The short story is that this is a replacement for the stock "strategies" file.
The latest doctrines have been updated to 1.58 spec, and a few bonus items are included.
1.) A couple of ship names files for more variety.
2.) An upgraded TF Formations file.
For now, I should explain the formations. There are 3 versions of each formation: tight, normal, and loose. "Loose" = stock, so all the stock formations are still available. "Normal" has half the spacing of "Loose, and "Tight" is at 1/4.
The shorter the range of your weapons and PD's, the tighter you'll want your formations. Several new formations have been added also.
Installation instructions for all files are in the read-me.
Joined: Apr 16, 2007 Location: here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: 0.94 ready
This poll hasn't turned out so well. I was hoping to get some evidence that the doctrines are popular & worth consideration for inclusion in mods. Didn't happen.
But that's not the whole story. Devnullicus up and decided to include them in his mod. So the story has a happy ending after all.
Now here's the DD 0.94 changelog:
1. Fixed: A couple of strats had "Defense Base (Medium Range)" listed twice and didn't have a "Defense Base (Short Range)".
2. Max Range strat changed vs. sats from Long Range/100% to Ram/90%. This is because most seekers won't target sats, and PD weapons don't get the job done.
3. New strat added. After reading a discussion, I decided to attempt a strat for slow well-armoured transport types. "Non-victim Non-shooter" will attempt to ram targets which are generally vulnerable to ramming by a slow ship. If none of these types are present, it will attempt to flee. It's still experimental, and may get quirky due to the unarmed nature of the ship. Use at your own risk. Unarmed boarding ships might possibly work with this also, but I can't say for sure how much merit the idea has.
4. Tweaked retreat settings. Actually "overhauled" would be a better term. I'm confident in the improvements, but I think further work may be required. There can be no perfect settings. The main idea was for LR and PB strat ships to serve as rearguards & have other ships get on out if an overwhelming force is engaged.
5. Optimum Range no longer invades planets. If you are playing stock, you'll need to change this setting to "TRUE" if you want the AI to invade planets. Same applies to any mod which uses Optimum Range as a universal strat for ALL designs.
6. Altered some engagement ranges vs. mines.
7. New strat added: Interceptor strat for fighters. Intends to fucus on drones and fighters first.
#5 is very important. It's repeated in the read-me, and I hope I have explained it in terms that will be easily understood. Stock uses "Optimum Range" as a universal strat for AI designs. Some mods don't alter this. For games in which the other strats aren't used, I highly recommend changing the setting. It will help the AI a good deal if their troop ships are set to invade planets. (Note that they may still invade on rare occasions even if it's false.) Everyone else should leave this setting as "FALSE" as it seems to cause unacceptably stupid behavior when attack ships attack planets.
As always, discussion is welcome. And I thank those who voted in the poll. Back to top
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:38 am Post subject: Bad News, but fixable
I have discovered a compatibility issue between the Doctrines and Balance Mod. For now, I'll just explain & you can fix it yourself. I plan to issue a new set of doctrines, but I don't know how soon.
The Balance Mod uses a little different terminology. The stock strat "Maximum Weapons Range" is "Maximum Range" in BM. Same for the "Short Weapons Range".
This means the AI would be unable to find the appropriate strat in the doctrines. One can either get into the files (Strategies.txt and Default_AI_Strategies.txt) and make extra copies of those two strats and rename them, or rename the present strats & not play stock.
Thanks to everyone who gave the Doctrines a chance & those who recommended them to others. Over 200 DL's - that still blows my mind. Some are recent, too. That means folks had to dig many pages deep to find this thread.
It's funny - I left the game for almost 3 years, and when I come back I'm still obsessed with strats and formations.
I should also be honest and say that I've really been discouraged by the lack of attention this aspect of the game usually receives. I've monitored things a little. I know there have been sparks of interest from time to time, but nothing near the level of discussion I believe is merited. If everyone was me, we'd have 5 page heated debates over retreating at 50% damage vs 75% damage, really trying to find out once-and-for-all what's the best setting. Back to top
The problem is that no one really has a solid grasp on how to manipulate the strategies with much confidence to produce repeatable and predictable behaviors. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:52 am Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
...I should also be honest and say that I've really been discouraged by the lack of attention this aspect of the game usually receives. I've monitored things a little. I know there have been sparks of interest from time to time, but nothing near the level of discussion I believe is merited. If everyone was me, we'd have 5 page heated debates over retreating at 50% damage vs 75% damage, really trying to find out once-and-for-all what's the best setting.
Kwok is definitely right that the strategies are generally perplexing to most player, but I would definitely be interested in testing out a new version of your Doctrines, if you have made some useful discoveries. SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
For future reference, in BM v1.20+, the 4 basic strategies will be named as follows:
- Point Blank
- Short Range
- Medium Range
- Long Range Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
CaptainKwok wrote:
For future reference, in BM v1.20+, the 4 basic strategies will be named as follows:
- Point Blank
- Short Range
- Medium Range
- Long Range
Thank you - that's what I needed to know!
Those are more straightforward labels, I see. Never cared for the Op Range tag, as it implies some sort of calculation to determine what's optimal.
gurachn wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
...I should also be honest and say that I've really been discouraged by the lack of attention this aspect of the game usually receives. I've monitored things a little. I know there have been sparks of interest from time to time, but nothing near the level of discussion I believe is merited. If everyone was me, we'd have 5 page heated debates over retreating at 50% damage vs 75% damage, really trying to find out once-and-for-all what's the best setting.
Kwok is definitely right that the strategies are generally perplexing to most player, but I would definitely be interested in testing out a new version of your Doctrines, if you have made some useful discoveries.
I work on them between games & test them in play. I have one significant set of changes to try out in my next game. If what I think'll work works, or even if it doesn't, I plan to issue at least the next basic set at that time.
I've given up on any patch ever fixing the retreat settings so fighting ships could flee immediately in hopeless situations. I've already changed those settings to more useful % damage-based evaluations.
Eagerly looking forward to issuing variant sets for different AI's. I thought about it in the past; this time I'm fairly committed to the project.
Probably split off my formations into their own kit. Things might be less confusing that way. Back to top
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:32 am Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
gurachn wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
...Probably split off my formations into their own kit. Things might be less confusing that way.
How soon do you think that might be?
A semi-standardized set of addtional formations would be a real boon for PBW games.
The stock formation are just about worthless.
Way too loose.
Ah, well if there's a demand for formations I suppose I should get busy!
Shouldn't take too long to put things together. I tried out that formation making gadget, and I have a new batch of untested forms - maybe include those separately... Organizing's the main issue for me on formations - not raw material.
Nag me if I don't have something ready in a week. Back to top
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
gurachn wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
...Probably split off my formations into their own kit. Things might be less confusing that way.
How soon do you think that might be?
A semi-standardized set of addtional formations would be a real boon for PBW games.
The stock formation are just about worthless.
Way too loose.
Before I start, what dissatisfaction has been expressed regarding the set I've already made available?
I don't find it perfect myself, mind you. The list is long, and I mostly use the tight versions, so it'd be more convenient for me if they were listed at the top.
This would also be a good time to tweak the spacing. I can hardly imagine the loose versions ever being desirable at 20. I'm thinking maybe
6 = tight
11= normal
16 = loose
In the future, I plan to test non-square dimensioning, mostly reducing the vertical aspect, making formations shallower than they are wide. This should bring following-ship firepower to bear more quickly. Back to top
Is there a way to make a formation with 3 wings (L,center,R) that can have it's own strategy.
Are you talking one formation or three?
You could put all core ships in the middle, all escorts on the left, and all pickets on the right. Is that what you mean?
If you want separate strategies, you need to make separate formations for each one. If you're lucky they might even show up in the correct "fleet formation" when it's time to fight. Or at least if you're not unlucky (the random set-up feature hasn't been particularly kind to me lately.) Back to top
One of the overlooked problems with formations is that in their current form they don't scale well to different fleet sizes. So often you get large spaces between core/picket/escort ships when using small task force sizes etc.
I guess there's two ways to go about this. One is duplicate each formation to have a small and large version. The other is to try and set up the formation numbering building from the inside to the outside to try and minimize gaps - which will be less effective than option 1 unless you're willing to have interior picket/escort ships in larger task forces. Space Empires Depot | SE:V Balance Mod Back to top
I am looking at the one formation with 3 task forces in it with each Task Force organized their way.
I am thinking of the middle doing most of the fighting with the wings flanking.
That's not supposed to be a problem - it's how fleets are pretty much supposed to work.
Make your 3 TF's and then rclick on the fleet. There are tabs for attack form and defense form. They show what the fleet's supposed to do. You can select different fleet formations just like you can select different TF formations.
Getting things done's another matter, because initial set-up for combat is very random. The enemy fleet may appear behind you; one fleet or another may be too close to the map edge, etc.
Another issue is that the TF's will often tend to select the same target and home in on it. There's no way to tell them to maintain the fleet formation and they don't try. About all you can do is insert extra dummy TF's so that the TF's with ships should be initially spaced further apart. Back to top
One of the overlooked problems with formations is that in their current form they don't scale well to different fleet sizes. So often you get large spaces between core/picket/escort ships when using small task force sizes etc.
I guess there's two ways to go about this. One is duplicate each formation to have a small and large version. The other is to try and set up the formation numbering building from the inside to the outside to try and minimize gaps - which will be less effective than option 1 unless you're willing to have interior picket/escort ships in larger task forces.
I've done a little of both on the TF level. I haven't messed with fleet formations.
Escorts and pickets aren't so bad. Escorts anyhow. I don't know about others; I usually sort by range type, with a formation for lr, sr, dgh, & planet cap. Combat formations get PD ships as escorts, and I may have more than one of a given type if I have a large number of ships, or if speed is an issue (slowest ship should lead, but some ships are too slow & need their own group.) *Unless a sr group is large, I usually just include PD as "core" in sr formations.
I rarely use pickets.
Now one can obtain radically different looks for the formation by having just a leader and a bunch of pickets or a bunch of escorts.
The key to remember is that the leader determines where everyone else moves. He doesn't determine what they shoot. He will follow the TF strat to the letter - if it's different he'll disregard his own. I recently found out this is how even carriers can be used to invade planets without launching all the fighters.
If the other ships aren't fast or agile enough to match the leader's course changes, the formation will become disorganized. They'll still know where they're supposed to go, but they'll be out-of-position and it won't look right, either.
One thing really bugging me is that in 1.79 the ships elevate, but they never descend back down like they used to. It's difficult to gauge relative positions anymore.
Numbering from the inside out really seems to make more sense than other schemes, since a major advantage of a formation is the overlapping fields-of-fire. The advantage to the wider formations is that they're less likely to be flanked, but one needs to have sufficient ships to justify the width in any case. Back to top
When ships get too close and 'elevate' does it affect range or anything else, or is it just a visual foible?
I wouldn't mind not being able to see the top few ships as long as they are still in a nice tight firing position. SEV Visual Mods:
Black UI Reduced Size Shipsets Back to top
I've just installed these onto a clone of BM19i.
I was a little unsure about the DD094_Read_Me instructions
Quote:
Where to put Dvoongar's Doctrines:
There are two identical "Strategies" files which should be replaced. If you have installed mods, each mod may have its own "Strategies" file(s) which will need to be replaced if the doctrines are to work within the mod.
In {Data} replace "Strategies" file.
In {Empires} find {Default} replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Empires} of the mod, enter {Default} and replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file.
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Data} of the mod, and replace "Strategies" file.
These lines replace the files in stock:
Quote:
In {Data} replace "Strategies" file.
In {Empires} find {Default} replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file
There was no Strategies file in the download, I take it that you replace "Strategies" with a renamed copy of "Default_AI_Strategies" ?
Whereas these update a specific mod.
Quote:
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Empires} of the mod, enter {Default} and replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file.
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Data} of the mod, and replace "Strategies" file.
If I only want to use these for a given mod, do I have to change the stock files as the second set should get used in preference ? Back to top
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
I should also be honest and say that I've really been discouraged by the lack of attention this aspect of the game usually receives.
Don't be discouraged, please, especially when you are absent and there is no-one with enough experience and interest to discuss the matter. You see, those experienced enough just tailor or create strategies to their needs, quite easily, so they don't need your examples and those that are inexperienced have even no idea they need them, usually.
If this means something for you I could encourage you by saying that I've personally recommended your doctrines or at least your formations to 4 mods, so it's not just downloads...
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
If everyone was me, we'd have 5 page heated debates over retreating at 50% damage vs 75% damage, really trying to find out once-and-for-all what's the best setting.
A part of the problem is there is no way to determine once-and-for-all what is better because it depends on changing factors. One could only determine what is generally better and give it to others as an example. This is a goal for your doctines, I think: being a set of reasonable examples for people not experienced enough... and helping AIs, of course
CaptainKwok wrote:
The problem is that no one really has a solid grasp on how to manipulate the strategies with much confidence to produce repeatable and predictable behaviors.
That's not really a problem as one can test in simulator and produce repeatable and predictable behaviors. The problem is that some "available" options aren't implemented or there are bugs in their implementation (eg. setting retreat to "Enemy 125% of our strength" our forces will never retreat because they compare their strength in these kind of options with their own, not with enemy's) so many people get frustrated and stop trying before they discover what actually works.
CaptainKwok wrote:
For future reference, in BM v1.20+, the 4 basic strategies will be named as follows:
- Point Blank
- Short Range
- Medium Range
- Long Range
Thanks, Captain, for remembering my suggestions. However, unless you expect the bug in the Long setting to be removed in the late SE5 patch , Long Range can as well remain Maximum Range because it's the only setting that causes ships to always behave as if they were ordered to stay at maximum range. Back to top
Editing to say: Got my tabs confused & posted my posts out of order. Sorry 'bout that.
Ender wrote:
CaptainKwok wrote:
The problem is that no one really has a solid grasp on how to manipulate the strategies with much confidence to produce repeatable and predictable behaviors.
That's not really a problem as one can test in simulator and produce repeatable and predictable behaviors. The problem is that some "available" options aren't implemented or there are bugs in their implementation (eg. setting retreat to "Enemy 125% of our strength" our forces will never retreat because they compare their strength in these kind of options with their own, not with enemy's) so many people get frustrated and stop trying before they discover what actually works.
That's a good example. I kept those retreat settings in the Doctrines for quite a while, but now that I'm confident they're never going to work, they're going to be replaced with something that might do something.
It's easy to get confused about what does what, exactly; yet things can be investigated by trial & error.
Ender wrote:
CaptainKwok wrote:
For future reference, in BM v1.20+, the 4 basic strategies will be named as follows:
- Point Blank
- Short Range
- Medium Range
- Long Range
Thanks, Captain, for remembering my suggestions. However, unless you expect the bug in the Long setting to be removed in the late SE5 patch , Long Range can as well remain Maximum Range because it's the only setting that causes ships to always behave as if they were ordered to stay at maximum range.
This kind of thing is an issue with all supplemental mods, this whole compatibility thing. In order for the AI to use the strats, they must have the right names. The version I'm currently using works with BM 1.19. I have more adjustments to make & test when I finish my present game.
I really don't know what to publish in the meanwhile. Changing names, I can translate my present BM version for stock, but it just gets that much more confusing for the player when they go to install, and it's going to have to change yet again for BM1.20.
Unless... unless I publish a version with tons of redundant strats. I could have the same strat listed thrice as "Maximum Range", "Maximum Weapons Range" and "Long Range". This is okay for the AI, but I doubt players would like it.
Ender, it looks like you'd throw out the Max Range setting altogether, at least for AI's. I don't think that's a good idea. The setting still works far more often than it fails, and it's the missile boat's bread-and-butter. As a human, I know to test designs in the simulator & see whether or not they'll engage. The AI doesn't have the option, but the odds of the bug biting are simply too small to justify throwing out such an important tactic.
Even if one considers Max Range too bugged for individual ships, the strat has a lot of value at the Task Force level as well.
Worse yet, look at the alternative: dumping even more ships into the Mid-Range strat. This strat is overburdened. It's the only strat ever used by the AI in stock. It's the default for planets & who-knows-what-else.
This overburdening isn't trivial. Do we set to launch all units? If we don't, what happens to carriers, sat layers, etc? If we do, no planet will ever have fighters available for ground defense, for they'll all be launched during space combat.
Even Capt. Kwok's excellent Bombard and Blockade strats are somewhat overburdened. Shall missile ships bombard from short range? Shall all Blockade ships take on all challengers from Mid range? They're good examples, but a player should copy & make longer & shorter versions. The AI can't do this.
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:29 am Post subject: Oops! Posted out-of-order
Artful_Bodger wrote:
I've just installed these onto a clone of BM19i.
I was a little unsure about the DD094_Read_Me instructions
Quote:
Where to put Dvoongar's Doctrines:
There are two identical "Strategies" files which should be replaced. If you have installed mods, each mod may have its own "Strategies" file(s) which will need to be replaced if the doctrines are to work within the mod.
In {Data} replace "Strategies" file.
In {Empires} find {Default} replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Empires} of the mod, enter {Default} and replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file.
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Data} of the mod, and replace "Strategies" file.
These lines replace the files in stock:
Quote:
In {Data} replace "Strategies" file.
In {Empires} find {Default} replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file
There was no Strategies file in the download, I take it that you replace "Strategies" with a renamed copy of "Default_AI_Strategies" ?
Both "Strategies" and "Default_AI_Strategies" have the same content. The latter is by far the more important. I vaguely remember having an idea "Strategies" isn't used at all, but 1. better safe than sorry; 2. I also vaguely remember discovering something that indicated it might be used.
Both should be replaced. Like you said, make a second copy & hack off the "Default_AI_" part.
Artful_Bodger wrote:
Whereas these update a specific mod.
Quote:
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Empires} of the mod, enter {Default} and replace "Default_AI_Strategies" file.
In {Game Types} enter mod folder, find {Data} of the mod, and replace "Strategies" file.
If I only want to use these for a given mod, do I have to change the stock files as the second set should get used in preference ?
You figured it out. The game uses stock unless it finds a given file in a mod. Once it finds a file in a mod, that file takes precedence, and the stock version is disregarded. Back to top
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:33 am Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
Ender wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
I should also be honest and say that I've really been discouraged by the lack of attention this aspect of the game usually receives.
Don't be discouraged, please, especially when you are absent and there is no-one with enough experience and interest to discuss the matter. You see, those experienced enough just tailor or create strategies to their needs, quite easily, so they don't need your examples and those that are inexperienced have even no idea they need them, usually.
If this means something for you I could encourage you by saying that I've personally recommended your doctrines or at least your formations to 4 mods, so it's not just downloads...
Ender! Good to see you. How's the game treating you?
Thanks for the encouragement, and the endorsements. Work continues, but my pace is slow.
Ender wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
If everyone was me, we'd have 5 page heated debates over retreating at 50% damage vs 75% damage, really trying to find out once-and-for-all what's the best setting.
A part of the problem is there is no way to determine once-and-for-all what is better because it depends on changing factors. One could only determine what is generally better and give it to others as an example. This is a goal for your doctines, I think: being a set of reasonable examples for people not experienced enough... and helping AIs, of course
Yes, the AI is a primary concern of mine. Nobody likes seeing a battle turn on a blunder in the strats, even when it goes in the human's favor. Back to top
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
Ender, it looks like you'd throw out the Max Range setting altogether, at least for AI's. I don't think that's a good idea.
Where have you found me saying I'd thrown out the Max Range? All I've ever said is that it's a way worse strategy against experienced humans than against AIs.
Perhaps you don't understand what I refer to saying about the bug in the Long Range setting. This is a bug in the setting from Settings.txt that is ignored by the game, currently (it was different in the past). I'd like it to be fixed in the next SE5 patch (if we ever see it) and I'd like to see an additional setting added: Maximum Range (that could work as Long Range works currently). These settings are used in strategies, of course, but what they are like is determined in Settings.txt (except Do Not Engage, Ram, Point Blank and, I hope, Maximum Range in the future) - the names of strategies is a different thing.
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
Ender! Good to see you. How's the game treating you?
As usual, I love it but I seriously doubt the feeling is mutual Back to top
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:51 pm Post subject: Re: Bad News, but fixable
Ender wrote:
Zwo_Dvoongar wrote:
Ender, it looks like you'd throw out the Max Range setting altogether, at least for AI's. I don't think that's a good idea.
Where have you found me saying I'd thrown out the Max Range? All I've ever said is that it's a way worse strategy against experienced humans than against AIs.
Oh - I'm relieved to be mistaken about that one!
Ender wrote:
Perhaps you don't understand what I refer to saying about the bug in the Long Range setting. This is a bug in the setting from Settings.txt that is ignored by the game, currently (it was different in the past). I'd like it to be fixed in the next SE5 patch (if we ever see it) and I'd like to see an additional setting added: Maximum Range (that could work as Long Range works currently). These settings are used in strategies, of course, but what they are like is determined in Settings.txt (except Do Not Engage, Ram, Point Blank and, I hope, Maximum Range in the future) - the names of strategies is a different thing.
Ah - different bug. Ships are doing some strange things these days for sure. 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:
, Long Range can as well remain Maximum Range because it's the only setting that causes ships to always behave as if they were ordered to stay at maximum range.
- Syndicate forums: