35 replies to this topic

[evilbobthebob]

Nope. It's controlled by a number set in the XML for each planet.

[Phoenix Rising]

But when dealing with the limits of the FoC interface, I think it's probably the best solution.

I've looked into this and while you can create more interface boxes, I see no way to tell the engine that they're meant for space special structures. Would be nice if PG hooked them up behind the scenes and just didn't code the additional UI components for vanilla... I guess I'll add that to my simple-fix mod support wish list.

I'm pretty sure that the number of stations allowed is caused by how many markers for them there are on that planets space map.

Nope. It's controlled by a number set in the XML for each planet.

That's technically correct. If there aren't enough markers, some will be used twice.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 19 June 2011 - 06:12 AM.

[Stormhawk]

Unless I'm missing something, space colonies replace themselves as they're tiered up, but starbases and weapon platforms do not. There's never more than one space colony on the tactical map, no matter how many times you've expanded it.

I'm sorry, you are right and I am wrong. That's the exception. All other stations do not replace existing ones.

[sargeantsandwich]

And stations are nearly impossible to get rid of. You have to cross your fingers and then hope for an attack.

[Ghostrider]

I'm pretty sure that the number of stations allowed is caused by how many markers for them there are on that planets space map.

Nope - it's set in the Planets.xml File:
Eg Bonadian

<Special_Structures_Land>7</Special_Structures_Land>
		<Special_Structures_Space>7</Special_Structures_Space>
		<Max_Space_Base>5</Max_Space_Base>
		<Space_Tactical_Map>_Space_Planet_Bonadan_01.ted</Space_Tactical_Map>
		<Land_Tactical_Map> _Land_Planet_Bonadan_02.ted </Land_Tactical_Map>

You can set the Special structures indpendently of the Map. We have lots and lots of planets, but there aren't many maps to go around, so until we get a full time mapper, the same space and land maps will appear over and over again!

If you set more stations or ground structures in the campaign files than listed in the planet files, you get an exception and the system folds up and sulks.

However, you can manually give a planet a higher space base than it's max level - eg Skyhook, where Despayre has a max Space Base of 2, but we've manually given it a Level 5 Space Base and a Level 5 Orbital Shipyard to build the DEATH STAR!

Ghost

[Phoenix Rising]

If you set more stations or ground structures in the campaign files than listed in the planet files, you get an exception and the system folds up and sulks.

I think we're both right: lack of space markers will cause some to be reused, but lack of ground markers will cause an exception (likely something to do with them being dummy base level components). Either way, not a good idea to assign more than a map can handle!

[Stormhawk]

About that old problem of being unable to control space station placement: how does the engine place newly built stations? Does it just have the markers in an arbitrary order, 1 through n, and just fill them in? If so, is this order modifiable? I can see a semi-solution in re-numbering the markers for each map, from 1 being the safest station marker to n being the most exposed, then we can just build Golans at the end and have a semi-workable solution. It would be optimal to be able to decide where each station goes, but we are limited by the engine.

[Phoenix Rising]

It's not arbitrary, but it does have them ordered based on when the markers were first placed on the map.

Let me stress that said markers were done by me as a stopgap and have never been touched by a real mapper. Same goes for the space maps, just a simple resize and no "terrain" rearrangement to compensate (partly why there are pathing issues in space).

I might be able to appropriate the in-base/out-base system that land uses so at least the game will have two groups to choose from (until one runs out, then it would spill over), but there's really no point in trying it until we can find a lead mapper to enforce consistency throughout the maps.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 21 June 2011 - 06:49 PM.

[STP]

I like setting up premade planets with my bases and fleets ready to go from week one when I start my campaigns. Also got rid of my pirates fleets and cut back on some planets on the galaxy far far away campaign for example to reduce fps and lag. I just wish I could find the enemy pop restiction pieve so I could limit their fleets from getting so big, they dont appear to be limited by space colony + plant pop limits like the human player is.

I gotta admit its been great making my own little varient of the mod from what I've been given, which reminds me I need to incease my tie avengers on the executor because I made the independences and bulwark spawns way to big and they op me :( lol

[Zeta1127]

STP, unlike in EaW and FoC, population only limits the tactical size of fleets, not galactic.

[STP]

STP, unlike in EaW and FoC, population only limits the tactical size of fleets, not galactic.

You meen stricktly for the human player and not the enemy / ai side? As in there is no place in the xmls to write and set a population limit for the ai?

Because I noticed in some xmls there is a population_vaule and a space_override value( this one seem to be in only some xmls, capitals ships for example )

Edited by STP, 29 June 2011 - 12:19 AM.

[Zeta1127]

What I am trying to say is ships don't take up galactic population anymore, the only limiting factor for ships is credits.

[STP]

What I am trying to say is ships don't take up galactic population anymore, the only limiting factor for ships is credits.

haha well my ships do, I supposse thats because I make them do so when I alter the xmls for vehicles. I guess that my changes only effect my side and not the enemy. When I do change the values in the xmls they do reflect, even on the tooltips when they come up. The ai just gets to bybass them for some reason. I was hoping to take this factor into control so I could reduce the amount of units the other side is moving so I could get better performance results.

Plus since I introduced larger hanger drops for capitals ships the ai wont need to bring in their own fighters for example anymore. There for they dont have to build hundreds of them in galactic any more, thell have hundred dropping out of the hangers in space combat Id even take out the ability to purchase and build fighters in the theater of war if I knew where the code was and how to remove it properly. If I did this and had control over galactic population for the AI side then I could dramtically reduce the amount of lag I would recieve while they move units back and forth on their side. I think I would anyway, thats what all my work has been for up to this point for the most part, besides the certain other values I change on ships for my own pleasure.

Edited by STP, 29 June 2011 - 01:20 AM.

[Tropical Bob]

What I am trying to say is ships don't take up galactic population anymore, the only limiting factor for ships is credits.

haha well my ships do, I supposse thats because I make them do so when I alter the xmls for vehicles. I guess that my changes only effect my side and not the enemy. When I do change the values in the xmls they do reflect, even on the tooltips when they come up. The ai just gets to bybass them for some reason. I was hoping to take this factor into control so I could reduce the amount of units the other side is moving so I could get better performance results.

Plus since I introduced larger hanger drops for capitals ships the ai wont need to bring in their own fighters for example anymore. There for they dont have to build hundreds of them in galactic any more, thell have hundred dropping out of the hangers in space combat Id even take out the ability to purchase and build fighters in the theater of war if I knew where the code was and how to remove it properly. If I did this and had control over galactic population for the AI side then I could dramtically reduce the amount of lag I would recieve while they move units back and forth on their side. I think I would anyway, thats what all my work has been for up to this point for the most part, besides the certain other values I change on ships for my own pleasure.

Ships that provide income and Land units take up supply in Galactic mode. So Freighters, some Transport groups, and any Land unit. In Space Tactical mode, every ship takes up supply.

Edited by Tropical Bob, 29 June 2011 - 05:25 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

I just wish I could find the enemy pop restiction pieve so I could limit their fleets from getting so big, they dont appear to be limited by space colony + plant pop limits like the human player is.

You are correct: they don't seem to honor galactic population limits, and I'm quite certain it's hardcoded that way.

[STP]

I just wish I could find the enemy pop restiction pieve so I could limit their fleets from getting so big, they dont appear to be limited by space colony + plant pop limits like the human player is.

You are correct: they don't seem to honor galactic population limits, and I'm quite certain it's hardcoded that way.

And thats a bummer for me because my rig doesnt mind lagging or losing massive fps in tac battles but it will freeze or crash during the GC if enough units move at once. I suppose a smaller map with less planets may help this since it seems I'll have no way to actually limit the enemys population since I take it hardcoding isnt changable.

Or maybe I could just place outrageous prices on units I dont want the AI to spam which build quick, like fighters and such.

I do enjoy my bigger campaigns like far far away even after I remove planets I dont want either. Just trial and error, worth it though.

That or if I could get the AI to move their fleets less, which is kinda why I start them out with some pre built fleets so they dont have to move a Lot of units to assemble.

Edited by STP, 30 June 2011 - 09:29 AM.