Galactic Navy OXP - Mission Ideas Needed

[Hoopy]

by fairly small i mean that they were wiped out pretty quickly. I generally get 2 of the 3 lone frigates at the start. then once the main battle starts I get a couple of firgates, a couple of invaders and then hoover up a dozen inactive tharglets. The naval force doesn't really appear to take any losses.

I know people are meant to survive to do many missions, but since you can always hyperspace away I think it should be a bit harder. Maybe the odd Thargoid battleship to keep the naval frigates busy.

And maybe some of the battle could be smaller (eg 5 on each side), and some could be bigger. Just for more variation (with minimal coding effort for you!)

Could you get the thargons to arrive in the midst of the fleet sometimes as well? Like one of the missions in assassins (I think) where there's a huge battle all around the station.

Actually, the tharglets seems to be inactive even when there are some other thargons are about. Are they getting deactived when their parent dies instead of checking to see if anyone else can adopt them? That would make it harder!

One other suggestion, could you add a yes/no option when the mission is described? Or is it meant to be a case of 'you've signed up to the navy, you'll go where we tell you to go!'?

thankyou for making the OXP

edit: Have a look at Eric's comments at the end of https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.ph ... 4&start=30

[pagroove]

Wow these are big battles. Looks like Homeworld in Elite

[matt634]

Actually, the tharglets seems to be inactive even when there are some other thargons are about.

This is a bug I noticed after 1.70 was introduced. It has to do with new thargletAI and missing roles in the Thargorn Threat OXP - https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?t=4110

I just removed my edited Thargorn Threat OXP and reinstalled the stock version to see how the problem was affecting difficultly level - wow, I forgot how much of the Thargorn Threat I had altered. The Navy squashed the bugs no problem, and what were those thargoid frigates doing at the witchpoint!? That's not part of my script. I'm going to have to go back and specifically tune the ratio of battleships and cruisers to make the battles more difficult (I forgot I had made their occurrence more common than in the stock version). In playtesting with my altered version of Thargorn Threat the Navy was almost guaranteed to lose without serious help from the player

[matt634]

Alright, so I've got a new to do list:

- Fix the reset mission choice bug - thanks Eric
- Incorporate Battleships and Cruisers from Thargorn Threat into Galactic Navy OXP, so I can regulate their appearance and control mission difficulty.

[Hoopy]

is it possible to do some code to see which OXPs are installed? So if the payer has thargorn threat with all the tough ships in then it would automatically give you more navy ships to balance things up. (And vice versa if you had behemoth installed but not the thargon equivalent)

[Kaks]

You can from javascript. If the OXP you're looking for has a js world script you can have

Code: Select all

if(worldScripts['thatOtherScriptName']) {
//do whatever...
}

You can even check which version of 'thatOtherScriptName' you've got with

Code: Select all

worldScripts['thatOtherScriptName'].version;

Easy!

[matt634]

Greetings Everyone!

Galactic Navy Version 4 is now up on the wiki.

I've added a requires plist and squashed the mission clash bug. The biggest change, however, is in difficulty/satisfaction department. The battleships and cruisers from AH's Thargorn Threat OXP have been incorporated into version 4 - no dependancy issues. Navy pilots and reserve commanders will find thargoid fleets far more dangerous than before with increased numbers of the more powerful warships! I highly recommend trying out the reserve missions as they play totally different from before - longer, pitched battles and a real possibility of defeat without skilled support from the player.

Enjoy and discuss

[Ark]

Great job
Just 2 simple questions:

Is it necessary (since there is a dependency with behemoth oxp) for all the textures and models that already exist in the behemoth (navy-viper.dat etch) to exit also in the galactic navy oxp. Also what is the function of dark_metal.png and thargoid redux.png since they are already present in the textures folder of the main game? If you are using sung's textures not as an addon but you have overwrited the basic textures with them now there is a conflic (the original thargoid texture in your oxp will overwrite sung's)

Can I now remove (generally from the game) the thorgorn threat oxp? Or I still need it for other reasons that have nothing to do with Galactic navy oxp function.

[Eric Walch]

Also what is the function of dark_metal.png

dark_metal.png, metal.png and thargoid_redux.png should not be there as you correctly noticed. It is part of Oolite itself. But the bug was already in Thargorn_Threat that had them inside. Effectively one can remove all textures from Thargorn_Threat as they are duplicated of Oolite internal textures with the same name.

With this copies, when a new Oolite gets a improved version of these files, they get overwritten with old copies from Thargorn_Threat.

[Ark]

Also what is the function of dark_metal.png

But the bug was already in Thargorn_Threat that had them inside.

Not in the latest version of Thargorn_Threat
But what about the behemoth models and textures? If some day there will be an updated version of behemoth the new version will be partially override by galactic navy oxp (given the fact that in the next stable oxps will be loaded in an alphabetical order - thanks Ahruman!!!! - again).
Not to mention the waste of resources

[ovvldc]

IIRC, one should rename the models and textures when bringing them into one's own OXP.

That way they will not conflict if the original author changes something, and you are (temporarily) not around to carry over the change...

Or is there a smarter solution?

Best wishes,
Oscar

[JensAyton]

Having identical files with the same name in two OXPs is fine; only one copy will be used. Having non-identical files with the same names in two OXPs is unfine, because only one copy will be used. (This can happen accidentally; avoiding this is why model file names, texture file names, sound file names, script file names, script internal names, ship internal names and custom ship roles – and other things I probably forgot – should always be prefixed with the author’s name, the OXP’s name, or both.)

A problem arises when previously-identical files become non-identical.

[Commander McLane]

Indeed. For reference have a look into Anarchies1.0.oxp. It does use ships from other OXPs and therefore includes their textures and .dat-files. But all the files are renamed (also the ship definitions in shipdata.plist). So no conflicts can occur.

[Ark]

That was my point.

In the case of galactive navy oxp there is also a dependency with behemoth oxp so the existence of models and textures from the last oxp to the first (even if they have deferent names) is useless and potentially dangerous for the future.

From my point of view there are 2 ways of making an oxp that uses context from another

1.The way of little bear, commander mclane and others that they rename the textures, models etch .. taken from other oxps and make there own oxps totally independent and

2.The method of trident down oxp that have a direct dependency to other oxps and does not include anything from other oxps

Everything that is a mixture of the 2 above methods is potentially dangerous. In our case I do not see any reason why those textures and models from behemoth must also be in the galactive navy since there is a direct dependency. I think matt sould choose witch from the 2 above methodes is better for his oxp.

[Hoopy]

Good news - looking forward to playing the new version

One little feature request - could all the naval station be marked on the long range scanner in some way? I find I rarely do naval missions because i don't know where to go to get them and I haven't quite got round to printing out an annotated galactic chart for each galaxy.

Perhaps a blue crosshair symbol as that wouldn't clash with the red X used by other OXPs?