| Progress |
Wed, 02 July 2003 11:33  |
|
 LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
Components are basically done: what that means is that there is an XML file listing all components, and there is code to read that file, and combine components into a ship, then combine ships into a fleet. So you can ask a fleet what it's pen scanning value is, and it will take the max of all ships, each ship will apply the formula from the help file to combine the scanners on the ship.
Parsing the .x file to get orders is about half done, big part left is dealing with fleet splits and merges when some one else has your fleet targeted. Actually following all those orders hasn't been started.
Racial traits are mostly done: There is code to combine PRT and LRTs into a Race, other details about a Race have not been added. And the XML file of racial traits is not yet complete.
Moving cargo is done, as are Invasions (which are part of moving cargo).
There are other things that is partially complete.
And a lot more stuff that isn't
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Thu, 10 July 2003 04:09  |
|
|
|
I'm curious as to the component listings and PRT's / LRT's.
Care to indulge us a little?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Thu, 10 July 2003 06:54 |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Thu, 10 July 2003 04:09 |
I'm curious as to the component listings and PRT's / LRT's.
Care to indulge us a little?
|
Indulge in what way?
I've been helping Leit with the components data file. It's somewhat stable though we just decided on some additional data just yesterday to be included.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Thu, 10 July 2003 08:32 |
|
|
|
As in what kinda of abilities are we looking at?
What sort of things will components be capable of?
What abilities could be assigned to a PRT / LRT?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: targetting algorithm |
Tue, 15 July 2003 23:22 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
I'm still working on this, every time I start, I make a bit of progress, get fustrated, and find something else that needs work. Eventually I'll get it done...
Currently it looks like this:
A fleet has a list of who it is following, and who is following it. When you split the new fleet gets a copy of who you are following, and all fleets following you are told about the new fleet. (Note, this is easier said then done)
Then after all splitting and merging and assigning orders is done, I'll have to decide which fleet follows which. Things I'm going to consider: Biggest picks biggest target first; filter based on battle orders; only your own ships will pick, you won't care if some other race is also chasing the same fleet.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: targetting algorithm |
Wed, 16 July 2003 08:53 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
| mazda wrote on Wed, 16 July 2003 07:46 |
Interesting regarding the filter by battle orders.
You mean if you are attacking freight ships first then it will only consider fleets with freighters ?
|
I was going to use the whole battle order, so if you do freighters/none, then yes it'll just go after fleets of freighters - there is no point in chasing a fleet you won't shoot at.
| mazda wrote on Wed, 16 July 2003 07:46 |
I suppose this opens it up later to selecting based on ship hull type perhaps - say target enemy BB's, then you would follow wherever the most BB's went.
|
At least for now, there will be no way to target just BBs in the battle orders, that would eliminate chaff, and I don't want to do that yet.
| mazda wrote on Wed, 16 July 2003 07:46 |
Anyway, no point discussing changes at this stage.
|
Actually, there is. It's not done yet, and I'd like to get it right the first time.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: targetting algorithm |
Thu, 17 July 2003 12:49 |
|
| mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
| LEit wrote on Wed, 16 July 2003 13:53 |
At least for now, there will be no way to target just BBs in the battle orders, that would eliminate chaff, and I don't want to do that yet.
|
Might eliminate the current classic chaff, but if you were targetting BB's then you'd become very easy prey for other ships whilst you were trying to polish off the BB's.
Be a whole new game.
Anyway, I think the problem with interception is that when you order your ship to intercept then you are trying to achieve a particular goal - say defend a planet, defend other ships, defend a border.
When the other fleet splits then you still have the same objective (perhaps), but your implementation of specific tactics to achieve that objective might now differ.
Unless the software picks the right fleet to follow, that you would have done had you known of the split, then this will never be solved.
All I can think of would be the incredibly stupid rule that only fleets that are already separate can go to different locations.
Ships all in one fleet must go to the same location (they could split on the way ready for the next turn).
Ships in different fleets at the same location can of course be targetted separately and so can go where they like.
This would effectively turn splitting into a WP1 task.
Still want ideas ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: targetting algorithm |
Thu, 17 July 2003 19:16 |
|
|
|
Its somewhat more global than just splitting fleets but I've been thinking it would be nice to be able to give each ship type(or just subfleet) differing orders. The minelayers would lay mines,The transports would (un)load,etc while still retaining the higher level strategic tag that the whole group is a single fleet(taskforce maybe?)
Since you're goingto the effort of creating an XML script system for describing the game...as well as the default possible battle(and split?) orders, it would be nice to be able to script your own orders.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: targetting algorithm |
Fri, 18 July 2003 07:32 |
|
|
|
| gible wrote on Thu, 17 July 2003 19:16 |
Its somewhat more global than just splitting fleets but I've been thinking it would be nice to be able to give each ship type(or just subfleet) differing orders. The minelayers would lay mines,The transports would (un)load,etc while still retaining the higher level strategic tag that the whole group is a single fleet(taskforce maybe?)
Since you're goingto the effort of creating an XML script system for describing the game...as well as the default possible battle(and split?) orders, it would be nice to be able to script your own orders.
|
For the most part this would be a discussion of what to do in any sort of 'expanded' game. But, it's worth discussing now just to see how the current structures could handle implementing some of these ideas.
Probably have taskforces within fleets (if you're trying to match/parallel current naval nomenclature.)
Depending on how far you carry the subject (i.e. tokens within a fleet being able to have separate orders) it would open up a number of possibilities - especially if that allowed separate tokens to have different battle orders. Boils down to a discussion of at what level you can assign and store waypoint and battle orders.
You also raise the spectre on the client side on how to display and track what taskforce within a fleet is doing what. New layer of complication.
Something else that comes into play here is deciding what actions should be 'default activities' or not. For instance, bombing is a default activity - if your fleet has bombs and is at a viable target (orbiting a planet owned by a race that your default battle orders would attack) it bombs them. Minelaying is not a default activity since you have to specifically order a fleet to do it. Would "default" minelaying be a desirable thing? (I partially suspect minelaying is not default due to the minefield limit.)
And you could discuss a number of actions that could be discussed in this fashion:
(a) Minelaying
(b) Bombing
(c) Refueling (probably a no brainer)
(d) Terraforming (orbital)
(e) etc...
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Mon, 08 March 2004 16:51 |
|
|
|
You guys want some help with this? I don't mind coding pieces of it to help out and/or help with graphics.
Even though this is to be a free, basically clone, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't update some of the images go 'give it a facelift'.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Mon, 08 March 2004 17:30 |
|
|
|
I'll dig up a free IRC client - I used to have one so there may still be a copy in my laptop. Then I'll find you.
I do most coding in C but I can program in just about anything (I've only been working with computers since before the IBM PC was invented).
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Fri, 19 March 2004 20:56 |
|
|
|
As a suggestion from another prefer c++ but do other languages type programmer...
Perhaps the whole thing could end up as a webserver?
In other words, like stars as an executable, but the executable is a web server (that may require the browser to support java).
A local version of the server could be used to prepare a turn before submitting to the shared one, just like stars where the executable can do both orders and then process a turn.
With html and gifs (sometimes animated), some details can be made to look nice in an easy to code way and easy to customise.
It would for example be fun to either choose stock pictures or upload your own for your races appearance, ships, etc.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Fri, 19 March 2004 21:41 |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
This sounds a client proposal, not something the server would care about - and for the server end something that is wholly unrelated to the core. Possibly something to consider *after* the we have a working turn server.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Progress |
Sun, 21 March 2004 02:03 |
|
|
|
I don't mind starting work on a C++ client for Windows. I could write one that looks almost identical to the current Stars! interface. The only problem would be that it might then be a copyright infringement (though since the VML modfile has been allowed, probably not).
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
