General Category > AI War
Defense Supply Mechanic
Wanderer:
The origination of this discussion:
--- Quote from: keith.lamothe on March 27, 2012, 11:28:23 AM ---
--- Quote from: GUDare on March 26, 2012, 09:25:04 PM ---I'm not really a fan of the beach-heading option, because my playstyle is dependent on the whipping boy being able to stand on its own without fleet intervention once it's up. One beach-head would wreck me utterly, unless I didn't whipping boy a choke planet, which seems counter-optimal to me.
--- End quote ---
Yea, I've noticed that tendency of yours ;) And ultimately the single-defensive-path thing is fun as long as it doesn't encapsulate all challenges. But I've been giving serious thought to an idea inspired by one of Hearteater's suggestions in the energy discussion. Not actually involving energy at all, but:
1) Assign each command station type a "Provides Defense Control" value.
2) Assign each "defensive" unit (so all turrets, forcefields, fortresses, etc) a "Consumes Defense Control" value.
3) If the total defense control consumption on a planet exceeds the provided defense control on that planet, all units that consume defense control act as if out-of-supply.
And that's it for the basic idea; there's other things that would need addressing like:
- how to handle balance in multiplayer (probably a planet with X control can support X control worth of units per player, rather than X total, since the incoming attacks are generally scaled up to match the number of players)
- the interface has to show these values on tooltips and probably the totals on the planet in the alert window
- the construction interface needs to not let you place stuff that would go beyond local defense control
- this would put more pressure on to balance the turrets amongst themselves, relative to their control-cost, as otherwise the "less desirable" turrets quickly get a backseat rather than being obvious "sure, throw that one in too" (which has its own issues, but I think is better than totally ignoring a unit)
- need to give mobile builders and/or new variant(s) of mobile builder provides-defense-control values (but probably there would be no stacking, the planet just has the highest value provided)
-- and with this, we could actually remove the restriction on human turrets, fortresses, forcefields, etc that they can only be used while in supply; you wouldn't be able to drop a lot of them "in the field" as presumably a mobile builder doesn't have much control.
Also thinking:
- A human home command station would provide effectively infinite control, so that if you absolutely positively must have a single planet with all the firepower, you can. It's just gotta be the one planet in the galaxy the AI wants to be on ;) Not that whipping-boy'ing the HW is non-viable (you've done it here to great effect), I just think it's probably a more interesting/tense situation than something safely separated.
- Logistics stations would have more control than Economic stations (econ stations may need a buff to energy production or something like that).
- Military stations would have more control than Logistics stations.
- With this, turrets could be buffed a bit (higher power, lower cost, etc). The result likely being a total increase in how effective a human defense can be across multiple planets, but without being able to always stop nearly any AI attack in the same 25 square foot area ;)
- As this would make planet-loss more common, it would be polite for me to provide some kind of ability to simply rebuild command stations without going through the manual process of building a colony ship, selecting the colony ship, ordering it to the target planet, waiting, selecting the colony ship, picking the station type, and placing the station.
Anyway, not dead-set on the idea, but it does seem like it would help keep things more dynamic and reduce complacency-in-defense (unless, of course, you have a Dyson Ball), as "complacent" is not typically a feeling associated by our players with "fun" :)
--- End quote ---
My followup opinions/etc to follow.
Wanderer:
Initial thoughts: Could have merit, but I'd have to redesign my strategy. That's not a bad thing though. In general it sounds more fun, so +1 for that. +2 for being able to deploy stronger and usable defenses on outliers in regards to satellite systems with Fact IVs, heavy Fabs, etc. -1 for breaking my shieldwall. ;)
So, to more details.
Instead of adjusting the existing command station, it might be more viable to create a reactor type unit that will allow supply. Using the existing mechanics from the reactors, additional 'defensive control units' would be less efficient, perhaps at a debilitating rate of 50%. You could even have two versions of this control tower, one for 'in supply', one for 'anywhere'.
This allows a few things:
1) Mobile Builders can construct the defensive control unit anywhere, allowing for beachheading and other off-world tactics.
2) If you REALLY want that 'extra edge' in a system, you can get it, but it can be prohibitive in cost and usage.
3) Cures the multiplayer problem by simply having both players build control towers.
Turret balance will include the new factor of control values. Starting with a cost of 1 for all turrets, 2 for snipers, is probably a good start until more effective balance discussions occur. It's not the implementation cost, just the discussion starter.
The Human Home command station providing infinite control could be avoided/dealt with by having it spawn with a non player buildable control tower, similar to Human Home Settlements.
Logistics/Military stations could simply add to the Control Tower values for the owning player for the system.
But, I LIKE the land of lightning!!!! Oh, alright. You're right though, the shield wall is not as 'fun', and soaks up almost all of my defenses so I rarely have much left to defend satellites. Turrets in general will need some buffing, though, I agree.
As to rebuilds, yes, that would be much handier than me having to make sure any of my edge worlds that get constant wave bombardments always have a cloaked transport one system over waiting to rebuild. :)
Wanderer:
Oh, another option would be to give the different stations multipliers to control towers in their systems. This would allow them to affect the diminishing returns builds as well and would probably be more 'tweakable'.
Hearteater:
Another question is what should use Defensive Supply? All offensive turrets obviously, but what about:
Fortress?
Counter-Dark Matter/Missile?
Tachyon Emitters?
Tractor Turrets?
Gravity Turrets?
Force Fields?
Mines?
Maybe Fortresses should actually supply a small amount of DS instead. So they could support some turrets even if a Mobile Builder wasn't present.
Wanderer:
--- Quote from: Hearteater on March 27, 2012, 02:13:38 PM ---Another question is what should use Defensive Supply? All offensive turrets obviously, but what about:
Fortress?
Counter-Dark Matter/Missile?
Tachyon Emitters?
Tractor Turrets?
Gravity Turrets?
Force Fields?
Mines?
Maybe Fortresses should actually supply a small amount of DS instead. So they could support some turrets even if a Mobile Builder wasn't present.
--- End quote ---
For sanity sake I'm going to call it Defensive Control, as supply has an in-context meaning already, and will still apply for K-Raids and similar activities. I already have enough problems differentiating between Bomber Fleet and Bomber SS and Spire Fleet Ship vs. Spirecraft in my AARs... :)
Mines should be control-less. FFs and Counter turrets too, in my mind, for sanity's sake. However, anything that 'defends' the system should be given a control value. I like the idea of Fortresses (and perhaps MRS) being given additional control values, but I could break the mechanic like that by overwhelming a whipping boy with fortresses. It could add in a pretty significant variable. Personally I think that simply lacking a control value and needing supply will be enough to satisfy them for their price/power in this scenario.
Of course, the 'support turrets' to me for a fortress is ~20 snipers for anti-polycrystal work, which would be ~40 of any other turret in theory once balanced.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version