Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:04 am Post subject: Dvoongar's Doctrines 0.96
Okay, I think these are some pretty good strats. Or rather they're not very bad. The big news is that they're pretty much universally compatible now, except that Op Range strat will need a slight edit for stock and any mod which uses it as a one-size-fits-all universal strat.
If you thought you were using the Doctrines in the past, you may be mistaken. The names of strats haven't matched up with Balance Mod's for some time now, and the buzz that went around about Balance Mod incorporating the Doctrines was false.
A lot of errors have been found and corrected anyhow, and 0.96 is certainly superior to earlier versions. It's not all me - I've learned a couple of tricks from other players.
Please report defects, since my next project will be to make variants for the different AI's. The "base model" from which they're derived needs to be very sound since mass re-editing of so many files is just about out of the question.
A minor note: the bonus "Negativity_Names" file isn't really intended for player use. Assign it to your most hated AI (Sithrak are fine candidates) or ignore it.
Finally, here are a couple of links that may prove relevant.
Just to check, are these all totally new?
Or have you kept the stock strategies and added new ones?
I don't suppose you included any 3x3?
I'm not sure what would qualify as a "totally new" strat. All have been altered from stock at least a little; most are significantly different.
I have added a couple of strats to the standard list, but the primary focus is on preventing stupidity. Where practical I have even shortened some of the range preferences as a countermeasure against the circle which goes by that name.
I almost got controversial with the immediate retreats for the Don't Get Hurt strat, but changed my mind at the last minute. There are advantages, but it wouldn't do to go shocking noobs into abandoning the Doctrines.
In any case, I'd like to know what you think. There are a few things I almost did differently. Back to top
The reason I asked is that I am thinking about trying to convince some of the PBW games I am in to give these a try.
Many people are afraid of change though, so it would probably be easier to say that those who are happy with the stock strats don't have to make any change to the way they play.
The reason I asked is that I am thinking about trying to convince some of the PBW games I am in to give these a try.
Many people are afraid of change though, so it would probably be easier to say that those who are happy with the stock strats don't have to make any change to the way they play.
It may seem less threatening if it only adds new elements to play with, without changing familiar ones.
Well, you don't need to have the Doctrines installed to use them yourself. Just start a dummy game with them, go to the strat-editing part of the crown menu, and save 'em. Then in your PBW game you can load the file even if it's set up with stock.
The big benefit to having them installed goes to the AI players.
Of course the technique works both ways: a player who desires stock strats for some reason would only need to save them in some game, and he'd have them available for loading even if the Doctrines are installed.
Saving & Loading strats wasn't originally an option, so some players may not be aware of it. It's really handy. You can make & save your own derivatives of stock or the Doctrines, and have them available in any game. The only drawback is that the save is in a different format, so one cannot use it to make a "Strategies.txt" file.
The real proof of the Doctrines, of course, is how they perform against stock strats. My results vs. AI's employing stock strats long ago indicated clear superiority, so I'm confident you can convince the reluctant. ...Unless of course you're dealing with someone who pays no attention to what happens in tactical.
{Editing to add}
Using the strat save feature you can even make the switch for games already in progress - no need to wait. Back to top
I suppose I might explain a little further. The Doctrines aren't going to impress anyone too often with super-brilliant tactics - that's not what to watch for. The difference comes in the reduction of stupid behavior. Ships and units will have a much higher tendency to do what they're supposed to be doing.
For those who enjoy tinkering with strats, the Doctrines provide a better starting point, and only a relatively small amount of tweaking should be required to get where they want to go.
Not everything is super obvious, of course. For example, one might be satisfied seeing shots fired at the appropriate range in stock, and overlook something like the prioritization of targeting troop ships, which is a feature of the Doctrines. Battles and campaigns turn on such subtleties. Back to top
What would be the effect of using your formations and/or doctrines in a PBW game if the host did not also use them? SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
What would be the effect of using your formations and/or doctrines in a PBW game if the host did not also use them?
If you imported the Doctrines the way I tried to explain, you'd have them and others would not.
If you switched files in the folders, I'm not sure. I don't think it would do anything at all, but I can't say for sure because I haven't tried anything like that.
From what I've read, you cannot get the formations into the game unless the host has them installed.
I don't see much grounds for players objecting to extra formations, so long as their cherished stock formations remain available. What could they say? "No fair - I don't want to use better formations and you're going to kick my tail," or something?
But in the worst case, I'd say import the Doctrines, lean heavily on the V, and make them regret their stubborn ways. Shoot, if they're sticking you with the 20 x 20 stuff, set your strats to break in the early game, except Cap Planet. At 20 x 20, the formations are almost completely counter-productive because they ensure that fields-of-fire never overlap much. Back to top
I don't see much grounds for players objecting to extra formations, so long as their cherished stock formations remain available. What could they say? "No fair - I don't want to use better formations and you're going to kick my tail," or something?
* This should not be construed as an endorsement of any 3 x 3 stuff. There is a legitimate practical issue involved, since it can be very difficult, perhaps impossible to select & monitor ships when they're in a permanent cluster.
That is in addition to the aesthetic issue of clusters being just plain ugly. I can and do fully appreciate both issues. Back to top
I had known Op Range is the default strat for quite a while, but I didn't know it was simply because it's the first one on the list.
Attempting to make things easier on the player, I rearranged the order. "Don't Get Hurt" was first, and this isn't an appropriate default, especially for the AI's.
I've edited the first post, and a better version is there now. The read-me had to be changed, and I'm wondering if anyone'll be able to make sense of it. These things are simple, but explaining them isn't. Back to top
Dvoongar, it would be useful if you would give updated versions a different name (e.g. 0.97) to allow users to keep track of the different ones.
I grabbed your edited versions above, but cant notice any difference in the read me. It overwrote the other file so I can't make a comparison either.
Looking at the strategies though, it seems you have replaced 'Don't get hurt', with 'Point blank' at the top of the list.
Does that mean that all ships will use this as the Default?
Not sure I like that idea.
Also, I have suggested introducing these into some PBW games I am invovled in, but I see in the read me that 'For games already in progress, the doctrines will not take effect.'
I guess I will have to wait a while to actually give them a try then, as I rarely play offline these days. SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
* This should not be construed as an endorsement of any 3 x 3 stuff. There is a legitimate practical issue involved, since it can be very difficult, perhaps impossible to select & monitor ships when they're in a permanent cluster.
That is in addition to the aesthetic issue of clusters being just plain ugly. I can and do fully appreciate both issues.
It occurs to me that one way around this dilemma would be to edit the size of the ships in tactical combat.
Making them half or a third as small would remove much of the stacking, and may even add a more satisfying scale to the ship model/range visual.
Dvoongar, it would be useful if you would give updated versions a different name (e.g. 0.97) to allow users to keep track of the different ones.
I grabbed your edited versions above, but cant notice any difference in the read me. It overwrote the other file so I can't make a comparison either.
Looking at the strategies though, it seems you have replaced 'Don't get hurt', with 'Point blank' at the top of the list.
Does that mean that all ships will use this as the Default?
Not sure I like that idea.
I would've incremented the number if there was very much going on. I suppose maybe I should've anyhow.
The top strat is the default, and there is no good candidate for the title of "Universal one-size-fits-all" strat. None can possibly do everything anywhere near right.
In stock, the default is all that ever gets used. Balance Mod's AI will assign others to AI ships, so it's not so much of a problem. What tipped me off was when Balance Mod used the top strat for planets; apparently there is no assignment procedure involved there.
For stationary objects, any shooting strat will work so long as it doesn't omit certain targets.
As a player, you're not stuck with the default in any situation; the concern here was for AI's. Having planets set to "Don't Get Hurt" just wouldn't work out.
I don't like the situation any more than you do, but it's what we've got.
gurachn wrote:
Also, I have suggested introducing these into some PBW games I am invovled in, but I see in the read me that 'For games already in progress, the doctrines will not take effect.'
I guess I will have to wait a while to actually give them a try then, as I rarely play offline these days.
Strats load up as part of empire generation. You could manually import them, but replacing Strategies.txt will have no effect on an extant empire. I should probably include instructions for importing in the read-me. Back to top
* This should not be construed as an endorsement of any 3 x 3 stuff. There is a legitimate practical issue involved, since it can be very difficult, perhaps impossible to select & monitor ships when they're in a permanent cluster.
That is in addition to the aesthetic issue of clusters being just plain ugly. I can and do fully appreciate both issues.
It occurs to me that one way around this dilemma would be to edit the size of the ships in tactical combat.
Making them half or a third as small would remove much of the stacking, and may even add a more satisfying scale to the ship model/range visual.
I suppose there should be some sort of standard developed to keep classes scaled fairly uniformly no matter who owns them, if folks take the idea seriously. I'd like to see it catch on. Back to top
I suppose there should be some sort of standard developed to keep classes scaled fairly uniformly no matter who owns them, if folks take the idea seriously. I'd like to see it catch on.
Yep, you are totally correct that model size influences ship size. When they come close, they pop up and don't come down.
Reducing the size of the ships is definitely a way of reducing the problem.
Half sized models seem to make a major difference in this issue, even with very formations.
The smaller system map models are a bit annoying, but I think I could probably live with that.
I wouldn't want to go much smaller though, so I would suggest that reducing the X/Y/Z starting scale by half would be a decent standard to follow.
Btw, that example I posted was with one of your 6x6 formations, which I actually quite like.
My 3x3s are a bit tighter, but I doubt there is really much of an advantage.
In fact, I have suggested introducing your formations in my PBW games. If the other guys agree (reactions are pretty positive so far) I will most likely rescale at least the ships in my games.
I'll send you a link to em, if you are interested. SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
I am using the Asgard ship set in a couple of games currently(very nice looking ships) but they do tend to be large, and I have this problem quite often. So often, in fact, I have replaced them in recent games with Klingons again(another one of my favorites) which are not quite so over sized. Back to top
I am using the Asgard ship set in a couple of games currently(very nice looking ships) but they do tend to be large, and I have this problem quite often. So often, in fact, I have replaced them in recent games with Klingons again(another one of my favorites) which are not quite so over sized.
Resize isn't too hard. It's more tedium than anything. Back to top
I suppose there should be some sort of standard developed to keep classes scaled fairly uniformly no matter who owns them, if folks take the idea seriously. I'd like to see it catch on.
Yep, you are totally correct that model size influences ship size. When they come close, they pop up and don't come down.
Reducing the size of the ships is definitely a way of reducing the problem.
Half sized models seem to make a major difference in this issue, even with very formations.
The smaller system map models are a bit annoying, but I think I could probably live with that.
I wouldn't want to go much smaller though, so I would suggest that reducing the X/Y/Z starting scale by half would be a decent standard to follow.
Btw, that example I posted was with one of your 6x6 formations, which I actually quite like.
My 3x3s are a bit tighter, but I doubt there is really much of an advantage.
In fact, I have suggested introducing your formations in my PBW games. If the other guys agree (reactions are pretty positive so far) I will most likely rescale at least the ships in my games.
I'll send you a link to em, if you are interested.
I'm very interested, moreso if effort can be spared to do it equitably.
The present shipsets aren't standardized, so some will behave much worse than others if they're simply trimmed to 1/2 scale. I don't think it's fair & proper to just take what's there and cut it down to half scale. What's needed is a standard size for all FF's, all DD's, and so on. Area is the key thing to measure - not just height or just width. Depth really doesn't matter.
And thanks for plugging the 6x6. I don't dispute the possibility of a small advantage for 3x3 - I just don't think it can be all that much, and certainly not worth the exacerbation of the elevator bug which must result. Back to top
For the stock shipsets, and the ones that are currently fine in terms of size, I think 1/2 scale is an acceptable and relatively painless conversion.
As has been noted though, some of the user submitted sets are a bit dogdy and those ones may take a bit of playing with. Still, as Marhawkman says, its not difficult.
I think it would be very difficult though, to try to set standard area dimensions for each shipsize. The final size in game seems to be a function of the Base model radius and the 3 dimensions of starting scale, and these can vary dramatically in the non-stock sets.
<Edit - Huh? Ender, didnt you just have a post here about it being easy to set standards for shipsize? Did you delete? Did I imagine it?>
Ender wrote:
Why? I think it is quite easy to standarize...
Nope, doesn't work like that.
I'm not sure how the Base radius and Starting scales interact, but its not linear.
In the game, a Terran frigate and one of my G'Urak ones look about the same size.
The ratio of the Terrans Base radius to its X Starting Scale dimension is 500-1, while with the G'Urak its 35.5-1.
There is very little consistancy with the non-stock models.
That being said, it wouldnt be a major problem to eyeball non-stock sets and adjust the scale numbers to reach a generally consistency with half sized stock ones.
I'm a picky bastard when it comes to my shipsets, and even now I regularly tweak the ones I use. Its not a major hassle. SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
Yes, I deleted it I realized that Base Model Radius had some misterious meaning. It says: "The radius of the model after all scaling has taken place." and I see that it's something different, eg. Phong Frigate in Stock has the same Base Model Radius 3.0 as Phong Fighter and they look about the same size on the system map (in the Sector View they are different) but when I change it for Frigate to 1.0 or 10.0 they still look the same size. It becomes really misterious when I change it to something larger then 10.0 - Frigate becomes smaller and smaller on the system map with larger and larger BMR, then (in the Sector View it stays the same). As a result, I have no idea what the Base Model Radius actually means and how to use it - I deleted my post because I didn't want to confuse people but you were too fast, apparently Perhaps Captain Kwok knows how to use BMR because he changed its values in BM. Captain? Back to top
Well, whatever you manage, I'd be interested. No hurry, of course. I may fiddle some myself, but I doubt I'd be good at it or have the patience. Back to top
If you use the ShipSetView program in the Utilities\ShipSetViewer folder, you can see the radius of the object using 'O' and even change various model attributes. The text file ShipSetViewer_Controls provides a list of editing functions for changing scales etc. All edited data is saved in ShipSizes.txt, which can be copied back into the empire's Xfiles file.
When I re-scaled the stock sets for BM, I used the grid background for scaling purposes and adjust the X, Y, Z as required. Once I was happy with the size I would adjust the model radius to barely encompass the model. I seem to recall you have to change each axis offset co-ords proportionately if you change the scaling values.
In terms of scaling ships, I tended to start with frigates having a radius of 4 to 4.5 (depending on shape). I'd scale the other ships by root of their relative kT size to the frigate. So a Dreadnought of 1350kT (4.5x larger than frigate) would be approximately 2.1x larger in X-Y. Yes, I know in real life it should be the cubed root assuming similar vehicle layout.
I do have BM-sized Star Trek Xfile files as well.
Edit:
I should also mention most of the stock sets are built to the same general scale, but custom sets are all over the place. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod
Last edited by CaptainKwok on Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:21 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top
I somehow forgot about ShipSetViewer! Thanks Captain for reminding me! So, I can say again, now: standarization can be quite easy
My deleted post should look like this, then:
Step 1 - Start with the largest shipsize in a mod, find its satisfactory size (in-game by eyeballing, trial and error and see what's it like on grid in the ShipSetViewer) and go down calculating sizes of smaller shipsizes from the largest one and from the average difference in tonnage in the mod (remembering that it's cubic in function to radius or do it as Captain did or do as you like it).
Step 2 - Run the ShipSetViewer again and redo the sizes of models to your preferences (by changing their scale and BMR) taking calculated sizes as a foundation.
Step 3 - Copy relevant values from ShipSizes.txt to appropriate Ships_XFileClasses.txt.
Repeat steps 2-3 for every shipset you would like to (for the mod of your liking) Back to top
The reason I went with the square root for scaling was to provide distinct differences in size. It's really in keeping with SE5 in general, since the differences in kT sizes better fit with that simplification.
Sure you could make the kT ship scale more "realistic", but without component scaling, it would be a serious click-fest designing those large ships. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download, and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: - Syndicate forums:
Page Generation: 0.31 Seconds
Files & Links
SEnet Content
User Content
SE.net Info
SEV Visual Mods:
I realized that Base Model Radius had some misterious meaning. It says: "The radius of the model after all scaling has taken place." and I see that it's something different, eg. Phong Frigate in Stock has the same Base Model Radius 3.0 as Phong Fighter and they look about the same size on the system map (in the Sector View they are different) but when I change it for Frigate to 1.0 or 10.0 they still look the same size. It becomes really misterious when I change it to something larger then 10.0 - Frigate becomes smaller and smaller on the system map with larger and larger BMR, then (in the Sector View it stays the same). As a result, I have no idea what the Base Model Radius actually means and how to use it - I deleted my post because I didn't want to confuse people but you were too fast, apparently 
Perhaps Captain Kwok knows how to use BMR because he changed its values in BM. Captain?
- Syndicate forums: