Random Map Set-up

[CyberMage]

(I just purchased the game, directly from your website, instead of using Steam. Proceeding in that fashion had 2 advantages : my game program would be free from Steam's installation constraints, and your smaller "indie" company would get more revenues. I'm very happy with the ease of processing my credit-card info (no need to use Paypal or Moneybookers accounts, for example), and with the ease of re-obtaining the game's installation file if I need to reinstall.)

I first tried to set-up a random/huge game against 7 comps, but I did not know how many unoccupied "planets" to indicate. I first believed that the random-generation process would create a lot of planets by itself, to automatically fill-up a "huge" map. Consequently, having inserted no number, my very first random "huge" map only had 8 planets (the 8 home-worlds), grouped in a central ring! I then understood that I had to input the number of unoccupied planets. I tried 150 and then 300, but without counting all of them, I had the visual impression that the 300-star map did not contain much more systems than the 150-planet map. I wondered if the "small", "large" & "huge" sizes each had limits of planets they could accommodate.

QUESTIONS > What are the maximums of unoccupied planets we can indicate for the different map sizes? What is the absolute number of planets that the program code allows?

(I suppose that the "huge" size can accommodate the absolute maximum your design & coding allow. I prefer to play on huge maps, so I wish to learn how to play by having a lot of room to expand*, and by being able to watch what many enemy comps do on the "average" level of difficulty.
________________

* PS > Well, what you mean by "huge" does not seem to match the definition of "huge" found in other space-strategy games! I created a random/huge map with 300 unoccupied planets (but I doubt it had 308 systems). The big problem was that my starting position was located at only 1-turn distance from an enemy home-world, and at a 2-turn distance from another enemy! So I got attacked very early. Of course, you can tell me to reduce the number of enemies, but on a so-called "huge" map, I expected that the distances would be greater. May I suggest that you revise your random-map generation algorithm to code-in a minimum distance between the starting positions, depending on the size of the map? A "huge" map should not have enemies so close to each other!

I was attacked after the end of my turn 5, but since I had upgraded my factories and had not attacked anybody (no losses then), the aggressor (an "average" A.I.) lost. But I'm very uncomfortable, as a beginner, to have 2 enemies so close to me. I will eventually restart, with the same parameters (random/huge with 300 unoccupied & 7 average-level comps), until I get a decent starting position. (I have removed the "fog of war" because I wish to learn by perceiving how the comps behave on the normal A.I. setting.) Before restarting, I counter-attacked at my turn 6, evaluating that the enemy had lost most of his ships in his failed attempt. I conquered his home-world! But it did not give me any feeling of satisfaction, since I realized that the comp had lost because it had  executed a risky attack in the context of a game's beginning, when it had few ships. Having an A.I. player set-up so close to another player, on a "huge" map, must open the door to such premature defeats -- if the A.I. tends to make reckless attacks.

I don't like to win by "exploiting" game-program flaws. In this case, the 2 obvious flaws are : starting positions located much too close on a "huge" map, and also, a tendency of the "average" comps to indulge into risky and reckless attacks.

The latter flaw was verified during the subsequent turns, when I observed that the 6 remaining comps were losing too many ships against neutral planets, conquering nothing! (Perhaps that situation was aggravated because I had set the "natives" on the "many" option, granting them a lot of ships to start with.) It is odd that the A.I., on the "average" setting, does not calculate a more prudent and patient strategic plan : instead of wasting its early ships against too-well-defended neutral planets, it should do as I did -- not attack the natives early on, upgrade factories, and amass an overwhelming armada before daring to assault neutral planets.

When I exited the (unfinished) game, I noticed, on the summary screen, that all 7 comps had built 0 factory. That partly explains why they remained so weak. On the hand, they did not upgrade their factories, so they never had sufficient ship-production output. On the other hand, they stubbornly wasted against too strong targets their fresh, small ship productions. I find it strange that you call that difficulty level "average".

[Chris]

(I just purchased the game, directly from your website, instead of using Steam. Proceeding in that fashion had 2 advantages : my game program would be free from Steam's installation constraints, and your smaller "indie" company would get more revenues. I'm very happy with the ease of processing my credit-card info (no need to use Paypal or Moneybookers accounts, for example), and with the ease of re-obtaining the game's installation file if I need to reinstall.)

Thank you! Glad to hear it went smoothly.

QUESTIONS > What are the maximums of unoccupied planets we can indicate for the different map sizes? What is the absolute number of planets that the program code allows?

The maximum number isn't defined explicitly. It just keeps placing planets at random locations until it runs out of room. (There is a minimum distance enforced between planets.)

* PS > Well, what you mean by "huge" does not seem to match the definition of "huge" found in other space-strategy games! I created a random/huge map with 300 unoccupied planets (but I doubt it had 308 systems). The big problem was that my starting position was located at only 1-turn distance from an enemy home-world, and at a 2-turn distance from another enemy! So I got attacked very early. Of course, you can tell me to reduce the number of enemies, but on a so-called "huge" map, I expected that the distances would be greater. May I suggest that you revise your random-map generation algorithm to code-in a minimum distance between the starting positions, depending on the size of the map? A "huge" map should not have enemies so close to each other!

The random map generator always places planets in a ring, so that the distance between adjacent starting locations is exactly equal (unless there are rounding errors, but I've never seen that happen). The size of the ring does depend on the map size. You shouldn't be seeing players start so close together.

Did you change the ship speed? How many AI players were in the game?

If you think you've encountered a bug, maybe a screenshot would help me understand the problem.

The AI, as you've noticed, is quite stupid; it doesn't do much in the way of strategy. I would like to improve it one day.

[CyberMage]

The random map generator always places planets in a ring, so that the distance between adjacent starting locations is exactly equal (unless there are rounding errors, but I've never seen that happen). The size of the ring does depend on the map size. You shouldn't be seeing players start so close together. Did you change the ship speed? How many AI players were in the game?

The AI, as you've noticed, is quite stupid; it doesn't do much in the way of strategy. I would like to improve it one day.

1. My very first game was set-up on a "huge" map, against 7 comps, with ship movement defined as "fast". I was located in the NNW position, at a 1-turn distance of a comp located at the North position and at a 2-turn distance of the comp located (below me) at the West position. I'm 100% certain of that, but I don't have a screenshot to illustrate it.

2. Concerning the "stupid" A.I., I find it strange that on the "average" level, my 7 enemies did not build one single factory. In my 2nd game, at the "higher" level, the 7 of them built factories, but some did not build enough. Strangely, in my 3rd game, at the "highest" level, the 7 comps did not build one single factory! I'm not a programmer, but I wonder if it would be so difficult to force the A.I., at the average, high & highest levels to always build factories. If you don't build factories and the surrounding natives keep on growing, it's difficult to overwhelm them with few losses.

[Chris]

1. My very first game was set-up on a "huge" map, against 7 comps, with ship movement defined as "fast". I was located in the NNW position, at a 1-turn distance of a comp located at the North position and at a 2-turn distance of the comp located (below me) at the West position. I'm 100% certain of that, but I don't have a screenshot to illustrate it.

Oops! Must be a rounding bug. Thanks for the report, I'll make a note.

2. Concerning the "stupid" A.I., I find it strange that on the "average" level, my 7 enemies did not build one single factory. In my 2nd game, at the "higher" level, the 7 of them built factories, but some did not build enough. Strangely, in my 3rd game, at the "highest" level, the 7 comps did not build one single factory! I'm not a programmer, but I wonder if it would be so difficult to force the A.I., at the average, high & highest levels to always build factories. If you don't build factories and the surrounding natives keep on growing, it's difficult to overwhelm them with few losses.

Hmmm. They are supposed to build factories on "highest" exactly the same as they do on "higher". I'll take a look.

[Chris]

Just played a Quick Start game on Highest difficulty, and as soon as the AI had 3 planets they started doing upgrades every turn. I guess it's an intermittent problem. If you see it again, I'd appreciate seeing as many details as you can provide, including screenshots etc., to help me track it down. Thanks!