ICE 16

Information, How-to's, and discussion about mod'ing Master of Orion II.
User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10m

Postby Dukinson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:08 pm

I checked some of my old saves and compared them versus new ones. It's certainly not a population issue, like I said before I always play with a population boosting trait and with your mod I use the biggest one, subterranean. Also, I tend to play dictatorship as well to get the more easily accessible moral bonuses. However, it does look like the overall boost in maintenance isn't as bad as I thought. It's maybe a few percent on maintenance. This is an overall increase compared to vanilla, but not so terrible. The real reason my rates tend to get so high is more that I'm blasting past my command limit to deal with a more dangerous AI. I thought much of that would be nullified by moral bonuses to income, but this appears not to be the case. My mistake.

*Edit*

Maybe I spoke too soon. It really just depends on the planet climates one has early to mid game. Once you get terraforming and radiation shields, it's not a big deal either way. I see a few games where the majority of my planets are barren with some radiated planets. Radiated got a 15% boost in maintenance, barrens a 20%. Fewer planets tend to be radiated than barren. Barrens are very common. It's worth noting these observations are of icecold maps with a dictatorship. If half my planets are barren and radiated, that's around a 7-10% boost in maintenance overall from vanilla (seeing as empire maintenance mostly consists of building maintenance). It's a decent increase. It can certainly drive taxes up a bracket and if one doesn't use a population pick, they may suffer. The saving grace is that you have fewer buildings early on to drive up maintenance. The more structures you develop, the more urgent terraforming and planetary shielding becomes. It's certainly different and adds a new challenge.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10m

Postby Dukinson » Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:48 pm

I was doing a test on strategic with new ships and old ships packed with bonus modules. What I did first was identify two titans in my fleet. Both had the same exact crew training level, regular. One was made slightly before I developed and stole a bunch of modules. It only had 4 modules. The slightly older ship was jam packed, it had 9. I waited for an incoming fleet. Right before the enemy fleet arrived I moved the newer ship away from my defensive battlegroup and monitored casualties. I loaded back. This time moved away the more heavily equipped vessel to the same exact location that its weaker counterpart traveled to in the previous load in an attempt to not disturb the random seed. I lost more ships this time. Its only one test so far, I'll continue to do tests like these to verify with more certainty whether or not the modules displayed on older ships impact its effectiveness in combat.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:45 am

Outposts ships are back! I'm gonna build so many! More than I even need. Some will just orbit my homeworld making me feel warm and fuzzy. Others will accompany assault fleets, raising moral and ship attack. I'm pretty sure that's how it works.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Rocco
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:16 am
Contact:

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Rocco » Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:08 am

I should have modded in a Stellar Converter, so the Outpost Ships could protect you from any harm at game start.
:)

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:42 pm

Hahah. Brilliant!
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:31 pm

Rocco, I was thinking of how negative and positive picks compare from vanilla to Icemod. 10 positives vs 10 negatives for vanilla. 24 positives vs 21 negatives for Icemod. If we calculate each individual race pick from vanilla to Icemod, it would go 2.25 from vanilla to Icemod or .444etc from Icemod to vanilla. These ratios generally appear to be in proper proportions with most picks, but there is something seems a bit off. The ratios of positives to negative picks themselves. Why do you have -21 picks and 24 positives? This means a slight offset in translating valuation of negative picks to Icemod and may be why you've had some issues cramming certain negative combos together, even to the point of undervaluing a pick like repulsive so it will fit with others. It seems you should have -23 negatives and 23 positives or -22/22. Equal negatives and positives. The negatives are all essentially the same, their penalties haven't been changed. Shouldn't the negatives/positive ratio be maintained as well? Your thoughts?
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Rocco
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:16 am
Contact:

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Rocco » Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:16 am

It seems you should have -23 negatives and 23 positives or -22/22.

It is not necessary to tie negs and positives together like that. Any values are possible (well as much as moo2 game code allows for). The only reason to pick negatives after all, is to be able to take the maximum number of positive picks. That can be organized like -22/22 but it can also be organized like -12/33 to name a very random example :)

The question (for a modder) is: How much negatives do you want a player to pick for him to be able to get his max positives? In classic moo2 the Repulsive/-SD/-GC was pretty much the default combo for getting your 10 negatives that enables you to take the max. positives. In ice, I wanted the player to take a bit more 'pain', as my game is intended for playing against the weak a.i. Thus the classic combo no longer gives you the full negatives. Repulsive at -9 still is a default pick to take though. Especially offcourse if you don't play the 'abuse a.i. with being friendly, making treaties and giving gifts' strategy. And because Repulsive is still a default pick, it is not undervalued at all. The same cannot be said for some other traits in ice, especially for the -12 traits, which are negatives that have a high impact.

and may be why you've had some issues cramming certain negative combos together,

The way you write this implies that I have written somewhere to have 'issues' with something. Race picks are a puzzle and there is many considerations that a modder can choose to make part of it. I guess you refer to what I said about the Silicoids some time ago on the Civforum, that I wanted to keep their -Pop/Repulsive intact so they maintain character. If that is the case, then you should also remember that I wrote that I didn't want to lower the -Pop rate to for example -25 (or another value not -50) because of some development problems a.i. can have with non-standard negative pop rates.

Additionally, and i might not have been entirely clear on this earlier, I am more inclined to change the balance of the -Pop/Rep combo to -13/-8 than to -11/-10. Again, this combo only matters because I want to keep the Silicoid stock race the way they are. And the current situation because of this is an undervalued -Pop rather than an undervalued Repulsive.

Thus, would I be able to solve this pop growth problem (which btw is somewhat mysterious to me as it does not happen always, but sometimes), the puzzle shifts not at all in the way you imply it would happen:
Perhaps I would set -pop at -25, and give it more negative value than simply -12/2, perhaps -7 picks or even -8. Or I could keep it at -12 and then decrease the -% value accordingly. Repulsive would not get more negative value as it would make the game easier, instead of more difficult.

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:05 pm

Hm, ya you're right. You can always scale the negatives differently. It just seemed like some where scaled up to the 2.25 ratio and some other weren't. Just an illusion as this was just rebalancing the less popular picks like pop growth.

I still say you should break the bonds of growth+repulsive and make repulsive close to -12 and just switch up silicoid stock negatives. If I were designing a race for power now, I would never pick repulsive. Diplomacy is far more valuable than 9 picks.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:45 pm

Rocco wrote:It is not necessary to tie negs and positives together like that. Any values are possible (well as much as moo2 game code allows for). The only reason to pick negatives after all, is to be able to take the maximum number of positive picks. That can be organized like -22/22 but it can also be organized like -12/33 to name a very random example :)


Actually once again, I may have spoken too soon. There is a problem with scaling negatives differently from positives. You are purchasing positives with the negatives you sacrificed so their valuation has to line up. It's not simply about rounding up all possible negative picks so you can use them on positives. Lets take it to extremes.

Suppose you left negatives at -10 with positives at 35. You'd have something like repulsive at -6 and pop growth at -4 (for the sake of argument). Now the positives would still be at something like 12 picks for 2 bonus production. Suddenly, the negatives you're picking aren't worth the positives you wish to purchase. You're better off just sticking with the 35 starting picks and ignoring the -10 picks because the picks that consist of those negatives are just as punishing as before but give you less value in return! Picking -pop growth and repulsive wouldn't even buy you +12 production! The ratio does matter! Ofcourse, your ratio is only slightly off, but could be perfected.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Mon Sep 07, 2015 3:48 pm

On a side note, I happened to notice an odd bug. I was bombarding a Mrrshan colony and they had no remaining buildings. The next turn, they somehow produced a tank a turn after I destroyed their armor barracks. Odd stuff. Maybe this is an old bug but I've never seen it before.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!

User avatar
Rocco
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:16 am
Contact:

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Rocco » Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:45 pm

Suppose you left negatives at -10 with positives at 35. You'd have something like repulsive at -6 and pop growth at -4 (for the sake of argument). Now the positives would still be at something like 12 picks for 2 bonus production.

Your example is flawed, as indeed -pop at -4 is undervalued, there is no reason to give it that value. It is not a matter of a mindless interpolation or keeping ratio's for what they were; it is about finding some appropriate valuation. To stay with your example, if max negatives are indeed -10, then -pop, p-1, -cash, low-g would all be valued at -10 and undervalued. Repulsive could stay at -9 as it is now :)

about the bug: it can very well be that armor barracks are destroyed but some tanks survived the attack.

User avatar
Darza
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:09 am

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Darza » Mon Sep 07, 2015 7:43 pm

Rocco wrote:To stay with your example, if max negatives are indeed -10, then -pop, p-1, -cash, low-g would all be valued at -10 and undervalued.


Thats quite incorrect, no matter the positive picks ratio. As long there is a possible need in using negatives in the mod - their relative weight have nothing to do with weight of positive ones, they are using orthogonal scales, no matter if there is 10 positive picks to 10 negatives, or 100 to 10 etc. Was sure you knew that.

User avatar
Rocco
Posts: 229
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:16 am
Contact:

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Rocco » Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:01 am

I had to Wiki 'orthogonal' .. _|_
My point was that you would pick negatives to improve your race. Otherwise, if you pick negatives and your race becomes weaker, there is no point in it. That is the relationship between positives and negatives. If -Cash is valued at -1 and for that pick you can get Ground Combat +10, it surely is a bad deal. Maybe that is what you meant with "As long there is a possible need in using negatives in the mod"?
Last edited by Rocco on Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Darza
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:09 am

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Darza » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:09 am

Rocco wrote:My point was that you would pick negatives to improve your race. Otherwise, if you pick negatives and your race becomes weaker, there is no point in it. That is the relationship between positives and negatives. If -Cash is valued at -1 and for that pick you can get Ground Combat +10, it surely is a bad deal. Maybe that is what you meant with "As long there is a possible need in using negatives in the mod"?


Ok, let break it down:
The positive points value in mod is X. The max positive points, that could be used to construct the race, using all the non mutually exclusive picks (the max picks you're able to spend overall in short) is Y.
a) Y<X. The negatives, their number and relative proportion cost doesnt matter, as you dont need them to spend max possible points to construct - you have more already.
b) Y>X. Now it come into actual values. Say, Y=X+1, so you could need to take some negatives to create a race more powerful, than you can build without them. Now negative scale is coming, 1 could be the same 1 there, or the only possiblity will be to use some 0.4+0.5+0.05+0.05 negatives to build it up (of course in moo2 terms you need to scale it to a whole numbers, but it doesnt matter now). Now it come into measuring: does Y race is better or worse than Y+1-1 Negative race (take for example, what adding of negatives would let you add only Ftraders to your "ultimate Y race", and to add that Ftraders you need to take all possible negatives - in this case you wouldnt need negatives again, as the Y+Ftraders race will be weaker than Y_no negatives; compare it to a case, where all you can get for X is Uni or Tol (all other picks are too pricey, say X=10, U=6, T=5, all other positives =100 each), so you need that 1 at any price to be able to pick them both, unless that price would hit so heavy, so plain Uni or Tol would perform better).
So, when we'll get to a case b1), where Y+n_from_negatives would perform better than Y_no negatives - you can set up the negatives scale - to let player to be able to actually pick some negatives, that would suit it (as with some negative combinations of the same weight - the race could be still worse than a no_negatives ones, as negative picks are of different harm). In result you can have +1 prod at 50 pick weight and -1 prod at -1, and that wouldnt make -prod "underweight" coming from it. -Prod could still be unneeded pick in this case, but it have no connection to a +Prod weight, as they are using different scales, you compare negatives to negatives, not positives. So you can weight some freebie non-harmful one, say -Rep to -prod, and if -prod is cheaper - its underweight etc.
c)X + Z(max points from the negatives)+ Mutation points is less than any positive pick value: the negatives, their number and relative proportion cost doesnt matter again, as they cannot be spent on anything.

(Of course this is omitting anti-races or some other voluntary ineffective builds, only actual positive race construction).
Last edited by Darza on Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dukinson
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:02 pm
Location: San Fransiscro Bay Area

Re: ICE Mod 10n

Postby Dukinson » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:25 pm

Rocco wrote:Your example is flawed, as indeed -pop at -4 is undervalued, there is no reason to give it that value. It is not a matter of a mindless interpolation or keeping ratio's for what they were; it is about finding some appropriate valuation. To stay with your example, if max negatives are indeed -10, then -pop, p-1, -cash, low-g would all be valued at -10 and undervalued. Repulsive could stay at -9 as it is now :)


Oh my dear sweet dutch Rocco 8) , I thought that "flawless" logic would reach you! So you see it a bit differently and I'll have to come at this a different angle. So if you were to keep negative pick valuation the same but pos/neg picks at 35/-10, you don't think there would be something wrong with that? Ok so you're still saying you would keep negative valuation at roughly the 2.25 inflation from vanilla to Ice with slight rebalancing while trying to maintain negative combos from vanilla AND changing the ratio. Clearly you partially agree already seeing as if there were only -10 picks some of your negative picks wouldn't even fit! Also, when you're trying to rebalance some of the less attractive negatives like pop growth, you're making your job doubly difficult.

We have a saying in America, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." In vanilla the ratio of negatives to positives 1 to 1 meant you could expend just the 10 positive picks and make your race, or you could go for all 10 negative picks if you can withstand the pain those negatives will inflict. By lessening the ratio, you're basically giving away free picks as well as making it more difficult to balance the negative picks with your insistence on maintaining combos of repulsive and pop growth for stock Silicoid (which I think you should abandon as well). Repulsive at -9 is just not right. Repulsive at -6 vanilla works out to 13.5 in Ice and it was easily the worst pick in vanilla. If I want to win every game, I will use diplomacy and tribute treaties to get everything I want. It should be at least -12 or perhaps drop the "multiples of 3" negative system you have to allow for more precise valuation. 23/-23! Maybe 24/-24 would be smarter for you. It's only a 3 pick inflation from your existing balance and -24 would be divisible by 3 as well as match your 24 positive picks. It's the way to go my sweet Rocco.

About the armor barracks, I bombed the colony down to 1 pop no buildings no military, next turn before my transport arrived it somehow made a tank. Bizarre.
A cob of corn in every pot, an outpost ship with fuel tanks in every garage, and two command points for every colony!


Return to “Game Modifications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests