Fan Patch 1.50.9 with Launcher 1.2

Information, How-to's, and discussion about mod'ing Master of Orion II.
User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:50 pm

Alright, if I see it occur again, I will make an effort to preserve the latest auto save in the hopes it may be reproduced.

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Rocco » Wed Jun 08, 2016 3:00 am

Belix wrote:I can't figure out how to assign 'Poor Home World' to stock_races. Am I missing something, or is the parameter missing something?

Poor Home World has a shared entry with Rich HW. If you set it to -1, Poor HW will be assigned:

Rich
stock_races Mrrshan = dictatorship g0 f0 i0 s0 m0 sd0 sa3 gnd0 spy0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1;

Poor
stock_races Mrrshan = dictatorship g0 f0 i0 s0 m0 sd0 sa3 gnd0 spy0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1;

User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:27 pm

Oh, that's why. I kept trying to use 2 instead of -1 (following the pattern of the other multi-choice options where 0 = none, 1 = first option in list, 2 = second option in list) and it would throw an error. I thought of trying -1 at one point but it isn't used anywhere else, so I thought I may have overlooked something. That also messes up the alignment of my text header... oh well. Thanks. :)

User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:26 pm

The game ate another one of my Battleships, one that I'm quite sure was barely damaged when it retreated and nothing hit it while it was moving to retreat. Unfortunately the game auto-saved immediately after the battle, so it saved after the ship vanished. I will try to remember to save the game 1 turn before starting battles from now on... the only thing I saw going on that could be different with the new patch is that an enemy ship was blown up during the extra combat turn that happens at the end of battles now, AI Destroyer got blown up by some missiles. Not sure if it is relevant but mentioning it just in case.

EDIT: Okay, this isn't limited to just Battleships. I have also lost 2 Cruisers in 2 seperate battles, 1 in a battle it retreated from, another in a battle I won (but one of my two remaining Cruisers was immobilized). Unfortunately I had been playing 200 turns and not seen a single Cruiser vanish, then lost two a couple turns apart, so I had begun to wonder if only Battleships were affected and had been neglecting to save before minor battles. Darn it. I'll get a save of this soon though...

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Rocco » Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:12 am

tx again for reporting. that save is very welcome so we can take a look.
you're sure there's not a warp beast involved here?

I'd like to note that i keep in my moo folder also they old v1.31 and v1.40 exe's.
renamed them to m2v131 and m2v140. they can live in the 1.50 folder without problems like that.
then, if i am unsure some behaviour is caused by the 1.50 patch, i fire up the save in the old exe's and see what happens.

User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:02 am

No Hyperspace Monster event had happened yet during any of these games that ships disappeared, and no message in the turn summary saying the hyperspace beast ate a [race] ship. I have a separate directory for 1.5, and another folder where 1.4 and 1.3 co-exist. Since I'm familiar with 1.5 now perhaps I'll merge them, but I'm not sure if the older versions can load 1.5 saves with the 6th ship design slot? Would that make them crash?

I've started a new 'pure' game with the latest version of 1.5 exactly as it is downloaded, with only SET150.CFG being loaded and no command line parameters. I'll play through it and save obsessively until I get a save 1 turn before a ship disappears and see if it can be reproduced.

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Rocco » Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:59 am

[...] but I'm not sure if the older versions can load 1.5 saves with the 6th ship design slot? Would that make them crash?

The formats of 1.5 and 1.4/1.3 savegames are identical (for now) so you can load 1.5 saves no problem, except for loosing that 6th design slot. Already built ships that are based on the 6th slot will not be affected. Up to you if you want to merge or not. Alternatively you can keep the separate 1.4/1.3 folder and still copy the exe's to the 1.50 folder. It saves you DOSBox restarts in case you want to load a save in another exe to make checks.

User avatar
Overlord2
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:25 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Overlord2 » Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:04 pm

The game ate another one of my Battleships, one that I'm quite sure was barely damaged when it retreated and nothing hit it while it was moving to retreat.

This bug was observed quite often in the past. When you damage the ship right at the moment of retreat action it may dissapear. I had an opinion such ship dissapears when its drive gets damaged and it becomes immobile while retreating. But it should be verified.

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Darza » Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:08 pm

Oops, im late for a few minuts with it, ok.

Most cases of it is fixed from now, the behavior described above is correct - ships what are immobilized during retreat are likely lost later. In current 1.50 they are surely lost, so its more noticeable. Some claims above cannot be explained by it, so save is still needed, possibly there is something else about it.

User avatar
Overlord2
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:25 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Overlord2 » Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:12 pm

So Darza, are you saying its a legit code? I had an argument with another player its a bug, not a feature (he was saying its a bug). Could you change the code so that all such ships stay in battle immobilized instead of disappearing?

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Darza » Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:15 pm

Im confirmed it present in 1.3 and 1.4, just 1.5 also got it in some cases not covered in vanilla (what leaded to excellent report about it from Belix, and consequent fixing, luckily), while origin of bug is Simtex software. It fixed already essentially that way.

User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:52 am

Now that someone mentioned immobilization, I seem to recall witnessing the AI player move and then self-destruct ships that were immobilized before their turn, but that may have been in the previous 1.5 version before this one, so perhaps it was fixed in the latest update already. Just mentioning it in case there are other issues related to immobilization that weren't caught yet.

Sounds like this issue may be resolved now, but I'll still try to get a save that can reproduce this if possible. Great work guys!

EDIT: Actually I'm curious... does anyone know how the game handles immobilized vessels outside of combat? Just today I ended up fending off a larger barricading fleet with some smaller ships using fire-and-retreat rounds, and managed to immobilize one of their Battleships. Since the enemy did not have Advanced Damage Control yet, their ship remained immobilized when I attacked again next turn. Question is: Are we assuming that Immobile ships are not supposed to be able to complete a Retreat action, and effectively cannot enter hyperspace? And if so, should an immobilized ship that survives a battle and remains immobilized due to no repair behave the same way (and thus cannot be ordered to relocate to another star system)? Just a consistency thing - if an immobile ship can't complete a retreat during battle, it probably shouldn't after the battle either. If I get a chance I'll try to cause this to happen and test it, but maybe someone else already knows how it behaves currently.

EDIT #2: Whoa. I just decimated an entire AI fleet that attacked my home star -- 1 cruiser, 3 battleships, and 5 titans -- and I managed to take them all out without losing a single ship. After the battle, their entire fleet is still intact and blockading my system, as if the fight never occured. That's crazy! Unfortunately, the save from 1 turn before did not reproduce this. The AI chose not to attack this time and instead sat there and blockaded. I attacked them and the battle played out quite differently, and nothing was amiss afterwards.

EDIT #3: Quick question: I see quantum_detonator_explode_chance was exposed in this version, excellent. Unfortunately the EXAMPLE.CFG file doesn't describe clearly what the values mean. I also can't find it listed in the patch's pdf manual. How does a value of 6 correlate to 50%? What value would be 100%?

Bug? EDIT #4: There seems to be some issue with Graviton Beams right now. Several times I've seen very unusually high damage amounts. Just a few minutes ago, the game said an AI Frigate with 2 Graviton Beams did about 304 damage to one of my Heavy Armor/Reinforced Hull Cruisers. That shouldn't be possible with any combination of equipment or leaders... I'm not convinced that the Gravitons are actually doing as much damage as shown yet, though. I doubt my ships wouldn't of lasted more than 1 turn during that battle if so. It seems to only show high amounts vs ships that have taken damage, always a yellow number vs structure so far, never blue vs shields.

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Darza » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:54 pm

1. AI shouldnt move ships immobilized on previous turn. If it does so in any version - its a bug. AI aswell as any other player could move ships immobilized on current turn, under some circumstances, unless you have ICS enabled, where it shouldnt occurs at all. Sadly impossible to say more about it without save - personally i never encountered it.

2. Another great find from you here. Immobilized ships what survive a combat are repairing their engines to a state of minimal mobility (Simtex guys also had some thoughts about "how immobile ships will do some overmap movement in case?"). More correct, sadly, is what they are actually do that repair not as intended sometimes. So most of time those ships are still immobile in next battle, as rounding error could cut a precious HP, that enable that actual mobility (as they are repaired only to a state of being barely mobile). Should be fixed next release.

3. Sadly impossible to say anything without a save there, completely new claim. If you will do essentially the same things you did the time you achieved that effect inititally - you will get the same output next time. It could be difficult on a later stages of game tho.

4. See it as 50% of explode there. If you want to feel it in percents - (X-1)*10 then, and without negative values, so setting it to 10 will mean 90% chance of exploding, to 1 - to 0% chance.

5. And another-another great find, now its a my personal fault there behind it. Visuals for ESD from Graviton, being already bugged initially, become even worse later. The damage itself was applied properly, but visuals was pretty misguiding. Sorry, fixed, and great thanks for discovery.

User avatar
Belix
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Belix » Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:01 am

Thanks for explaining the value for that variable, Darza.

While I continue to try to get a saved game that can reproduce any of the weird things I've experienced, I had a couple more suggestions I thought I'd toss out here for consideration.

1) I may have overlooked this in the documentation, but is it currently possible to change the maximum number of negative picks a player can to something other than -10?

2) During Combat, the 'Boarding' action seems to stick between ship turns; if you attempt to Board something, but can't due to range or mobility etc., then click Done, I believe the next ship you issue orders too is still trying to perform a Boarding action. Not very intuitive. Any way to fix this and reset the Boarding mode when you end a ship's turn? I can't remember but I think 'Scan' may behave the same way, which would be similarly annoying.

3) Is it possible for the Ship Design screen to also show the current Cost and Space of weaponry accounting for the current quantity specified? For example, instead of showing:

Code: Select all

                          Damage   Arc   Cost      Space
3 Anti-Missile Rockets   special   360   1         8


It could display something like one of these examples:

Code: Select all

                          Damage   Arc   Cost      Space
3 Anti-Missile Rockets   special   360   1 (3)     8 (24)
3 Anti-Missile Rockets   special   360   3/1       24/8

Whichever style readout would be most intuitive for the reader to understand and doesn't take up a ton of extra room...


4) Similarly, can Cost and Space of Special Systems be displayed on the main Ship Design screen, just like the Weapons currently are? For example:

Code: Select all

Achilles Targeting Unit   100      150      <Description>

There seems to be plenty of room to add this, since the longest special name
(Multi-Wave ECM Jammer) is not even as long as 'Weapon Type' up above it in the Weapons area,
and the longest description (Transporters) only takes up half of the 'Modifications' label
above it.


5) Is there anything the .cfg files may be able to do in the future to add additional Tech Fields? It would be great for modders, might even be worth making new space at the end of the .exe and moving the entire Tech Field table to allow extra room, then update any references to it. It's kind of a bummer there are no 'spare' tech fields you can use to add anywhere in the tech tree without modifying an existing one.

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

Re: 1.50.2.1 Fan Patch

Postby Darza » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:23 am

1. Yes. See IceMod for example.
2. Sort of annoying issue indeed. Worthy to look about i think, we'll see.
3-4. Its possible, but not really sure its worth it. The possibility we're thought about could be to show there an actual size/cost (as that 1 in example could be for 0.9 or so in reality, making the example solution even more misguing compared to as its behave now).
5. Id say no. This project is not about enabling any crazy modding to be possible, and also contemporary modders are still struggling badly without much success to make a humble existent number of techfields to be actually used in game. Adding some more unused late techfields dont seems to help anything on a subject, not even talking about complexity of task.


Return to “Game Modifications”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests