I spent all night trying make the Gravity Accelerators work as a percentage, not a flat bonus. I couldn't figure out how.
But I did move them up in the tech tree- they're under Extended Life Support, they give a +2 bonus, and the cost a little less. I'll play tonight to see if it's balanced.

I'm a bit confused, some of the posts contradict each other. What does Mind Control actually does? What about other wonders that are ill described, what do they do? What about goverments? Anyone who has checked this can make it clear please?

Well, the mind control center, by description, is supposed to make planets that are revolting defect almost immediaty. Instead, it gives you an Empire wide 100% to economy.

The governments do not do what they say they do in their descriptions. (i.e. +25/50/75% to production and research.) I am guessing that they actually make the bonus and economic bonus instead since the only thing I seem to get from a better government is more money, not that that is a bad thing, I'd just like the prouction and research bonus later in the game when money doesn't matter.

Miniaturization should be called Expansion as it increases the size of the ship hulls; the size of components increase in size as the hull size increases. Since floating point values always are rounded down and most components have relatively small size, the miniaturation would often be lost if they applied to components. Yet another reason to round off floating point values to the nearest!

I would agree with you if it weren't for enhanced miniaturization actually causing some hulls to decrease in size. My initial understanding was that to avoid dramatic rounding that they were going to just increase available hull space so that their would be a benefit with each tech.

Besides, the descriptions of the miniaturization techs all say , in a nut shell, they make everything smaller. So why call it expansion when you aren't expanding? I do think to some extent it is expansion since components are getting bigger with each tech, but only changing once it clears each whole number. This is especially noticeable on the massive hulls! An Impulse Drive MkIII goes from a size 9 up to a 13 with no miniaturization when it's 9, and full miniaturization when it's 13.

Lastly, opinion only, and I've probably said it earlier. They should stop making components get larger as miniaturization gets better. Isn't the purpose of miniaturization to make components smaller without losing their effectiveness?

REALLY lastly, I may have said this earlier as well, but why should, for example, a Phasor VII takes up about twice as much space between a medium hull and a massive hull. So shouldn't a weapon that is twice as large do at least twice the damage?

Space consumed by one Impulse-III engine, on each hull, at each level of miniaturization:

Impulse.3	Normal	Basic	Enhanced	Advanced	Expert	Ultimate	Supreme
Tiny	4	5	5	5	5	5	5
Small	5	5	5	6	6	6	7
Medium	6	6	6	7	7	7	8
Large/Cargo	7	7	8	8	9	9	10
Huge	8	9	10	10	11	12	13

Componant size increase with hull size increase is a game feature.

But to have componant sizes increase as the level of miniaturization goes up is counter-intuitive and thwarts the use of larger hulls and miniaturization. Both of those techs are valued by the A.I., so it is also counter-productive with respect to breeding competetive enemies.

Or maybe there's a positive that should be a negative somewhere? This table would make more sense if the columns were reversed. Like if the row for Huge went from 8 down to around 5 instead of from 8 up to 13.

Then big ships with miniaturization would be deadly, and become an important race.

anyone take a look at the planetary improvments file? Tons of buildings that never made it acctually in the tech tree.

The same engine taking up more space on a larger ship makes perfect sense. Larger ships have more mass to move, so they need larger engines. Weapons taking up more space is completely illogical. A bigger weapon that does the same damage as the little one?

The thing I don't understand about miniaturization is that the name implies that something is getting smaller. What is getting smaller? Hulls and weapons get bigger, but nothing really miniaturizes!

If the miniaturization worked logically (decreases space of components, doesn't increase hull space [ship size could still increase the size of some components]), there would be one major problem:

100% miniaturization. You can suddenly place an infinit amount of components on a ship. Every component has size 0.

But this could be fixed with a miniaturization cap somewhere between 50 and 100% and having the miniaturization-techs etc. give a much smaller benefit.

Also, rounding will much more often than now negate small miniaturization-bonuses if it was changed to this.

If the miniaturization worked logically (decreases space of components, doesn't increase hull space [ship size could still increase the size of some components]), there would be one major problem: 100% miniaturization. You can suddenly place an infinit amount of components on a ship. Every component has size 0. But this could be fixed with a miniaturization cap somewhere between 50 and 100% and having the miniaturization-techs etc. give a much smaller benefit. Also, rounding will much more often than now negate small miniaturization-bonuses if it was changed to this.

That's why I was saying don't even bother with changing the size of the compenents, just keep miniaturization as it is where it adds to the hull size, thus making miniaturization techs have the value of it function as a multiple of rather than a percent difference. Thus you wouldn't have to bother changing any of the techs or variables really.

So a Massive hull with size 80 (At least I think it's 80 initially) with a 50% miniaturization bonus would make it a size 120, and a miniaturization of 100% would make it a size 160. So hull capacity would be figured as a formula:

Initial Hull size x (1 + Miniaturization bonus% / 100%*) = final hull size

*- or if you understand percentages as a value and not a percentage only, 100% would translate to 1.00, and 75% would translate to 0.75. This would change the * part to just the value of the percentage miniaturization.

As I said, this makes miniaturization function as a multiple rather than an actual percentage. I believe they do this because you could essentially conquer everyone's Hyperion Shrinker and then make components that would take up virtually no space, if any. Heh, and if you get above 100%, then it would make the hull get bigger as you stuffed more components in it.

I think it already functions like that to calculate hull space, but it just makes the components bigger, which makes no sense at all.

In fact, the Imperial (or Imperator, as it is technically called) is 1.6 km long, while the Executor is 17.2 km long. Eclipse is 16 km, but has greater mass than the Executor. /Pedantry

Heh, Star Wars n00b... The Imperator was not the technical name of the Imperial Class Star Destroyer. It was the actual name of one of the Imperial Star Destroyers (Wether it was an Imperial 1 or 2, I can't remember). Although I might be mistaken and it may have been the name for one of the predecesors to the Imperial Class (The Victory Class) Star Destroyers.

The Executor was the first Super-class Star Destroyer. It was the same as all the other Super Class at about 8km in length. The only significant difference being it was the first and was given to Darth Vader as his personal flagship shortly after the Battle of Yavin. Admiral Ozzel was the original commander of it. He was the one that Darth Vadar killed in The Empire Strikes back near the beginning when the Imperial fleet jumped too close to Hoth, making them visible to Rebel sensors. Ozzel thought element of surprise would be best, obviously Vader disagreed... Command was then given to Admiral Piett. The Executor was destroyed at the Battle of Endor when Rebel fighters destroyed it's two shield generators, followed by a Rebel A-Wing intentionally smashed into the bridge thus going out of control and smashing into the second Death Star. (Although it didn't look like it was intentional, but that's their story and they're sticking to it! ) Of course, for a dramatic affect, it happened to just hit the right spot that would cause an enormous explosion. Aren't movie effects great?

As for all this strange business with miniaturisation and balancing, surely the best thing to do would be to radically rejig the logistics system. Having two (small) fighters being equivalent to a (huge) battleship is ludicrous, and by the time you have hulls on that scale, anyone sensible will have lots of logistics. So make use of them! That way, lots of little fighters will still match up against one massive battleship, without worrying about scaling up weapons. Defences, engines and life support would still scale, but nothing else. Has this already been suggested?

Yes, it probably has been suggested many times, but we have yet to see any sort of reply...

What I find funny was that I started this thread talking mostly about buildings and Super Projects that seem to have no functionality, or at least the functionality they say they have.

If you're going to get picky about language, and call someone a noob, you should know that the Executor was not a "Super-class Star Destroyer", it was a "Super Star Destroyer class" ship.

I am not being picky about language, I was pointing out an error the guy made, just like I am correcting yours... The Star Destroyer is a type of ship, if it be a Victory, Imperial, Imperial II, Super, or even Eclipse, those are the classes of Star Destroyers. So by me saying "Imperial class Star Destroyer", I was using a more extended term rather than the simpler term, which I probably should have used since it's more common.

However, they are all Star Destroyers. The Imperial class became the standard after replacing the Victory class, since the Victory class is better used for orbital bombardments than ship-to-ship combat. Only one Eclipse class was ever made, which isn't surprising since it's 16km long, or approximately 10 miles long. Although I can't remember what happened to it, I mean, come on, how do you lose track of a ship that is 10 miles long?!? Although, I guess that is possible since the Empire also lost track of a giant battle moon (The Eye of Palpatine) shortly after it was built I think about 18 years before the battle of Yavin. Luke met one of his many loves on it, Callista. However, I am getting off track... again...

The Star Destroyer was originally designed by Lira Wessex. She is the daughter of a supposedly famed Old Republic engineer and designer, Wallex Blissex. Once again another tid bit that isn't really important but interesting none the less...

Anymore questions? I think I need to make it look like I have a life at least and not get into in-depth detail about Star Wars. And no... I have never been to a Star Wars convention, never even knew they existed, but not interested either way.

Zerogman: Let me introduce you to some REAL SW fanatics. If they saw your comments, they would not be happy. Here: Link This page is devoted to the common mile-long destroyer known to the forces of the Galactic Empire as the Imperator-class star destroyer, and colloquially known as Imperial star destroyer to rebel operatives.

Eh, this arguement again... Wether to call it an Imperial-Class, or Imperator-class, can both have arguements... I chose to side with the Imperial-class because that seems to be referenced as a class, and the Imperator is always referred to as the name of a ship. The only reference, at least that I've noticed, to it being an Imperator-class was from some blueprints created in real life, not in the Star Wars Universe. I am sure the site used those blueprints as a reference... Looking at the bottom of the site too, I noticed it was a single guy with a good amount of references.

And the Executor: Link Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts (“Super Star Destroyers”) And finally, Executor length: Link

Yeah, heard that, the Executor is 8 times the size of a normal star destroyer... Here's another arguement. I am prone to believe the "over 8km in length" side... What makes sense to me, is the over 8m in length since it can conincide with the 10 - 12 times the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer. (Which doesn't mean 10-12 times in length, but in volume as a whole)

Taken from part of that guys website:
"At one stage, Kenner considered including an item based on the Executor in their toy line. The developers considered the ship's true name too scary for children, so they invented the “super star destroyer” label. This term is insensitive to realistic naval terminology,..."

It's a toy, they can call it whatever they want so long as they pay the royalty to, and probably even get approval from, LucasFilm Ltd.. So what he said is also an opinion based upon fact, not an actual fact in itself. Last part mentions it being insensitive to realistic naval terminology. Unfortunately, he's assuming that the space military forces use our real life form of naval terminology, which it obviously doesn't since the movies (Which are the Star Wars equivalent to the Bible) never give any ships the prefix abbreviation like we give our navy. (Like the U.S.S. Enterprise for the U.S. navy).

Also, the Star Destroyer/Dreadnaught arguement is a no contest win in my opinion for all of them being Star Destroyers. This guy's site says they used the term "Destroyer" to specify size. However, this would be basing it upon our own system for size. I believe they are all Star Destroyers since the Empire ruled through fear, and Star Destroyer would literally mean a destroyer of stars and seems like a more fitting logic for the Imperials. A Star Dreadnaught can also be turned into a Star battleship, or Star Patrol Ship, if you assume the title after Star refers to it's size, but that makes it sound like the base design of the ships was "Star", which I HIGHLY doubt would be the case.

This can also agree with making the Victory, Imperial, Imperial II, Super, and Eclipse classes for Star Destroyers. Just because the Executor was the name of the very first Super Star Destroyer doesn't mean they are all going to be called Executor class Star Destroyers. The Executor was the name of the ship, just like Han owns the Millenium Falcon. Speaking of which, the system the guy uses above (Calling them Executor class since the Executor was the name of the first one) would mean that the very first YT-1300 light freighter was named YT-1300. Now who names a ship YT-1300? Finally this same arguement I use for the "Imperator-class" Star Destroyers... So the very first Imperator Star Destroyer was named the Imperator? (Kinda redundant if you think about it) So the newer, and more commonly used term, Imperial, and Super, Star Destroyers seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Also, just because two Super star destroyers aren't the exact same (i.e. The Lusankya and The Executor) doesn't neccesarily make them different classes of Star Destroyers. For example, every Mon Calamari Cruiser is unique, since they are constructed by hand I think, but no matter what differences they have, they are all called Mon-Calamari Cruisers.

In closing, nobody is 100% correct unless it comes from Lucas himself, is mentioned in the movies, or is a publication directly from LucasFilm Ltd.. It's all up to you as to what to think, just back up any statements you make so you can have an arguement, thus sometimes spinning off new ideas and theories. The "Star Wars Encyclopedia" from Del Rey, in my opinion, is the best single source for referencing anything Star Wars. I say this since Del Rey published most, if not all, Star Wars Essentials books, used about 100+ sources for it, and the main author has the largest private collection of Star Wars memorabilia in the world (Last I heard at least), so you know this guy is definately a nerd!

I agree with the Gravity Accelerators, which is why I changed the initial value of 1 to 5. Tried 10 but it doesn't balance with the rest of the elements. By the time I get around to building it I am starting to dominate the map.

Thats the beauty of the game and editing the xml files. Don't like something, change it. Comparing loading the game and changing the xml file, about the same time.

I had put a little work into finding the absolute best combination of weapon size and miniaturization, but if they're going to tweak things like that without telling us I better not continue. (For example, the best and cheapest Beam ship with 2 power is a small hull with Laser II and Impulse II. For three power research to Advanced Miniaturization (cheaper than Laser III) and Impulse III.)

I had put a little work into finding the absolute best combination of weapon size and miniaturization, but if they're going to tweak things like that without telling us I better not continue. (For example, the best and cheapest Beam ship with 2 power is a small hull with Laser II and Impulse II. For three power research to Advanced Miniaturization (cheaper than Laser III) and Impulse III.)

From what I've experienced, it seems that +100% miniaturization is the best legit level of miniaturization. That's just researching every miniaturization tech and not building a Hyperion Shrinker.

I've stolen 3 other Hyperion Shrinkers from enemy A.I.'s, and the last one, the one that put me at +160% actually hurt more than helped, the only hull size it improved was the Medium, and all of my previous Massive hull designs were now over-sized so I won't be able to upgrade them unless I drop a component or two.

Zerogman: fine by me. You've clearly thought through it and made your own decisions. We'll just agree to disagree...

Heh, good, so does that mean you are a follower of a side, or are you just waiting to see what comes of the squabbling? Given a strong enough arguement, I might be able to waiver a bit on some of those things I mentioned, but the one that I am 100% not moving on was the "Star Destroyer" part. "Star Destroyer" is the name of the base model (well, not really 100% a model, but for explanation sake, it's still easier to understand.) of the ship. It sounds destructive, especially when one considers the power needed to destroy a star! Heh, Luke Skywalker's name was originally going to be Luke Starkiller, that just seemed to harsh (or evil) for his character.

Lastly, thank you guys for getting back on track of the topic! I do enjoy talking/debating/arguing Star Wars, but I didn't intend to start this thread about it, someone just got me started and I forgot to stop... again...

Also, I think I am going to try and see what happens in a non-Metaverse game if I give myself a negative miniaturization value... might be interesting... might do nothing... or it might crash the game. (Most likely outcome)