not sure about the combat quickness.
>
>
> Draconians fighters: EB:90/70/55 AB: 90/70/60 Armor: 15/25/35 Cost:
> 40/110/150
> Centaures fighters: EB: 60/15/70 AB: 15/30/80 Armor: 0/10/70 Cost:
> 18/45/500
> Aczanny fighters: EB: 110/90/110 AB: 25/20/45 Armor 1/10/10 Cost
> 20/60/150

And the boom they make ????

> Aczanny bomber have evasion like best evasive fighter in galaxy. And
> it's armor only slighty worse.

Evasive don't help against SCs AFAIK.

> All fighters now look less powerful against ships. This is not only
> Aczanny problem.

But others have more boom. Heared the Bird T3 and the RCS T3 and some
other fighters work good against ships.

> Not sure if I would ever build a Typ 2 fighter, think not or only to
> use
> them as cover for the T3's in the long range wings.
>
>
> Are you have any idea how make Seagull more useful?

Not so firm with fighters. But think delete the missile and then it fits
better to the other fighters and maybe set the range of beam to 150-160
or up to the range of the missile 250. And maybe upgrade the boom to 6
on the Seagul and on the Skua to 8. Then the fighters make 4/6/8.
Then all fighters are in a "row", only beams and better (and costs more)
the higher the Typ is. Maybe (not sure) must increase the costs for the
Seagull a little, 5 or 10 MCs should be enough.

Or maybe upgrade the Batterie and or the Generator, as the missiles use
100 Energie for each shoot.

> Are the Aczanny now immune to the effects of crime or not like lower
> the
> growth and such things. Not sure and will not test it. But as the
> Contra
> prices are now lower since host 193 the Aczanny's money problem at the
> first truns may only become greater then before.
>
>
> On idea - give Aczanny 100 Cantinas by default. Or - another idea -
> drop big load of contra at turn 10.

In my last game as Aczanny (some time ago) the crime are shown on some
Bases. Saw no open bad effect of it, but that was before the changes on
crime where made.

That's maybe a good idea with cantinas or Pod with contra. But maybe 100
cantinas is a little high as it offers each turn something, tend more to
max 50 of it.
Do they now get some starting Ghips ? Not sure at the moment.

(For your information, I compare the new ships .. with that what
raceview show me and not with your "old version 2.x" on your side.)

To the growth "discussions", other races have PSPs or Undercities or
Ressorts to increase their growth or get new colos. All of this the
Aczanny don't have and so I think a growth over 110 is okay for me. And
not forget as the contra selling is bound to the number of colos now
(which it not was as the race came out) it is a must in my opinion.

Bye-Bye JoSch.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I too want to offer my opinion about the Aczanny changes. Fine races, I
love it that you continue working on them !

Hobby. Hm. Before, you could use it with sandcasters and merculite
rockets as a respectable early strike weapon. Now, without any ord,
that's impossible. And when you can afford the higher up no ord
weapons, you will certainly don't waste them on a Hobby. So the ship
lost its basic purpose for me. Also, before it could tow a tiny assault
pod with troops around (grav accelerator!). Was fine for making early
prisoners.
Harrier. Correct me: 8 podbays, 10k cargo, 20k guests... that's a
tech 3 Super Transport Ship, isn't it? The Aczanny need some kind of
low tech transporter, I just wouldn't make it quite so good.
Shadow Hawk. I never built a single one of these before. And honestly,
PTTs don't make much sense for it. But I love the minesweeper. The
Aczanny need a low tech minesweeper (tech 7 was a bit high). Before
they were impossible for, say, a shareware game. Another much
overlooked point is the cargo room. As starting ship, its cargo room
decides a lot about the starting loot the Aczanny get. Reducing its
cargo from 10k to 1k will seriously weaken their start.
Sparrowhawk. No podbays anymore? I used it as early assault (and
prisoner) pod transporter. The starting ships, once recycled, allowed
me to make lots of dangerous fast Sparrowhawks for making prisoners.
Goshawk. This ship fills an important niche for the Aczanny. The low
tech high mass warship. In case you have to go against minefields (or
anything else a Phaeton isn't made for). But it isn't the Aczanny
main fighting ship, so it should be downgraded somewhat. It nearly
rivals the UA Hunter-Killer (a very excellent ship).
Frigate. There was much said about the reticulean med lab already.
Honestly, it's without consequence. As far as I know a patch was
introduced, so that the med lab can only turn as much natives into
stuff as the ship cargo room can hold (stuff, that is, not natives).
With 0 cargo room, this devices makes eaxctly nothing. Learned that in
a game versus the beta IMT. The boarding laser on a ship with 12k
guests and grav accelerator makes me shiver. Too strong. I like the
increased combat capabilities.
Digger. Only built a single one, never needed it. Aczanny need
prisoners, not mining ships. If you are so desperate that you have to
build Diggers for mining, you are as good as dead anyway. Though with
the increased cargo the ship at least makes a bit of sense now.
Phaeton. With the 30 small weapons it was too good to be true.
Decreasing small weapons and PD is ok, and the better attack/evasive
values fit the ship nicely. A dancer. Armor and shields increased a
bit, too. The podbay, and behold!, the new repair capacity are
wonderful. Though, 200 or so repairs would be enough, to keep the
fragility of the ship.
Cormorant. I used the smaller tractor beam of this ship to great
effect. Increasing this tractor beam to 300, and that for a incredible
fast and moderatly cheap ship, can be dangerous. 100k guests? Give it
to a Fed or a Stormer, and they will have a field day at that speed.
Probably not a good idea, too, and unnecessary since you can put the
personal as well into pods.
Gerfalcon. Whoah. That's quite an attack bonus. Adore it. The very
high tractor beam can be a problem, but at least the Gerfalcon is very
much more expensive than the Cormorant.
Nest. As Sebastian said, you really want to decrase the guest quarters
to 70k, or is that a typo?
Roc. Warp drag indeed a bit low. Otherwise, the ship gets much more
dangerous in a fight (20 LW, very high attack/evasive ratings, more
armor), but it gets much more expensive, too. Sounds ok.

Overall I like the slightly increased attack/evasion modifiers (even
more like fluid dancers now), and the not quite so neglegible as before
(but still very light) armor/shields. Some ships lost their previous
purpose, others gained a new one. Everything considered they probably
need to be toned down a bit though.

The mechs did a quantum leap in efficiency. The tech 1 now has troop
attack of 50, at a cost of 10. Woah. But the Aczanny can use a
groundassault boost. I just wouldn't call that a 'scout' any
longer.

Bomb pods shall only do shield and blast damage? They caused personel
damage before, too, I believe.

In the description of the ECM jammer you mix 'weapon accuracy' and
'ship attack bonus'. These are two very different things! I believe
Tim uses a weapon accuracy reduction right now, and a reduction of the
ship attack bonus instead wouldn't be so effective by far!

There are still too many tiny effects which do nothing. Like the mech
specials. I would streamline such things. Too much complicateness
without effect doesn't enhance race style.

What do you mean by "Aczanny not have any ship from other
shiplist." Do you want to imply a Crystal-like alien hullplan
weakness?

The change log is very irritating. Not only vastly incomplete, but even
wrong in many cases. Keep it up to date, or delete it totally.


Keep up the good work !

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

>>>
Hobby. Hm. Before, you could use it with sandcasters and merculite
rockets as a respectable early strike weapon. Now, without any ord,
that's impossible. And when you can afford the higher up no ord
weapons, you will certainly don't waste them on a Hobby. So the ship
lost its basic purpose for me. Also, before it could tow a tiny assault

pod with troops around (grav accelerator!). Was fine for making early
prisoners.
>>>

I mean, "gunboat" - small ship with one or two big guns. I redesign
Hobby to new purpose and new weapon - Heavy Lasers and Disruptors. It's
look more useful then 30kt weapon and big ord storage.
But about raider purpose - it's a great idea! Guest room 100 added
immediately.

>>>
Harrier. Correct me: 8 podbays, 10k cargo, 20k guests... that's a
tech 3 Super Transport Ship, isn't it? The Aczanny need some kind of
low tech transporter, I just wouldn't make it quite so good.
>>>

Compiling all, i change this: set max speed to 190, 4 pods, 10k guests,
but small cargo, ord and repear rooms. Now this is troop transport, and
nothing more - like designed.

>>>
Shadow Hawk. I never built a single one of these before. And honestly,
PTTs don't make much sense for it. But I love the minesweeper. The
Aczanny need a low tech minesweeper (tech 7 was a bit high). Before
they were impossible for, say, a shareware game. Another much
overlooked point is the cargo room. As starting ship, its cargo room
decides a lot about the starting loot the Aczanny get. Reducing its
cargo from 10k to 1k will seriously weaken their start.
>>>

Cargo room returned - this is my mistake!!!
Other - all what i planned .

>>>
Sparrowhawk. No podbays anymore? I used it as early assault (and
prisoner) pod transporter. The starting ships, once recycled, allowed
me to make lots of dangerous fast Sparrowhawks for making prisoners.
>>>

Combine it with Harrier. Now, this is possibly.

>>>
Goshawk. This ship fills an important niche for the Aczanny. The low
tech high mass warship. In case you have to go against minefields (or
anything else a Phaeton isn't made for). But it isn't the Aczanny
main fighting ship, so it should be downgraded somewhat. It nearly
rivals the UA Hunter-Killer (a very excellent ship).
>>>

Compiling all opinions, i change to this ship large weapon from 8*50 to
12*40. This is slighty downgraded it.

>>>
Frigate. There was much said about the reticulean med lab already.
Honestly, it's without consequence. As far as I know a patch was
introduced, so that the med lab can only turn as much natives into
stuff as the ship cargo room can hold (stuff, that is, not natives).
With 0 cargo room, this devices makes eaxctly nothing. Learned that in
a game versus the beta IMT. The boarding laser on a ship with 12k
guests and grav accelerator makes me shiver. Too strong. I like the
increased combat capabilities.
>>>

Hmm... Compiling all, Aczanny need slighty more good ground fighting
capabilities, but not a ships like this.
And i'm already drop RML from Frigate.

>>>
Digger. Only built a single one, never needed it. Aczanny need
prisoners, not mining ships. If you are so desperate that you have to
build Diggers for mining, you are as good as dead anyway. Though with
the increased cargo the ship at least makes a bit of sense now.
>>>

But first, you need least one Digger for mining. This ship need too
many minerals and moneys for Aczanny - so, prisoniers needed. But this
ship save Aczanny without prisoniers.

>>>
Phaeton. With the 30 small weapons it was too good to be true.
Decreasing small weapons and PD is ok, and the better attack/evasive
values fit the ship nicely. A dancer. Armor and shields increased a
bit, too. The podbay, and behold!, the new repair capacity are
wonderful. Though, 200 or so repairs would be enough, to keep the
fragility of the ship.
>>>

Also, i find another problem - 1000 repear for each swarmship eat
repear units like whale eat herring. Too many. And now, you can load
repear into pod. 200 repear look better.

>>>
Cormorant. I used the smaller tractor beam of this ship to great
effect. Increasing this tractor beam to 300, and that for a incredible
fast and moderatly cheap ship, can be dangerous. 100k guests? Give it
to a Fed or a Stormer, and they will have a field day at that speed.
>>>

Yes!! And now, many races sell it's souls for Cormorant, Frigate or
Gerfalcons. Aczanny now have ships that well tradeable and too
dangerous in enemy handes. Like Firestorms. Or Pax.

>>>
Gerfalcon. Whoah. That's quite an attack bonus. Adore it. The very
high tractor beam can be a problem, but at least the Gerfalcon is very
much more expensive than the Cormorant.
>>>

Can be used in combination with Vulture .

>>>
Nest. As Sebastian said, you really want to decrase the guest quarters
to 70k, or is that a typo?
>>>

What do you think about combination 700K guest room and Advansed
Traning device? 70K troopers each turn!


>>>
The mechs did a quantum leap in efficiency. The tech 1 now has troop
attack of 50, at a cost of 10. Woah. But the Aczanny can use a
groundassault boost. I just wouldn't call that a 'scout' any
longer.
>>>

As planned. Aczanny realy need antipersonel grond weapon if it's cannot
fight ourself.

>>>
Bomb pods shall only do shield and blast damage? They caused personel
damage before, too, I believe.
>>>

It's pass through shields and doing only blast damage.

>>>
In the description of the ECM jammer you mix 'weapon accuracy' and
'ship attack bonus'. These are two very different things! I believe
Tim uses a weapon accuracy reduction right now, and a reduction of the
ship attack bonus instead wouldn't be so effective by far!
>>>

ECM drop nonaczanny ship/fighters attack bonus.

>>>
What do you mean by "Aczanny not have any ship from other
shiplist." Do you want to imply a Crystal-like alien hullplan
weakness?
>>>

No. This is simply words... EE, for example, also not have ships from
other shiplines. And Stormer have DS and transports.

>>>
The change log is very irritating. Not only vastly incomplete, but even

wrong in many cases. Keep it up to date, or delete it totally.
>>>

Sorry, i completely forget about it . Ok.

Keep up the good work !

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sergey Ivanov schrieb:
> Nest. As Sebastian said, you really want to decrase the guest quarters
> to 70k, or is that a typo?
>
>
> What do you think about combination 700K guest room and Advansed
> Traning device? 70K troopers each turn!

What do you think was a reason to build one ? (have overseen the change
on the guests before.) But that and the mining where the main reasons to
build such s costly (more minerals meant), slow ship (for Aczanny). For
combat propose they have other ships they can build for the money and
minerals. So only "important reason" for me to build one is the Alchemie
Device. All other devices (except the Adv. Training but nearly useless
now) are on cheaper more movable ships too.
As the Nest can nearly not move and the combat stats of the personel are
so low, the nest may become a good target for boardings too.

So think will never build one, for Alchemie I can get a cheaper ship
from other races or let my allies convert my sups.

please look that each ship have guest quarters of min 2 or 3 maybe
except the Digger (IIRR others have written that too).

Bye-Bye JoSch.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Yust forgot to say:

It´s great that you´re still out there and working on Aczanny. They are a
great race that I love to play. Didn´t want to demotivate you with my
critic

Greetings
Sebastian

"Sebastian" <Sebastian@nospam.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3f4hc7F5oktqU1@news.dfncis.de...
> So my review:
>
> Sparrow class scout:
>
> I don´t see any use of the one SW. I would not use it anyway. This ship is
> not made for ship-ship combat. I don´t like th lack of any guest room. As
> mentioned by Scytale cause of spying and I always liked to capture some
> outer farm worlds of lasy micromanagers who have no troops or HG at their
> outer farm worlds. Anyway I think at least 2 guest rooms don´t hurt. The
> +100 scan range is nice and sadly the attack bonus of 20 is missing (was
> good for anti fighter).
>
> Harrier class troopship:
>
> Useless if you don´t give it 190 top speed. Then i´ll be a great low tech
> transporter otherwise I´ll
> not build a single one. For simplicy I´ll give it some fighter bays, too.
> The higher fighter are fast enough to escort it anyways and when you dock
> them you safe micro.
>
> Shadow Hawk class support cruiser:
>
> Good ship for it´s purpose. But why 50kt LW size? It has enough fighter
> bays.
>
> Sparrowhawk class cruiser:
>
> Unfortunately you gave it LW size of 40kt. I liked the 30kt size and if
> you gave it some attack bonus, like you did with the Gerfalcon, it´ll hit
> sometimes something. The missing pod bays are really bad if you don´t give
> the Harrier top 190 speed. As it is now the start of Aczanny is slowed
> down cause of lack of fast pod transporter.
>
> Kestrel class patrol carrier:
>
> Will serve nice for minelaying and watching your border.
>
> Peregrin class gunship:
>
> It has now plus 21 evasive Bonus (it has now 167 Evasive Bonus) together
> with 2 more PD and +40 shields and 1000 Ord. This is a excellent swarming
> ship now. Low warp drag and sensor image allows moving with almost no fuel
> and making the ship very quiet. The only backdraws are no gests room and
> few armor and shields. Even with no gests room that makes the ship very
> easy bordable and vulnerable to spy attacks I think this ship is a little
> too superior. Proposition: Give it only 50 Ord or 10 Ord.
>
>
> Goshawk class assault carrier:
>
> I think this one need a little downgrade, too, (additional 1000MC hull
> cost or something like that). Normal weapons, Normal shields and Armor,
> 190speed and the Boni(EV:77 At:50) makes this ship a very good investment
> of only 1500MC. Only backdraw is the for Aczanny higher mineral costs.
> Personally I would use this ship as backbone of my fleet together with the
> Phaeton and some supporters like Gerfalcon&Vulture. But I don´t like it
> cause it´ll break with the Aczanny idea of using non-standart LW. With
> this ship as it is no one will ever want to stick araoung with MD of MR
> which makes a special flair of the Aczanny.
>
> Frigate class raider:
>
> The Reticulan Med Lab Device is overpowered. A Native Dust off doesn´t fit
> to Aczanny race, too. And once I had landed a pod with amorphous natives
> in my base; they did not leave (possible a bug). A Ghips Dust off device
> is what needed here, but as it doesn´t exists (and I´m against a new
> device) I have no proposition. The Bording Laser is too much. Although it
> is too much (considering 12000 gests rooms, 380top speed and increased
> Troop2HG rate for Aczanny) the Aczanny cannot use captured ship and are
> not bording race(and should not become one). Rest is OK.
>
> Digger class orbital miner:
>
> Top speed of 20 is a no go. In another threat you wrote:"tow it!". With
> what for a ship? Lowest Tech ship that can tow it is the Vulture. That
> Tech 8 and costs another 4650MC and 640Minerals. Please don´t give the
> Digger a top speed of 20, it will take eons till it flies from planet to
> planet to mine minerals, exspecially in low rescource games.
>
> Phaeton class destroyer:
>
> This little great ship is now even greater. You´ll get 2 when before you
> yust got 1 for only 60kt of
> minerals more. And the 2 new Phaetons together are even better than the
> single old one. Improved
> Armor&Shields and better Boni only one engine and at best a pod bay. Ever
> seen a better multi purpose ship? Needs a downgrade (eg. old Boni are
> sufficient).
>
> Cormorant class fast freighter:
>
> I don´t see a reason to put weapons on this ship but who cares....it makes
> no real diference. Tractor beam is yust fine.
>
> Vulture class support ship:
>
> GWG, Tractor Beam and increased scan range fits good to this ship.
>
> Gerfalcon class strike carrier
>
> Good ship. I exspecially like the idea if 30kt LW size together with 120AT
> bonus.
>
> Nest class star fortress:
>
> Typo that you lowered the geust rooms to only 10% of what it was before?
>
> Roc class dreadnought:
>
> Warp drag of 20 is too low. With Plasma Manifold A & B you can move a full
> loaded Roc with an effective fuel consumtion of about 30kt(about
> 50kt -20kt produced by ram scoop) when flying with 190ly/turn. For that
> amount of chash it might be balanced but I would like to see it a little
> cheaper and less strong. In the past I used the WCM to destroy enemies
> base as the Aczanny had problems with minefields and have often LW that
> use ord. As cloacked minefield sweeping is now allowed it might be
> different but if you lower the proce it´ll surly be seen more in game.
>
>
> As conclusion to the ships I can say: The Peregin,Goshawk and Phaeton need
> a little rework but the rest is fine. Even when the Aczanny will lose some
> of their flair with this new shiplist.
>
> Concerning Ground units: Good thing.
>
> Concerning fighters:
> I would like to see the T1 having same travel range as T2 and T3. Any
> specific reason why havin it TR only at 5ly? A generals thing about combat
> quickness: In a post of your´s you wrote you lowered its value cause it´s
> causing problems. That´s not always true. I´ll cause a flyby without
> fiering a shot when combat quickness exeeds two time the weapon range. A
> 300 beam range with 300QC will not cause problems. So please get the QC up
> again. Slow fighters are for turtles
>
> T1 has too low combat quickness, I think. And I think i´ll not do so good
> in Figher-Fighter combat as you lowered the At bonus and Accuracy of the
> beam weapons.
>
> T2 together with T3 will give a great combination. T2 shields up the T3
> and provides the T3 with addition energy. T3 shoots down various object at
> long distance.
>
> Concerning overall stats:
> I like the improoved grow rate. I don´t think the Aczanny are a fast
> breeding race now as they lack of PSP, Undercities and Resorts. Another
> possibilety is to higher the grow psi value.
> I don´t like the improoved mining rate. Doesn´t fit to Aczanny.
>
> Greetings
> Sebastian
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Work continued. I change some mistakes and errors, and also download
few possibly changes into ship and fighters pictures.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

So here´s again:

Frigate class raider

In Changes log you wrote you put 12 LW on it but on ship page you didn´t do
it. Typo? 12 LW a 40kt I wouldn´t do cause the Goshawk has already the same
and it might be too much fo this ship.
Even with loweres guests room I thing a border with 380 top speed is too
much. You can capture enemies ship already with Gerfalcons and Laser mines.
And then again I would not see the Aczanny as border race as they cannot use
other ships probably (armor&shilds reduce to 1).

Goshawk class assault carrier

Why didn´t let its name be Ghoshank? I´m used to it

Gerfalcon class strike carrier

I like the new pics

Nest class star fortress

I wouldn´t move this thing. Even with ram Scoop so why put it on that ship.

Roc class dreadnought

700kt LW is too much. 150kt LW size will be already great. A RLB is only
nice to have. With only 1 ship you´ll not capture enough prisoners and with
enough ships (of that type) you don´t need prisoners any more. BTW: Is a AMM
designed to kill an enemy ship in 1 shoot (cause of melting enemy ship)?

Fighters:

Gernerall overpowered, at least the T1 and T2 and T1 and T3 combos. T1 has
too much gen power. It´ll server as pure charger for the higher types. Give
him the only 5 gen power. This is also the reason why the combos are
overpowered (T1 producing too much energy for the higher types).
I would also give the T3 a very low battery to weaken its incredible beam
range. Thus you have to take a T1&T2&T3 combo to highter battery capacity.
As the T2 has now better Gen/MC ratio than a reduced (to 5 gen power) T1 has
you need to weaken the T2 (which is not needed IMHO) or lower the range of
the T2 about 50ly to 100ly so that a T1&T2&T3 combo has a weaknees over
T1&T3 combo but that does not greatly reduce the T2 solo fighting abileties.
Then I would highter the attack bonus of T3 back to 110 for better anti
fighter combat (regardless of other changes).

When you want to change the pic I propose to change all three fighter pics
together. New T2 looks yust too different from th others.

Overall: This is much better than the release before. Keep on going

Greetings
Sebastian


"Sergey Ivanov" <Zeveult@mail.ru> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1117046490.781892.63100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Work continued. I change some mistakes and errors, and also download
> few possibly changes into ship and fighters pictures.
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sebastian wrote:
> So here´s again:

Me too

> Frigate class raider
>
> Even with loweres guests room I thing a border with 380 top speed is too
> much. You can capture enemies ship already with Gerfalcons and Laser mines.
> And then again I would not see the Aczanny as border race as they cannot use
> other ships probably (armor&shilds reduce to 1).

How do you want to capture ships with a Gerfalcon and lasermines?
Trusting shipcalc, damage of lasermine explosions is too small for most
ships to breach the hull. Mind you, the boarding laser on the Frigate
is dangerous. Fortunately the ship is expensive enough that you can't
use it in great numbers (as for example the Deth Spec), so I don't
believe it to be too unbalancing.
Also, 5k Aczanny troops kill about 150 enemy crew. Highguards might be
more effective, but hard to get in this numbers, and only against crews
with a combat rating below 30. So no need to panic.

> Roc class dreadnought
>
> 700kt LW is too much. 150kt LW size will be already great. A RLB is only
> nice to have. With only 1 ship you´ll not capture enough prisoners and with
> enough ships (of that type) you don´t need prisoners any more. BTW: Is a AMM
> designed to kill an enemy ship in 1 shoot (cause of melting enemy ship)?

The AMM is one of the really weak superweapons. In ship to ship combat
it doesn't cause measurably more damage than the others (I believe),
and it lacks the broad tactical long range uses of the worldcrusher.
Nice as an additional option, but it won't see much use. Handy to
destroy stargates though.
The 700kt LW mount though... ionic gun arrays are still my absolute
overall favorite among all the large weapons (thanks, Lordfire .
Aczanny being capable of mounting them would be a great. But this IS
dangerous. But I love it, and I would prefer the Rok to be reduced in
other things (number of lw mounts for example) and to keep the 700kt
mount size.

The Phaeton got reduced in power, but a lot of other ships got a
measurable combat boost. When the ECM Jammer is reduced to decreasing
attack bonus instead of weapon accuracy that is ok - otherwise the
Aczanny might become a bit strong. Hard to say without sims.

> Fighters:
>
> Gernerall overpowered, at least the T1 and T2 and T1 and T3 combos.

I admit, I don't know enough about fighters to judge the changes. One
point which I noted as positive before was that my Aczanny fighters
were not as seriously harmed by sandcasters as other fighters. Be it
due to a combination of evasive bonus and armor, or pure luck on my
part. Now that the sandcaster immunity ET is about worthless (in my
experience) that will be of increased importance.
Otherwise I mostly prefer cheap costeffective fighters. Judging the
huge fighterbays on the revised ships, the prices (and capabilities) of
the T2 and T3 fighters might still be to high to fill them. Such
fighter bays cry for cheap throw away fighters like the Crystal ones
(which, accidently, are a dream in cost efficiency - or were so in
the old days of absolute sandcaster immunity ET).
And I loath it when people always compare their favorite fighters with
the Solorian ones. The Solorian fighters are absolutely top-of-the-pop
megaeffective high hitters, only hold in check by their low range and
small carrier capacities. Other races fighters should be considerably
lower in power.

By the way, I don't like the air acadamy issue. It's too
complicated. Giving the Aczanny a decent colo to crew ratio instead and
dropping the whole air acadamy building wouldn't change a lot. Too
much small rules without measurably effect DON'T increase race game
feeling. They just increase game estrangement.
Ditto the mech boni versus laser cannons and fighters - nobody in his
right mind uses fighters in groundassault attacks anyway, since they
are a) shot down with anything else in the orbit (when you
groundassault without first securing a free orbit I can't help you),
and b), crushkilldestroy neglects them in combat anyway as far as I
remember. And about laser cannons we don't need to talk, do we?

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Well let's comment on two posts in one.

Sebastian wrote:
> >The AMM is one of the really weak superweapons. In ship to ship combat
> >it doesn't cause measurably more damage than the others (I believe),
> >and it lacks the broad tactical long range uses of the worldcrusher.

Which all other super weapon also lack! - And the AMM has a unique
ability,
it is not the shortcomming of the AMM that so few JGs are build...

>
> >
> >> Fighters:
> >>
> >> Gernerall overpowered, at least the T1 and T2 and T1 and T3 combos.
> >
> >I admit, I don't know enough about fighters to judge the changes.

No problem Sebastian does not either...

> >And I loath it when people always compare their favorite fighters with
> >the Solorian ones.

Well the problem is not that they are comparing to the Sol fighters,
but they are comparing usually single stats with the highest value for
that attribute (be it fighters or whatever) and then justify their own
too high values with it...

> > The Solorian fighters are absolutely top-of-the-pop
> >megaeffective high hitters, only hold in check by their low range and
> >small carrier capacities.
> >Other races fighters should be considerably
> >lower in power.

Now we do disagree (but no surprise, or is it), but I won't tell you
why.

> But they have at least similar range with beams and no Missiles on 2 fighter
> crafts.

And it is always an advantage to have power stealing missles on
fighters...

> If you combare the gen power per MC ist still 2 or 3 time what
> Aczanny have plus their beam power is more than twice what Aczanny have.

And now you are forgetting that the Aczanny fighters are mainly
intended as a weapon against other fighters (with their ships they do
not need fighters which are doing well against enemy ships) and
therefore for one thing do not need a high beam power, plus the higher
generator power of the Sol fighters is in some cases due to the
missles...

> Solarian fighter are still more cost effective.

And that is why we are comparing the fighters with the Solarian
fighters, instead of having the Sol fighter stats reduced/changed. Nice
viewpoint.

> Compare it with Com fighters: They don´t have a cost effective gen power
> fighter but they do have great beam power and more combat quickness.

Have they a higher combat quickness? In any case the difference of the
type-1 of 10 is neglateable. Not neglateable is the higher range of the
Aczanny weapons, the higher attack bonus/accuracy etc...

> Perhaps
> Aczanny fighter will shoot CoM fighter in a fighter battle down, but CoM
> fighter will be much better at Fighter-Ship combact.

Now that you should test with the new values, especially considering
the high weapon range of the t3 beam weapons.

> Rebels: Greater Beam and missile power, T1 is very cheap, T2 and T3 will be
> better as Aczanny in Fighter-ship combat.

In your comparisons with the rebel and Com fighters you mainly pointed
out that their fighters will do better than the aczanny fighters
against ships, eventhough the primary mission of the aczanny fighters
are against fighters, therefore you should not just bring up that as
argument for the aczanny fighter values.

> Cents: T1 produces energy without end together with T3 and his 200 beam
> power it is very powerful.

Do you know how much the host changes from 189 to 193 did change the
combat power of Cent fighters? No, you obviously do not otherwise you
would not have even mentioned the Cent fighters, especially not the
high beam power (and high generator power of the t1), and that despite
all other things which do make the Cents special, ie. considering the
incredible fighting power of Centaur ships.

I furthermore especially like that you just compared the stats to the
rebel,Com,Sol and Cent fighters - all of them having very,very bad
fighters.
And that you are neglating ie. the new travel range of 400 of all
Aczanny fighters, anyone wondering what a help a Sparrow Class Scout
can be for free flying Aczanny wings...
And then I really like that you have not brought up the Stormer
fighters, at least not yet.

> I do think other long range fighter are much better in fighter-ship combat.

Yes, due to the low beam/missle power of the Aczanny fighters, but that
is the only thing,and that just means that the Aczanny need to get in a
few times the amount of hits other fighters do need.

> I think Aczanny is better in fighter-fighter combat. AFAIK they should be
> this way. If you consider there´s no 100% SC immunety it could be a problem
> to get rid of the enemy ships (although they should not beeing hit too
> often).

And if you are using your fighters as aczanny against them you are a
fool.

> So conclusion is: I think they are balaced (see second post of mine).

I really like that you are just comparing fighter stats and then are
coming to the conclusion that the fighters are balanced, and that you
are totally ignoring
the worth and power of ships of these races and some other special
things which usually do need to be taken into account (no I will not be
more plain).

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Thanks Sebastian.

Have to agree with you Lord Owl about the Sol fighters. The stormer
night bat is very good (against fighters) but
has no range. You usually don't see stomers build lots of fighters
anyway, do you? They usually field lots of ships instead.


Thanks,


Mike



Sebastian wrote:
> I did a sim. The ECM lowers enemy weapon accuracy as statet by the doc
> files. It does not lower attack bonus. My test showed up a accuracy loss of
> 29% points. When ECM lowers attack bonus th drop should be less than 14%
> points. As my math stinks today I cannot cover this with the hit formula
> (which seems to be:
> Accuracy*((150+AT-EV)/100)*((maxrange-range/maxrange)*0,3+0,7) ). But a
> graph I once made showing effective hit chance over weapon accuracy and
> evasive bonus shows this.
>
> Greetings
> Sebastia

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Sebastian wrote:
> So here´s again:
>
> Frigate class raider
>
> In Changes log you wrote you put 12 LW on it but on ship page you didn´t do
> it. Typo? 12 LW a 40kt I wouldn´t do cause the Goshawk has already the same
> and it might be too much fo this ship.

Ups... It's error! SW - 12(4). Old version have only 4 small weapon.
Now - 12.

> Even with loweres guests room I thing a border with 380 top speed is too
> much. You can capture enemies ship already with Gerfalcons and Laser mines.
> And then again I would not see the Aczanny as border race as they cannot use
> other ships probably (armor&shilds reduce to 1).

Even if you are right, what about minerals and equipements from enemy
ships? Pure minerals . In any cases this device more usable then
Incarceration Beam.

> Goshawk class assault carrier
>
> Why didn´t let its name be Ghoshank? I´m used to it

Goshawk - medium-sized forest hawk. Goshank... i d'nt know what is it.

> Gerfalcon class strike carrier
>
> I like the new pics

.

>
> Nest class star fortress
>
> I wouldn´t move this thing. Even with ram Scoop so why put it on that ship.

You not - another can... :-).

> Roc class dreadnought
>
> 700kt LW is too much. 150kt LW size will be already great. A RLB is only
> nice to have. With only 1 ship you´ll not capture enough prisoners and with
> enough ships (of that type) you don´t need prisoners any more. BTW: Is a AMM
> designed to kill an enemy ship in 1 shoot (cause of melting enemy ship)?

Also AMM restopre minerals from killed ship. And destroy jumpgates.

> Fighters:
>
> Gernerall overpowered, at least the T1 and T2 and T1 and T3 combos. T1 has
> too much gen power. It´ll server as pure charger for the higher types. Give
> him the only 5 gen power. This is also the reason why the combos are
> overpowered (T1 producing too much energy for the higher types).
> I would also give the T3 a very low battery to weaken its incredible beam
> range. Thus you have to take a T1&T2&T3 combo to highter battery capacity.
> As the T2 has now better Gen/MC ratio than a reduced (to 5 gen power) T1 has
> you need to weaken the T2 (which is not needed IMHO) or lower the range of
> the T2 about 50ly to 100ly so that a T1&T2&T3 combo has a weaknees over
> T1&T3 combo but that does not greatly reduce the T2 solo fighting abileties.
> Then I would highter the attack bonus of T3 back to 110 for better anti
> fighter combat (regardless of other changes).

It's new vision for me... I think about it.
In fighters adjustification i cannot change some parameters like
fighter range (but one time i think about Type1 as short range
interceptor against enemy [Reb's, COM's, UEA's] fighters), Type2
missile accurasy (always-hit-missile in compensation for low power) and
very long Type3 beam range.

What i think now (but only think - i not make this changes). T1&T2
combo look like normal antiship attack wing with good escort. T3 - free
flying antifighter design (like Bot's Rider). T1&T3 - unusable. T2&T3 -
also unusable. T1&T2&T3 - can be used, but... :-\... So, generator
power: Type1 - high (25, i mean) in combination with low batteries.
Type2 - Low generator (5) and low beam range (70-80 instead of 110).
Type3 - normal generator (10 - not more) and low battery.

It's only quick idea. I make more complex analysis lather.

> When you want to change the pic I propose to change all three fighter pics
> together. New T2 looks yust too different from th others.

Unfortunately, i not make this art. Simply found some old forgotten
pics.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

>> You need at least 1 point hull damage to be able to tranfer to an enemy
>> ship. That will the laser mines will do. And use the Gerfalcon (or the new
>> Cormorant) to carry troops/HG and Phaetons to lay mines.

One time, i capture Gorbi, using Bright and Fearless - and this trick.
May be, you say, Bird's guest rooms overpower it?

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

>> One time, i capture Gorbi, using Bright and Fearless - and this trick.
>> May be, you say, Bird's guest rooms overpower it?

>Or the old owner make the fault to have not enough guests and crew on it,
> or do you really think it was full op people and that with the 10*
>dender crew bouns ?

EE crew have low battle power. 20K EE crew have power of 1M - with *10
bonus. 75K birdmans troopers have near 5M battle power. And i'm use not
only troopers. May be Gorby have empty guest rooms, but this is
irrelevant.

I board enemy ships as Crystall as Centaur and as Fed. It's possibly.
As Crystall, i board COM's Celestia filled by HG!!! And win (this
Celestia builded without engines, and can not be damaged by webs. So, i
use two Armored Transports filled by HG and troopers)!!! Belive me, i'm
well know about boarding. Aczanny not a dangerous boarders at all, but
it's ships found some possibly allies for it. Lather, Aczanny have
problem with it.

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

>> EE crew have low battle power. 20K EE crew have power of 1M - with *10
>> bonus. 75K birdmans troopers have near 5M battle power. And i'm use not
>> only troopers. May be Gorby have empty guest rooms, but this is
>> irrelevant.
>
>Do not understand why the guests should be irrelevant. If he had 100K
>troops loaded the boardings had not this result, so you can not speak from
>irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because i'm already do this. And because i have 50K HG
and 25K troops into this boarding.

Both cases, i succesfully use boarding. One time - by poor races
against very strong enemy. So, any race can board enemy ships
successfully. I d'nt know by what means you fear that some big guest
rooms on Aczanny ships overpower it. Make strong - yes. But
overpower... :-\...

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Well for one thing the Aczanny fighter need to be mainly compared to
the other fighter concerning their combat power against other fighter.
A comparison to just some fighters of the 'traditional' good fighter
races is just not enough. Furthermore a comparison to the old fighter
stats of the aczanny is necessary...

In case the conclusion of such a comparison is that the aczanny
fighters did gain in power, it needs to be judged , whether these
changes are appropiate, especially considering the game balance, and
for that all changes need also to be taken into account. And especially
the part of game balance was more than just neglated. And it is totally
inappropiate to compare fighters(A) to fighters(B), which do need to be
changed, especially to justify the changes to fighters (A).

And then do you not realiuze, that with this current diversity in
fighter stats (the range of the attributes of max and min values etc.)
it is nearly impossible to get a real good (and intuitivly and without
totally dump ship and fighter pilots) working space combat without
getting totally overpowered ships and fighters. And that therefore ie.
the fighter stats need to be brought within a reasonable range
(eventhough that alone is not enough).
And yes with the real low beam and missle power we can make some kind
of exception, but ie. the high beam weapons range of the aczanny t3 is
none of the ones (or keeping of the missle accuracy of the t2 - if the
missles of the t2 should always hit make it a special property of the
fighter against enemy fighters).

Moreover currently against other fighters it does only matter if the
power (of the beam or missle weapon) is below or equal/higher than the
armor of the targeted fighter (not the actual difference)- and you can
bet that the computation of the a hit of a fighter beam/missle is not
much different than for the pds shooting down fighters (0.4 or 0.6
chance that the fighter gets destroyed eventhough it has a higher armor
than the blast rating of the pd).
Also the weapon range currently has a big effect on the fighter
performance.

And while the host changes from host 189 to 193 did reduce the fighting
power
(eventhough some of the reduced fighting power is probably due to some
new bugs in the code) from many fighters against ships, the fighters of
the aczanny, which were never good against ships, do get a power boost
(to their fighters with the intended changes), eventhough they were
affected much less than some other races by the changes.

And then the aczanny fighters, with their new travel range, did gain a
whole lot of mobility, which for one thing, because of the Carriers the
aczanny have, they do not need, also gives the aczanny the possibility
for incredible big fighter wings and incredible many small fighter
wings (the later only if they have enough rps)- and while they do need
many hits to take down an enemy ship, than the fighters, which do have
a higher beam/missle power, with the beam weapon range of the t3 and
the combat quickness and the attack and evasive boni, coupled with the
generator power and batteries (and the lack of missles), they might be
able to take out the ships with fewer losses then fighters with higher
beam/missle power (it would just take more time to shoot them down).

I will here end my engagement in this thread and see what is going to
happen, it is probably going to be humerous.