Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Would it pose any problems I'm not seeing?
Hi,
One problem I'm having in my TC is having random missions limited to parts of a government's territory (because the government's territory is split in distant parts and I want missions inside one part to earn a lot less than between two parts). About the only hack I've thought off that could solve this is to make "sub-governments" for the primary government, one for each part, which would be allied to the main one and share its rules and and enemies. Those sub-governments would only be used for spöbs, and missions could then be targeted to one of those in particular. Now, it should work, but I am wondering whether there might not be some weird side-effects - like say differences legal status between the different governments. Would someone with more experience of the EVN engine have an opinion on this, or an alternative workaround to propose? Thanks.
In the original EV, the makers of the game used a similar technique to make "crazed fleets." They made governments with the same name, but with different rules of engagement, so that these fleets would be more likely to attack an enemy ship, even an ally ship, than ordinary fleets. Plus they were allied together so that whatever you did to the "crazed fleets" would come around to bite you in the form of the normal government.
I see no problems with the idea you have proposed.
Historically crafting such "hidden" resources has been done often to work around some limitations and it's a viable technique. However, you need to be careful, for instance I think that even if they are allied, you'd better set the same government for a system and the planets inside it, and the düdes inside the system.
@zacha-pedro, on Oct 1 2006, 06:35 PM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
Hmm, I was thinking of only applying it to the spöbs... Is there any precise reason why I would need to do it to the s˙st and düde too?
Well, I know that there is one and only one legal status per system, the one for the government that owns the system, and when planets decide to let you land or not it's based on this legal status. Other than that, no precise reason, just my guts of someone who's been tinkering (though I admit not with any regularity recently) with EVs for some time already.
@zacha-pedro, on Oct 1 2006, 04:13 PM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
Actually, I think it keeps track of every government's status in every system. There's a lot left to be explained if there's only one legal status counter.
@orcaloverbri9, on Oct 2 2006, 01:10 AM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
I've heard it's a mixture. I'm definitely running into some anomalies in my TC with mixed systems: spaceports belonging to a different government refusing the player landing if he is badly seen by the system's government; even if the spob's gov likes him. Don't think there is a work-around, unfortunately, so I'll just try and limit those cases in my scenario and justify the remaining one by the weak spob gov not wanting to anger the system's dominant one
Override did the same thing, like with the Miranu, a mission where several Miranu fighters were trying to destroy you to prevent the ski resort to come to fruition, these dudes had a clone Miranu government that was not assigned as an ally to the original Miranu government, because in this way, if you happened to destroy one of the fighters, you wouldn't face reprisal in the face of the original Miranu whom you've become friends with.
Like?... (I'm not telling you must be wrong, I'm just curious of what data you may have and that can not be properly explained by the one-status-per-syst theory, so that I may try investigating it if I have time, and might lead to a breakthrough and a new theory)
@kinniken, on Oct 2 2006, 12:20 PM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
So, you're making mixed systems. Be careful, you will indeed run into such things.
@zacha-pedro, on Oct 3 2006, 10:24 PM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
I know, but I really don't have a choice, scenario-wise. I'll just do what I can to minimise them as much as possible.
@zacha-pedro, on Oct 3 2006, 04:24 PM, said in "Hidden" sub-governments for better mďsn control:
Well, there are a couple things. First, you can be attacked in uninhabited systems even if you don't ave an enemy ship. I was playing a plug-in for the EVC port, and there was a government which replaced the Letheans and Cydonians. This government attacked me on sight. I found the source of the problem in its single relationship with another government, that being that it was set to be enemies with the Pirates. Given that my legal status was plenty high that they should not attack me, it would require that I be in good - or rather, not bad - standing with the pirates in that system (who knows why). I should note that resetting my legal status with every government did nothing - only after I removed the Pirates from the enemies of the government did they leave me alone. Additionally, you can get attacked by enemy governments in the same system - you can get attacked by Feds and Aurorans in a Fed or Auroran system, for instance.
My theory is that it keeps track of your status with every government in every system, and applies changes to each according to the allies and enemies.
This post has been edited by orcaloverbri9 : 03 October 2006 - 10:57 PM