[aipz]

Will there be a beta/alpha version available for download?
Even if it's only 2-3 missions long I'm sure it is worth downloading!
The possibility to play so many races is really exciting....

[madaboutgames]

Sounds good.

[IPAndrews]

Originally posted by aipz
Will there be a beta/alpha version available for download?
Even if it's only 2-3 missions long I'm sure it is worth downloading!
The possibility to play so many races is really exciting....

Bit of a hitch, my partner had to give her laptop computer back to her workplace. So home work on BHX has halted. That said, I'm sure I can release something that meets your basic criteria.

It is quite useful to have around just to see all those obscure TBP ships you never see used in a campaign in combat. Also I was really surprised how it changed the feel of TBP to play as a race like the Centauri or the Shadows.

[Sigma957]

I look forward to playing this

[IPAndrews]

Ok I've been doing some work on this campaign and it has become obvious that it needs some variation in backgrounds. Currenlt all missions just get the box standard starfield.pof skybox and nothing else.

The reason for this is that I don't want all my missions to have the same background nebulae and currently there is no SEXP to change a nebulae bitmap. So I've left the nebulae bitmaps out.

Now. There is a change skybox bitmap. But as I said that is being used for the starfield background. Of course, if someone could make a collection of skyspheres which was textured both Cannondoffer's startfield background AND some nebulae at the same time? Well then I could have each mission pick a random background at startup and that would be rather nice.

Anyone fancy having a go at this? Know of anyone I could ask? Personally I do not know my way around any 2D art packages well enough and besides, I have no artistic talent at all.

and well, I need a favour off someone. I need a 3D/2D artist to procude me a collection of sky sphere backgrounds.

Spheres created in a 3d modelling package with a wrap-around background texture. The texture should be based on cannonfodder's excellent starfield background, with some of our nebulae stuck on it in a vaguely artistic fashion.

The reason I need this is because FRED has a change skybox pof sexp. So I can have my missions select a skybox at random when they start. Unfortunately there can only be one skybox so that single skybox must include the starts and any nebulae. Also there is no equivilent sexp for changing background nebulae in a mission. So the skybox method is the way to go.

The reason I'm asking someone else to do this? Well firstly my 2D art skills such quite badly. Secondly I don't know my way around any 2D art package well enough to do the job.

[stithe2000]

Well... This is something you can add onto the existing TBP stuff, so possibly all the B5 races! Sounds fun IP!

[IPAndrews]

What the star/neb skyspheres? I doubt they'd be any use to anyone. They're only of use to me so I can use the skybox change sexp.

As for race support. BHX supports 10 factions/races. Some of them seem to crash the game though

[Azrael15]

Which ones are they IP?

[IPAndrews]

The League of Non-Aligned worlds and The Shadows. I was especially sad to see issues with The Shadows. Wanting to fight a campaign against them was part of my motivation for bothering in the first place. Missions with either race tend to play for a while and then just CTD. The debug version of the game doesn't even give an error!

It's probably something to do with either AI goals or support ships. I suspect AI goals because I'm giving my ships orders in FRED and chen changing the ship model at the start of the mission. Possibly to something that isn't compatible with the AI goal. Although the changes are generally to ships of the same type. ie: fighter for a fighter, cruiser for a cruiser. Support ships have also caused problems in the past. Usually when a pof hasn't been set up exactly right for the ship to dock.

So far this is certainly proving to be one hell of an unstable campaign. I wouldn't recommend trying to build a campaign like this to anyone. Stick with linear ones they're much less hassle.

[IPAndrews]

Small update: Trivial Psychic sat down and tackled the mind numbingly boring job of ensuring all TBP small craft had correct docking paths. Now BHX no longer crashes and I can fly as The Shadows. BHX is back on

Currently working on an intermission mission. Which essentially is a big cutscene mission that's called after every mission is completed that sets up the next mission and reports various campaign statistics such as casualties, territorial advantage, and anything else I think of.

This is quite useful because it means I don't have to include all the campaign calculation and next mission selection sexps in every mission now. Just ensure the imtermission mission is called each time.

[ramsboy]

glad bhx is back on hope you release it when you are finished! like the idea of cutscene missions after every mission will give a real feeling of involvement

[aipz]

What to say more...
The BHX has the biggest potential of all campaigns as it can simulate almost every possible conflict:dizzy:

[karajorma]

That's pretty much the same sort of thing I did with the Shop level on the multiplayer campaign I was working on that used the same sort of FRED tricks.

As always I'm interested in seeing how this works IP

[IPAndrews]

What determines how many ships a race brings to a battle? How many ships their race had to start with? How many they have lost during the campaign? How many pilots they have left? Those all seem pretty much a given. On the other hand should the current state of the war affect how many ships they have available? So for example if a race is currently losing the war and on the retreat, should that mean they tend to have fewer than normal ships available in a battle? Also what about big inbalances in the resources of two races. There are few Vorlons for example, but lots of Humans. So if the Vorlons and Humans met in battle on the front lines under normal conditions should the Humans have more ships in each battle than the Vorlons?

I'm just thinking out loud here really but if anyone wants to chip in with some ideas or opinions they would be much appreciated.

[aipz]

The differences in the number of ships in the first battles should't be too big...
If the race is losing badly, yes they should have fewer ships available due to tremendous losses suffered, while the advancing race should have a normal number of craft available...

About the starting resources:
- each race should have many pilots available, but their numbers should replenish slowly
 (it takes time to train a pilot)
-more technologically advanced races should have fewer capships in each battle due to their sheer firepower...
- also territory can affect the number of available craft to certain extent...
(large=normal number of ships
small/losing war=smaller quantinities of ships available)

[aipz]

If the war takes quite a long time that would mean all fighting sides have fewer craft available...

[IPAndrews]

Originally posted by aipz
-more technologically advanced races should have fewer capships in each battle due to their sheer firepower...

You're suggesting this for gameplay reasons I suspect? Do you think this is a good idea? Penalising a race for being technologically advanced I mean? I am of the opinion that if you (as a player) choose to fight a war as the League of Non Aligned Worlds against the Vorlons you pretty much know you've set yourself a difficult challenge

On the other hand the really advanced races like the Vorlons, Shadows, and Drakh do have less ships and pilots than the younger races. So maybe they should have less ships on that basis alone. The difference is that a calculation based on available ships might change as the campaign progresses and one or both sides takes losses. For example in a war between the EA and the Vorlons the Vorlons might destroy many of the EA's ships, reducing their numerical advantage over time.

Originally posted by aipz - also territory can affect the number of available craft to certain extent... (large=normal number of ships small/losing war=smaller quantinities of ships available) [/B]

Well as you lose territory you'll lose ships and pilots. Which could reduce the size of your battle groups as discussed above. Would that be sufficient or do you believe that having a small territory specifically would mean a race fielding less ships per engagement? If so I'm interested in hearing more about that.

Thanks for the feedback.

[IPAndrews]

Originally posted by aipz
If the war takes quite a long time that would mean all fighting sides have fewer craft available...

Yes that's true. Battles will start off big and become gradually smaller. This also acts as a tie breaking mechanism. Since outright victories in battles (such as planetary assaults) are more likely if small numbers of ships are involved.

I actually believe FIFA should use this as a tiebreaking mechanism for football/soccer games where a result is required. Keep the "golden goal" rule but also take one player off each side every 5 minutes. I reckon if both sides are left with 1 player each on the pitch you're going to get a goal and a result

[aipz]

Well as you lose territory you'll lose ships and pilots. Which could reduce the size of your battle groups as discussed above. Would that be sufficient or do you believe that having a small territory specifically would mean a race fielding less ships per engagement? If so I'm interested in hearing more about that.

Smaller territory limits the number of several aspects:
1. military stations/bases
2. number of planets which have specialised orbital shipyards
( they can't build many ships at one time to increase their numbers or replenish losses)
3. if a race has only several vital planets which house all of the  key infrastructure then that means "you lose if you lose them"
4. less resources to build spaceships like Quantium 40

So I think that races with smaller territory simply have smaller fleets because they can't afford to supply larger ones (or they would have to do that at the cost of their citizens - a similar concept appeared in an old game called Master of Orion 2: Battle at Antares:
you needed space stations and communications to provide command points which limited the maximum size of your fleet, also government type was  important - democracy had less command points than an empire, you could always built more ships but that drained your cash )

ou're suggesting this for gameplay reasons I suspect? Do you think this is a good idea? Penalising a race for being technologically advanced I mean? I am of the opinion that if you (as a player) choose to fight a war as the League of Non Aligned Worlds against the Vorlons you pretty much know you've set yourself a difficult challenge

Well, generally speaking yes...
Such races have a really huge advantage so they are able to decimate  the younger races without any difficulties

Of course as you said the First Ones
aren't in such numbers as they were in  the preevious eras, because mainly the Shadows and Vorlons stayed in the known galaxy...

So I would suggest to limitate their numbers for simple game balance like 1/2 or 1/3

[Azrael15]

Don't reduce the ships of the FO races. I don't think they had less, if anything they had more. Remember, the Vorlons had three Planet Killers, that shows some pretty good industrial capacity.

EDIT/ Remember, the Vorlons had been gearing up for the annihilation of the Shadows for quite some time...

And the Shadows were rebuilding as well, uncovering old ships and creating new ones. /EDIT

Like you said, if you want to play the League taking on the Vorlons, then, well, you better be ready for some hard fighting.

Plus, what happens if you have the Vorlons taking on the Shadows? They wouldn't fight each other will small fleets...