Master of Orion 1 unofficial patch

[Zeraan]

I am pretty sure this is a computer superstition. MoO races can turn on you very quickly, everybody knows that, the events are nasty as well. No copyright clever tricks from programmers as far as I know.

Thanks, that makes sense. I was just wondering if there was something that gets triggered by copyright failing to show up. While I'm a programmer, I'm not really keen into the tedious task of disassembling the .exe file to just find this out

[Maksim]

Hey guys, just wanted to drop by and say "thank you".

I tried out an earlier version of the patch, and found it quite fun - until I ran into the unbreakable AI alliances issue.

I've got the latest patch last week, and had a couple of games with it - it's great!

[Iovan]

A question. I've noticed since patching my copy that the autosave (I assume it's that anyway) seems to be going crazy. Is it intentional that it keeps making new saves all the time instead of replacing the old ones? My MoO folder ends up flooded with hundreds of saves from playing through a set or two. Is this supposed to be happening? Is it a problem anyone else has experienced? Is it just me?

It's not a terrible problem. It's just kind of potential problem. Each file is about 60kb which is nothing to most people's HDs (including mine) but over time a problem could arise.

The files I'm talking about in particular are like SAVE211.GAM (the number being which save this supposedly is). They are count up in sequential order afterall. I delete them with no ill effect. Though I only personally rely on the default save slots.

[kyrub]

Is it intentional that it keeps making new saves all the time instead of replacing the old ones? My MoO folder ends up flooded with hundreds of saves from playing through a set or two.

It was intentional. This was a precaution, to find the bug in previous version at the time. I forgot to take the feature out, it is quite annoying. Maybe I could change it to save only save50, save100, save150 etc.? Or do you feel it should be gone completely?

Thanks for feedback.

[Iovan]

What is it's exact purpose? It wouldn't bother me if it was even 100 saves. It sequentially adding more and more though isn't good. Is there no way to overwrite them instead of making copies?


Here are some other ideas I have had (probably thought of by everyone actually)

1: Another thing I want to suggest (though this isn't a problem, just a suggestion) would it be possible in your AI tuning to work out the issues with AI concerning NAPs? I think that AIs should weight whether they have ships/transports inbound on an enemy planet before signing a NAP with them. It is terribly annoying to end up in a heated war with an honorable AI (who was a potential good ally) just because they ended up having transports moving in several turns out from a NAP. It isn't automatic war but I'm not going to stomach them stealing my planet on a small galaxy map. They end up reacting far more harshly to taking the planet back after a NAP than if you were two neutral growing empires. It basically becomes a blood feud.

2: It's also annoying to end up at war with an ally over another silly thing that happens. In one scenario an ally and I were at war with a third party. I had wiped out their defending fleet and bases and was sending transports. My transports got there a turn after my allies transports. The outcome of this wasn't pretty. Is there any way to alleviate this? I would rather eat the loss of all the transports than end up with a blood feud because the AI is too stupid to realize an accident.

Both of these I have put up with for years so if you can't do anything about them that's fine. I just think it would be an improvement on the AI.

3: Another is if you could make them react more realistically to players trying to convince them to war against an AI that you are not warring with. I think that either the AI should be inclined to say no more often (especially if they are weaker than the target) or not have the option unless you are at war with them. This one is a bit less important since everyone can just refuse to cheese the AI this much. It just sometimes sure is tempting on impossible in a huge galaxy when you are stuck with eight crummy worlds and surrounded on all sides by 13-20 system AI empires. >.>

[kyrub]

The progressive save should have revealed the location of a bug in the patch. On the other hand, it may be nice to have a progressive save that saves your game every Nth year. So that you can replay parts of it later (in a "what if" scenario, for instance).

----

Yes, AI diplomacy needs a big lift. The incoming ships can be called off. Still, I find it nice when AI sometimes attacks you out of the blue, without any warning. My impression is that this was generally not intended in Moo. But it's happening and it's refreshing for me.

On the other hand, to create a really competent diplomatic AI, one would have to change the entire diplomacy system. How come the allied AIs throw the vote for you during the council and give you victory? Would a human player do the same? Surely not. Unless there is a new rule, saying, you have to support your ally with a vote during the council. There may be even a possibility to refuse, that will create an effect similar to the final war. This is over the horizon for now.

Similar thing: you always vote the last and it's super-easy to give your vote to the enemy, if you're sure he won't win. Cheesy. Bad rule, stupid feature.

[Iovan]

The progressive save should have revealed the location of a bug in the patch. On the other hand, it may be nice to have a progressive save that saves your game every Nth year. So that you can replay parts of it later (in a "what if" scenario, for instance).

That would be a fine feature I guess.

Yes, AI diplomacy needs a big lift. The incoming ships can be called off. Still, I find it nice when AI sometimes attacks you out of the blue, without any warning. My impression is that this was generally not intended in Moo. But it's happening and it's refreshing for me.

Well I wasn't talking about if they decide to betray the NAP (which would be fine in general) I meant them agreeing to a NAP that they should be willing to keep (honorable personality) but they already HAD incomping transports/ships. I was wondering if there was a way to just make them reject a NAP offer if they have ships inbound when the NAP is offered. Just like a flat rejection they would do if they didn't like you enough etc.

On the other hand, to create a really competent diplomatic AI, one would have to change the entire diplomacy system.

I don't know about that. I think small tweaks here and there could give them an edge. Nothing would be perfect of course. Not asking for perfection from you (though its a nice thing to aim for ).

How come the allied AIs throw the vote for you during the council and give you victory? Would a human player do the same? Surely not. Unless there is a new rule, saying, you have to support your ally with a vote during the council.

Technically it's because they are in-character. They are voting for the strongest party they are fine with leading the galaxy. Players don't want to do this because the game is over if they do . It's the same logic for the AI voting for another AI and causing a player to lose the game as a result. I don't think anything you could do would fix it short of rewriting the entire vote system with alternate "win" scenarios.

I wouldn't like having to support an ally. Perhaps allies should react more negatively when their ally doesn't vote for them. Also abstaining when a "friend" is up for election should bring more of a cost. Not a huge one but it should lower relations some. Probably would be best to have it only negatively affect for abstaining if it cost them the election. I wouldn't be happy with a "friend" who cost me an election.

There may be even a possibility to refuse, that will create an effect similar to the final war. This is over the horizon for now.

Yes that could be something to do. An AI refusing and causing a final war would be pretty interesting. Though I think it should only be if they have a reasonable level of strength and only if it's the player who wins the election.

Similar thing: you always vote the last and it's super-easy to give your vote to the enemy, if you're sure he won't win. Cheesy. Bad rule, stupid feature.

Yeah. "He won't win, well time to build up some relations!" *vote*. Though of course it's just as cheesy that I can be great friends with EVERYONE by signing minimum trade agreements (at the very least) waiting a few turns, getting NAPs with them, and then instigating a galactic war between everyone but myself (which makes all my NAPs gold even with ruthless expansionists).

[kyrub]

I was wondering if there was a way to just make them reject a NAP offer if they have ships inbound when the NAP is offered.

Nice idea, note taken. Yes, that's probably possible.

I don't think anything you could do would fix it short of rewriting the entire vote system with alternate "win" scenarios.

I have no problem with rewriting whole parts of code today, if I see really good result in the makimg. Moo lacks any proper usage, just reward for voting for someone else. The only reward is a raise of diplomatic favour, which is useless for CPs towards HP. The reward should have some given, measurable effect, like a sum of credits, a technology, or an (unbreakable) promise of not attacking the favourably voting CP for 20 years. Since being allied grants you an AI vote, there could/should be a galactic rule saying you should support your ally as well... under the threat of "final war".

it's just as cheesy that I can be great friends with EVERYONE by signing minimum trade agreements (at the very least) waiting a few turns, getting NAPs with them, and then instigating a galactic war between everyone

The trade was screwed up. Note that the Starlords game (MoO 0) has a very different conception of trade, you have to invest in it regularly. I think they wrote in MoO manual that the amount of trade would influence its diplomatic effect - but that's not true.

All the positive diplomatic effects in Moo are too strong, trade, NAP, enemy of my enemy, war attrition... you name it.

[Andrew]

I have a few notes about the interface changes.

1) One would like to see that the MAP screen displays current date as "Year: 2300" instead of just "2300", in the same way as it is done on the RACES \ STATUS screen.

2) The black window at the bottom of the TECH screen looks terrible. Is there any way to restore the background and font? I am aware of those ones have been wiped out for placing the patch code, but I also don't see any needs in using, for example, hotkeys on this screen.

2a) Why a font color on the REPORT screen became violet? The original bright white is perfect.

3) The 'every turn autosave' feature should be disabled. Ideally it needs to be enabled through a command line switch, e.g. "starmap.exe -debug".

[kyrub]

First, in the new patch form I'm currently working on, the interface changes will be optional.

1) Year: 2300 - this was impossible to implement at the time. I spent several hours on that alone. Now it's simple, it'll be corrected.

2) and 2a) Black window and purple font was my personal choice, I find the screen colours are blending in the original, too much brown and beige. But I understand people are accustomed to it. Des couleur et des gouts, il ne faut pas disputer. So I will revert any purely esthetic changes.

3) The game will autosave every 40 (or 50?) years for replay value.