RC Centers

[RTGPete]

Research Centers appear to have worked fine, along with scientist hits - spot checking various empires shows expected actual progress from last turn to this turn. The report with the bars, however, was not updated properly, and thus does not show the correct bar lengths.

 

Fleet Reports didn't show for some empires, but the ships, cargo and so forth are fine. I'm going to reprint everything and send it all out again when it finishes up later tonight. This issue was caused by me breaking up the database to get it to print faster (500+ speed fleets running convoy routes vastly increased the time it took to run end turn adjustments...use planetary/universal gates instead, if you have them!). In any event, entirely my fault....the reprinted turns will have the same results, same industrial production, scientist hits and so on - it's just a reprint, not a rerun of any actual industrial or research centers.

[El Capitan]

Thanks Pete!

 

[Breoghan]

I don't know if is a part of the glitch or if I have misunderstood things - but a freshly conquered homeworld (pop grp 23181) is refusing to work for me. They've got resources, power and output up the gazoo but for every order I gave it says "No ***** were produced in Population Group # 23181 because of insufficient Industrial output, available resources or Power". The only thing that seems to work is the Shipyards who are scrapping a couple of my older scrapyard fleets for parts.

 

Is there a grace period before orders can be entered for conquered pop groups that I don't know about?

[General Miles Avatar]

I don't know if is a part of the glitch or if I have misunderstood things - but a freshly conquered homeworld (pop grp 23181) is refusing to work for me. They've got resources, power and output up the gazoo but for every order I gave it says "No ***** were produced in Population Group # 23181 because of insufficient Industrial output, available resources or Power". The only thing that seems to work is the Shipyards who are scrapping a couple of my older scrapyard fleets for parts.

 

Is there a grace period before orders can be entered for conquered pop groups that I don't know about?

 

there were quite a few glitches as someone had said before with no apparent pattern. I think that database thing that Pete did caused more then just display errors. I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

[Breoghan]

....and oh yeah, whoever it was that took the entire Space Fleet of the Gehenna while I wasn't looking, be aware. I'm looking for you, and I come from TX.

[RTGPete]

I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

Be sure to include at least one order that burns an action point from the fleet running the convoy route. Otherwise, it would trigger an infinite loop route which would never end. Speed 100+ fleets running convoy routes severely slow down processing as it is (for cargo transfer routes, it's much, much better to use planetary/universal gates)....infinite loop ones would be worse

[Flagritz]

I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

Be sure to include at least one order that burns an action point from the fleet running the convoy route. Otherwise, it would trigger an infinite loop route which would never end. Speed 100+ fleets running convoy routes severely slow down processing as it is (for cargo transfer routes, it's much, much better to use planetary/universal gates)....infinite loop ones would be worse

 

Hi

 

This is probably going to be a stupid idea and really difficult to code and Im sure there are lots of problems with the idea... however I thought Id write anyway...

 

To combat the hip AP fleets doing a convoy routes hundreds of times, Before a convoy route is run could the program compare the AP needed for the route with the AP for the fleet and then just multiply the size of the ships? I know a similar thing is done for battles when there are so many screen ships. e.g.

 

A simple in system convyy route of

LC

NM

OC

NM

system calculates that it takes 2AP to complete.

 

It compares that with the fleet runnig the route (e.g. a 20Ap ship with 100K cargo capacity) so can do the route 10 times, instead of running it 10 times it multiplys the ship size by 10. so instead of carrying 100,000 cargo ten times it would carry 1,000,000 once.

 

If for instance the route was 4AP and it was a 2AP ship it would always default to 1 if the figure is lower then 1 so it would run as normal only completing half of the route.

 

Infact I guess all decimals would have to be rounded down... but who runs a route one and a half times right? :}

 

Its just a idea....

[Lord Uriel]

I still cant figure out why a convoy route didnt initiate. I should have at least gotten an error message saying that the fleet wasnt at the right location etc etc.

Be sure to include at least one order that burns an action point from the fleet running the convoy route. Otherwise, it would trigger an infinite loop route which would never end. Speed 100+ fleets running convoy routes severely slow down processing as it is (for cargo transfer routes, it's much, much better to use planetary/universal gates)....infinite loop ones would be worse

 

 

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

[WKE235]

I don't know if is a part of the glitch or if I have misunderstood things - but a freshly conquered homeworld (pop grp 23181) is refusing to work for me. They've got resources, power and output up the gazoo but for every order I gave it says "No ***** were produced in Population Group # 23181 because of insufficient Industrial output, available resources or Power". The only thing that seems to work is the Shipyards who are scrapping a couple of my older scrapyard fleets for parts.

 

Is there a grace period before orders can be entered for conquered pop groups that I don't know about?

 

Are you sure they didn't work? What I mean is my turns have had a double display issue for some time. I'll see a set of non-production items listed like this:

 

- No Advanced Heavy Machinery(s) were produced in Population Group # xxxx because of insufficient Industrial output, available resources or Power

 

Then after all the non-production messages, I'll see actual production, where everything is repeated and actually run like this:

 

- zzzzzzzzzzz Advanced Heavy Machinery(s) were produced in Population Group # xxxx [ yyyyyyyyyyy]

Advanced Heavy Machinery in Population Group # xxxx (an untooled Item) has been completely produced

 

Check out the planet listing to see if items were produced, and do some searches to confirm.

[WKE235]

Also, as to my Gate transfer issues, this was the first turn I was actually using the Planetary Cargo Gates I had put up. I had a nice cargo run in place until now. But some ICE-4 drops got the colony up quite a bit and a gate finally became more pratical (especially since I now could easily power it).

 

Pete looked into the issue and replied that an empire needs to be marked as using gate transfers. In other words, when you start using Planetary Cargo Gates, we need to tell Pete that we are doing so for that empire. Then he marks the flag in the system that allows TRansfer orders to work if gates are present. So, my bad, as I forgot to tell Pete I was going to start using them.

[Paradigm]

Pete looked into the issue and replied that an empire needs to be marked as using gate transfers. In other words, when you start using Planetary Cargo Gates, we need to tell Pete that we are doing so for that empire. Then he marks the flag in the system that allows TRansfer orders to work if gates are present. So, my bad, as I forgot to tell Pete I was going to start using them.

 

Not your bad as nowhere in the gate descriptions does it say anything about having to notify the GM your are going to build and use them.

[Paradigm]

Fleet Reports didn't show for some empires, but the ships, cargo and so forth are fine. I'm going to reprint everything and send it all out again when it finishes up later tonight. This issue was caused by me breaking up the database to get it to print faster (500+ speed fleets running convoy routes vastly increased the time it took to run end turn adjustments...use planetary/universal gates instead, if you have them!). In any event, entirely my fault....the reprinted turns will have the same results, same industrial production, scientist hits and so on - it's just a reprint, not a rerun of any actual industrial or research centers.

 

Pete, I've had cargo gate technology for quite some time now but I am not building them because they are too expensive compared to high AP ships that can do the same job plus the risk of some of the cargo being transferred being lost is unacceptable.

 

" . . . Fairly often a portion of cargo sent from one gate to another is lost. It does not fail to dematerialize, but it never appears at the destination. It just…vanishes. Finally, PCG's soak up a monumental amount of power just to maintain the interworld link. The power is required whether or not any cargo is sent through the gate. . . ."

 

In addition to the considerable construction cost which can be better used elsewhere, 2M power is not cheap to come by if the planet wasn't blessed with hydro or geo potential. At least not until you've upgraded a considerable amount of industry. That is 80 antimatter plants which cost 40M CM's, and that is needed on both ends. You have to scrap 160,000 industrial complexes to free up that many CM's. And of course you have to transport the 40M CM"s to the destination anyway. You may not realize that despite the postings of a few braggarts, a lot of empires can't justify the cost.

[RTGPete]

Well, I will continue to hold off on adding any upper limit on the number of action points that can be expended during the convoy route phase, because I dislike interfering, but as with anything else if it takes an unacceptable amount of time to run end turn adjustments because of high speed fleets running convoys, my hand will be forced. If you can come up with better transport methods, it's in your best interest to do so. Though I would absolutely not want to intervene, and have avoided doing so for years, any cap I put in place would definitely be very, very low. I just want to get the turns out in a reasonable amount of time, and not have the program run for hours just trying to get through one or two empires running ridiculously long convoy routes. Squeezing out some extra efficiency by building crazy fast ships with a relatively low number of cargo bays instead of much larger ships causes significant, unacceptable delays in turn processing time.

 

 

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

The loss code has been removed for a while now, and if it is added back in the losses will be very low. The choice comes down to no losses, low losses, or a very harsh cap on action points that can be expended in a convoy route. I avoid intervening with a passion, but excessive processing time caused by this issue would scream for a very harsh cap. When it comes down to efficient turn processing versus some players squeezing out some extra cargo ship efficiency with a massive impact on processing time, turn processing speed trumps all.

[Paradigm]

Well, I will continue to hold off on adding any upper limit on the number of action points that can be expended during the convoy route phase, because I dislike interfering, but as with anything else if it takes an unacceptable amount of time to run end turn adjustments because of high speed fleets running convoys, my hand will be forced. If you can come up with better transport methods, it's in your best interest to do so. Though I would absolutely not want to intervene, and have avoided doing so for years, any cap I put in place would definitely be very, very low. I just want to get the turns out in a reasonable amount of time, and not have the program run for hours just trying to get through one or two empires running ridiculously long convoy routes. Squeezing out some extra efficiency by building crazy fast ships with a relatively low number of cargo bays instead of much larger ships causes significant, unacceptable delays in turn processing time.

 

 

Pete,

Considering your message about potential losses while using planetary uniersal gates, I'm not sure why anyone would use them. If your warp route is secure, why take the risk?

The loss code has been removed for a while now, and if it is added back in the losses will be very low. The choice comes down to no losses, low losses, or a very harsh cap on action points that can be expended in a convoy route. I avoid intervening with a passion, but excessive processing time caused by this issue would scream for a very harsh cap. When it comes down to efficient turn processing versus some players squeezing out some extra cargo ship efficiency with a massive impact on processing time, turn processing speed trumps all.

 

I am still reluctant to build a bunch these if there is a chance of the loss being added back in the future. Why take the risk? It is true that freighters can be destroyed, but they are also a hell of a lot cheaper and more flexible as they can haul freight everywhere, not just where there is a gate.

[Kurassier]

I've tried to avoid low cargo / super high AP fleets designed to squeeze out that little extra efficiency, mostly because I don't like all the extra results pages, but as long as it is legal there are players that are going to go for maximum efficiency. It is hard to fault people for going for whatever legal edge they can.

 

Perhaps you could implement a very high cap now, say 1,000 AP, before lots of empires reach the point where they can field higher AP ships. That would help contain the problem yet have minimal impact if done soon as I assume the majority of players have not invested in many ships over 1,000 AP.

 

Most of my high AP convoy routes are to skim fuel which is essential to moving long distances. I think it would help to add options to the SKIM order to combine multiple SKIM's together. So "SKIM, 10, 1234" would do one actual SKIM but would multiply the amount by 10 (using 10 AP) and offload any excess to population group 1234 assuming the ship is over that population group. That would not necessitate people redesigning their skim ships. It seems like something that would be easy to add and that would not require a change to the turn entry software while saving processing many thousands of SKIM/OC orders each turn. It would not solve the problem of people building a freighter with 1,000 cargo bays and 2,000 AP, but it would at least reduce the load some for a modest investment in coding. XSKIM should also be modified to work the same way. I could then replace a lot of skim convoy loops with a single XSKIM,#,# order.

 

Along the lines of saving turn pages, how about a new order, like 'SKIMMAX' (or whatever),

The order could have, SKIMMAX, <fleet #>, <pop group>

Then there would be one entry to show that fleet 999 skimmed X fuel and OC it into POP group # XX.

 

I know alot of empires do this for skimming fuel. Would also help shorten the length of printouts.