[Release] GalNavy additions (was Adck's Behemoths Redux)

[spara]

It makes the Navy more powerful, but it should not tilt the balance that much.

The only thing the Navy seem virtually incapable of winning against is the tough yet tiny Thargoid Controller... ::shrugs::

Oh yes. GalNavy has very little trouble with big bad opponents, but when it comes to tiny ones, now that's trouble. Upping the accuracy would help here, but then it would make the Navy even more powerful and would require tweaking them otherwise down. I'm not really interested in doing that although it's totally doable. I rather see those tiny controllers as a balancing factor.

BTW, Navy Sidewinders from Behemoth NCC might have a chance, they have their accuracy upped.

I keep meaning to ask about Thargoid controllers...surely those things aren't working as intended? They are seriously annoying.

That's for Thargoid to answer as those are from TCAT oxp. My guess is, they work just as intended.

[Diziet Sma]

Yup.. I'm pretty sure "seriously annoying" is just what the Thargs had in mind when they designed them.

[Thargoid]

Yup. On the "Why aren't the Thargons going inactive? Oh ****" stylie. It's a simple but effective way to make alien battles more interesting.

The controllers themselves are neither tough nor armed, but are sneaky.

[metatheurgist]

The controllers themselves are neither tough nor armed, but are sneaky.

They're armed, at least the ones in my game are. If they weren't I wouldn't find them so annoying. Sometimes I'll miss one and discover it's been tearing through the local viper fleet and accrued a bounty of 1000C.

I dispatch them the old fashioned way...ramming. I'd be prepared hold a class for the Navy on the technique, they seem to need it BADLY.

[spara]

Now that we are talking about Thargoids, I have taken down ADCK's Thargoid Carriers as they clash a bit with Thargoid Carrier 2.0 and I feel them to be a bit redundant anyway. Carrier 2.0 obsoletes type1 and Swarm obsoletes type2. I also feel that the fact that the Carriers were as tough as Coriolis Station is wrong.

It's a bit shame as the type 2 looks nice. Maybe I'll get some new idea and recycle the graphics. We'll see.

[spara]

A few minor updates (facelift, behemoth 3-4 and behemoth ncc). Mostly stuff I had overlooked before, but I feel really should be there.

* Docking clearance is now required on all Behemoths and Navy Stations.
* Undocking Behemoth in interstellar space now puts you in interstellar space.
* Navy Viper stats are now harmonized in GalNavy and Behemoth oxps.

Download updates from wiki.

[Agis Silverfish]

Absolutely beautiful.

[JazHaz]

Haven't been able to test the Additions OXP as I've been on a long cargo contract. But finally managed to finish it, and head over to my nearest Sector Command to test it out.

Glad to see the ADCK SecCom station back. Much nicer!

Anyway, here are a couple of little buggettes (I don't know if they are from Additions or from GalNavy itself though):


GalNavy mission screens by JazHaz, on Flickr
The bug is the [commanderShip_string].


GalNavy mission screens by JazHaz, on Flickr
Maybe not a bug, but I would prefer the ? mark to be after the commander's name, eg How are you Commander Poseidon?

Didn't actually start the mission, as I think I'll leave that till next time. Then I will report more fully on my impressions of the OXP.

[spara]

The first one looks like a bug in Oolite.

There is a correct [commander_shipdisplayname] in GalNavy oxp's missiontext.plist that transforms into [commanderShip_string]. Should really do something else.

The second one is coming from a list of greetings ("reserve-greeting" to be exact) in GalNavy oxp's descriptions.plist. Writer of the greeting has not thought that Commander's name will be appended to it. If it annoys too much, you can delete that greeting from the list.

EDIT: The first one might also be some oxp clash as it seems to function properly in my installation.

[JazHaz]

I was just looking through GalNavy's JS code.

Found that ships were added (eg with the code system.addShips("navystat75", 1, pos1, 0);), according to what level the victory bonds had been bought (see galnavymain.js between lines 882-891, ie navystat, navystat25, navystat50, and navystat75.

Could these stat indicating ships be used in the Additions OXP also? I was thinking perhaps for the level of bonds you have, could affect the tech level of ships in the Reserve missions, making it more likely for victories?

[Duggan]

Courtesy of Eric Walch.

In respect of String ship notifications.


"To fix it, open the file "missiontext.plist" inside the original main galactic navy oxp(not the galactic navy face lift oxp) and replace the string "[commanderShip_string]" by "[commander_shipname]". Replace it 4 times in total.

For [score_number] I am not sure if it was mend to be deprecated. To be on the safe side, replace it also in the oxp with an other replacement method.:
Still in the missiontext.plist file, find "[score_number]" and replace it by "score_number". So, just remove the brackets to stop the expansion. The expansion is now done in the script.

For that, open the file "galnavymain.js" and look for the line:
Code:
mission.runScreen({title: "Galactic Navy", messageKey: "squad_leaderboard", choicesKey: "leaderboard_return_choice"}, this.SecComBusiness);

Replace that line now with the following 2 lines:
Code:
var message = expandMissionText("squad_leaderboard", {score_number: player.score});
mission.runScreen({title: "Galactic Navy", message: message, choicesKey: "leaderboard_return_choice"}, this.SecComBusiness);

That way the script replaces the score. I have not tested it, but am confident it works.

Probably the current version of the oxp has to be marked as slightly 1.77 incompatible. I hope Nemoricus finds time to update the original."

_________________

[spara]

Courtesy of Eric Walsh.

In respect of String ship notifications.


"To fix it, open the file "missiontext.plist" inside the original galactic navy oxp and replace the string "[commanderShip_string]" by "[commander_shipname]". Replace it 4 times in total.

For [score_number] I am not sure if it was mend to be deprecated. To be on the safe side, replace it also in the oxp with an other replacement method.:
Still in the missiontext.plist file, find "[score_number]" and replace it by "score_number". So, just remove the brackets to stop the expansion. The expansion is now done in the script.

For that, open the file "galnavymain.js" and look for the line:
Code:
mission.runScreen({title: "Galactic Navy", messageKey: "squad_leaderboard", choicesKey: "leaderboard_return_choice"}, this.SecComBusiness);

Replace that line now with the following 2 lines:
Code:
var message = expandMissionText("squad_leaderboard", {score_number: player.score});
mission.runScreen({title: "Galactic Navy", message: message, choicesKey: "leaderboard_return_choice"}, this.SecComBusiness);

That way the script replaces the score. I have not tested it, but am confident it works.

Probably the current version of the oxp has to be marked as slightly 1.77 incompatible. I hope Nemoricus finds time to update the original."

_________________

Yes. That's why it works for me as I seem to have done that in my installation already. Thanks for the heads up.

[spara]

I was just looking through GalNavy's JS code.

Found that ships were added (eg with the code system.addShips("navystat75", 1, pos1, 0);), according to what level the victory bonds had been bought (see galnavymain.js between lines 882-891, ie navystat, navystat25, navystat50, and navystat75.

Could these stat indicating ships be used in the Additions OXP also? I was thinking perhaps for the level of bonds you have, could affect the tech level of ships in the Reserve missions, making it more likely for victories?

Those different stations are there for discounts. More bonds you buy, cheaper it gets. Personally I think it's flawed, as it makes the game easier, when it should get harder. Likewise, if the battles were easier when you buy bonds, I would find it flawed too. Maybe it should be the other way around. More bonds would mean tougher game .

[JazHaz]

More bonds you buy, cheaper it gets. Personally I think it's flawed, as it makes the game easier, when it should get harder. Likewise, if the battles were easier when you buy bonds, I would find it flawed too. Maybe it should be the other way around. More bonds would mean tougher game .

I dunno, 100 bonds for maximum discount, 100,000 credits. Quite a lot, more than I have currently!

[spara]

I made an implementation of Eric's fix in a way not requiring any editing of files. Works for me and I would appreciate if someone tests it before I put it into facelift. Just extract the file into galactic_navy_facelift.oxp/Config and it should work. Download fix here. And check that you have not fixed the GalNavy oxp yourself .

While poking stuff I found a bug from Behemoth oxp. In it's fighter AI there are references to route1PatrolAI.plist. There is a typo there, it should be route1patrolAI.plist. I'll be including some sort of fix in the next version of facelift. I'll Probably just copy the AI file with a different name.