Reversing to Orion - project 1oom

[ignatius]

Any chance of adding some sort of auto save? For the second time, I crashed out of the game by typing in too long a ship name ("Dead Colony" is just too ingrained in my typing fingers) and lost everything (i.e., no  Continue save).

There is an auto-save feature. You can enable it with -yearsave. For undo saves use the -undo switch.

btw: which version are you playing?

cu

ignatius

[mikemayday]

Hello,
I've decided to try it on a whim and found one of the most annoying "features" of days of yore... AI automatically sends troops to your planets, if it has a fleet in orbit of them - even with a NAP. Has this been fixed in any of the unofficial patches?

[ignatius]

Hello,
I've decided to try it on a whim and found one of the most annoying "features" of days of yore... AI automatically sends troops to your planets, if it has a fleet in orbit of them - even with a NAP. Has this been fixed in any of the unofficial patches?

yes. As it happens, I have just finished implementing an "enforce NAP" option in my version.

   

It's work in progress (no Galaxy options yet) and esp. the rules options are largely untested. Also the menus need some polish (the default colors suck). But you may give it a try - the NAP enforcement did work in my son's game today.

@RefSteel

I'm considering to disable threats during a truce when "NAP enforce: truce" is in effect. The option turns around ships and transports for both, the AI and the player during a temporary peace treaty (which usually lasts about 10 to 15 years) as well as during a NAP and also send invasion troops back during an alliance.

Currently, a truce is only enforced against AI fleets (not troop transports) and you can reissue a threat once the ambassador is back (which happens far sooner than the truce runs out). Would this take care of the threat issue as far as the RBO ruleset is concerned?

ignatius

[RefSteel]

When you say an option "turns around transports," does that mean it makes them evaporate on arrival (which I believe is what happens when transports hit an ally's planets in all current versions of the game, and when AI transports hit the planet of someone with whom they're at peace) or does it actually turn them around so they head back to the source world?

If a truce is enforced on human and AI alike, especially since the duration is random, will there be any in-game indication of whether it is or is not still in effect on any given turn?

Honestly, I think the implementation of threats is bad enough that they're better off just being removed from the game if we're modifying the rule set. Or change the functionality completely.

For what it's worth, I don't think I like the idea of enforced-both-ways truces unless there's an option to break them (with appropriate diplomatic penalties) like a NAP or Alliance. In that case though, the AI would have to be willing/able to break them too (again like a NAP/Alliance) preferably.

[ignatius]

When you say an option "turns around transports," does that mean it makes them evaporate on arrival (which I believe is what happens when transports hit an ally's planets in all current versions of the game, and when AI transports hit the planet of someone with whom they're at peace) or does it actually turn them around so they head back to the source world?

Sends them to your nearest colony (source is not stored in the state) - which may or may not be big enough to hold them, even if evacuated in time. I've never noticed the evaporation thing, neither in moo nor in 1oom - but this might be because I normally honor my treaties and don't make peace when I have invasions running.

If a truce is enforced on human and AI alike, especially since the duration is random, will there be any in-game indication of whether it is or is not still in effect on any given turn?

Yes. If truces are enforced, then instead of "No Treaty" the Races screen says "X Year Truce" with X being the countdown.

Honestly, I think the implementation of threats is bad enough that they're better off just being removed from the game if we're modifying the rule set.  Or change the functionality completely.

As you know, I don't share your opinion on this matter. While I rarely use them, I consider them a legitimate  diplomatic tool and I don't think it is overpowered. Without enforcement of treaties it is also the only way to avoid wars which neither side intended to start e.g. when the fleet wasn't originally sent against you.

Trouble is that threats serve a double purpose in MOO: They can be used for legitimate complains (spying, diverting an unprovoked attack) or to extort tribute. Both purposes are in principle OK, but I'm not sure how far the AI logic can tell the two apart. Any improvements would require the AI to make this distinction and react accordingly. This might be feasible. Also, an option that tribute is only offered to stronger opponents might be in order.

For what it's worth, I don't think I like the idea of enforced-both-ways truces unless there's an option to break them (with appropriate diplomatic penalties) like a NAP or Alliance.  In that case though, the AI would have to be willing/able to break them too (again like a NAP/Alliance) preferably.

Truces are limited to 10 to 15 years so, unlike NAPs or Alliance,  they are self-breaking and are obviously meant as a simple way to enable the AI to end a war and deal with all the stuff in flight. This is also the reason why the exact duration is hidden (and the reason I only show it when they are also enforced for the Human player so to make the AI not further exploitable). If the AI would be smart enough to consider breaking them, it wouldn't need truces in the first place.

Also, if treaties are further weakened, you soon come to a point where you might as well disable the whole diplo system. There really is more than enough backstabbing in moo already. Why nurture good relations and keep trust when it does not serve its main purpose which is to avoid armed conflict? In a setting with more than two parties it can be reasonable even for two rivals to cooperate - so why take away the tools which enable that?

Anyway, enforcing truces is the highest enforcement level. The lower settings deal only with NAPs (in or excluding transports), which can be broken by both sides.

I'm also happy to inform you that, aside from the threat issue, the other RBO rules are already in place:

• tac sporing and wait exploit should not work in 1oom.
  
• Spec Wars: Asking for a Declaration of War on another Race is allowed (default), declares war if accepted or is banned unless already at war with target.
  
• battle exploits: No baiting lets AI retreat if bases are untouchable. No yoyo will not evade ship missiles if stronger bases are present.
  
• Retreating fleets: may stay in the system (default), flee (have to retreat to next friendly planet), rearm (flee if having spent ammo)
  

Maybe you can give it a try. This stuff really needs some playtesting.

ignatius

[RefSteel]

I've never noticed the evaporation thing, neither in moo nor in 1oom - but this might be because I normally honor my treaties and don't make peace when I have invasions running.

It doesn't affect your transports when you have a peace treaty in the original game - only (I think? I haven't tested it) when you have an Alliance. It does affect AI transports when they have a peace treaty - so if you make peace while AI transports are en route to one of your worlds, they disappear on arrival (unless they're being sent from a lonnnnnnnnnnnnng way away...). Turning them around like ships is probably a better option.

On threats: No, you're right. I was focused too much on the asymmetry, which is a silly thing to focus on with MoO; there's asymmetry everywhere! Your suggestion of enforcing threat-treaties both ways (and the ambassador departing) would certainly be an improvement over what exists now. Better AI logic for responding to threats would be good, just as better AI logic for [any given thing] would be good.

Truces are limited to 10 to 15 years so, unlike NAPs or Alliance,  they are self-breaking and are obviously meant as a simple way to enable the AI to end a war and deal with all the stuff in flight.

I think I agree on this now too, especially with transports that turn around (for both sides) instead of evaporating (for the AI) or causing a war (for the human).

This is also the reason why the exact duration is hidden (and the reason I only show it when they are also enforced for the Human player so to make the AI not further exploitable).

There's another reason to hide the duration too: The AI isn't smart enough to plan for war in advance, but the human can have transports and fleets due to arrive on the turn the treaty expires. I would recommend hiding the exact duration even for truces that affect the human: Report that the enforced truce is in force while it lasts, but not the number of turns remaining.

Maybe you can give it a try. This stuff really needs some playtesting.

I don't have much time for playtesting in the near future, but I'll have a look when I can. Does a Windows binary for these changes exist yet? Where can it be found?

[ignatius]

On threats:  No, you're right.  I was focused too much on the asymmetry, which is a silly thing to focus on with MoO; there's asymmetry everywhere!  Your suggestion of enforcing threat-treaties both ways (and the ambassador departing) would certainly be an improvement over what exists now.  Better AI logic for responding to threats would be good, just as better AI logic for [any given thing] would be good.

I will also try to disable threats during truces, as the ambassador normally returns before the truce is timed out.

There's another reason to hide the duration too:  The AI isn't smart enough to plan for war in advance, but the human can have transports and fleets due to arrive on the turn the treaty expires.  I would recommend hiding the exact duration even for truces that affect the human:  Report that the enforced truce is in force while it lasts, but not the number of turns remaining.

Hiding would force the player to check every turn to know his diplo status (there are notifications for change of NAP and Alliance status but nor for truces). What I did instead and what I think is an even better solution: Just like the AI, you cannot send ships or fleets to colonies of AIs you have a truce with (or a NAP for the matter).

Maybe you can give it a try. This stuff really needs some playtesting.

I don't have much time for playtesting in the near future, but I'll have a look when I can.  Does a Windows binary for these changes exist yet?  Where can it be found?

Sorry, I cannot do windows binaries - I only have Linux. Maybe RFS is willing to build some - but I want to finish my galaxy options first before I bother him with that. Automated builds would really be a blessing ... (The ability to cross-compile from Linux even more so).

ignatius

[mikemayday]

They don't have automatic builds on GitLab??
Anyway, I'm eagerly awaiting a Windows build... not quite eagerly enough to start setting up my own build environment >_<
I'm happy to playtest... and provide my suggestions on gameplay, if those are at all welcome.

EDIT: BTW, is there a way to change the music to sound the way it would on a Sound Blaster in the old DOS ways? I've never enjoyed the standard windows MIDI palette.

[RFS-81]

Sorry for the long silence on my part...

I've made some changes to Tapani's and mine fork of the game. I removed the in-game ruleset options introduced by Ignatius: Tapani didn't want changes to the oldschool UI. But then, if you play with the old UI, it's impossible for the game to tell you which ruleset the save file you just loaded follows. Therefore, Ignatius requested that we remove that option, which I find understandable.

So instead, I've added a ruleset option to the config file. I've also created a Windows installer that creates different shortcuts (oldschool, fixbugs, enhanced) which all use different configurations and save directories. Though I'm starting to think that a launcher program may be better. This version fixes the bugs reported in this thread, like the crash with the text fields. It does not include any new features by Ignatius.

I guess we're going to go separate ways, with us (or me? Didn't hear from Tapani in a long time...) sticking closer to the original and Ignatius adding new features. I'm OK with that. I wasn't planning to do a whole lot of new development on 1oom; I really don't enjoy working with the code base enough for that. I just wanted to fix the remaining bugs in 1oom v1.0 and clean up any future ones that are found. I'll also try to make a Windows build for Ignatius's version soon.

[RFS-81]

And a Windows build of Ignatius's version: This is just the binary, you need to copy it into your MOO1 folder and install SDL2 plus SDL2_mixer. I haven't tested it myself yet.