Without seeing how you intend to implement this by civ, it is impossible to comment on the 25% figure. On the surface it still seems that the numbers will favor Ripchee if hulls are not redesigned so that they carry a more equivalent number of troops to the other civs, given that they have equal strength as PR and are stronger than Mankind.
In general I would concur that a fully defended Mankind planet should not be able to be conquered by only an invasion fleet of ANY Civ without bombing first.
Also I ran a couple of calculations and I believe some of your base numbers on the hulls are incorrect. I won’t do them all, I’ll allow you to verify them first.
I also still feel that assault troops do not belong on corvettes, Ripchee can still bring 257k troops cloaked for an invasion on a lesser developed or small planet. This should not be allowed to happen at W9, cloaked.
I think that’s will ruin the game. I’ve explained why before and don’t want to repeat. As for me such a thing will makes my playing much more simple and grant a lot of free time because with such a changes there is no any reason to spent time for PvP activity. Piecefull development in area far from other players will be much more beneficial. No PvP - minimal time for outscape to play. I will play something more interesting instead.
LOL tbh I was away and am not absolute sure. Hopefully @Pepelekus will explain his technique to me later
But I do see the point, if you conquer a planet held by your own race then = INSTANT FRESH TROOPS!
Madness utter madness, just one more example where the game mechanics (because nobody has just thought about what sort of thing happens in real life and pulled a game mechanic outta thin air) failed to consider the consequences of the mechanic.
I am not talking about every obscure permutation of every action, just a half minutes thought would have seen a “cool down/Pacification” period on a new conquest (as every invader in human history has proved) is 100% needed to prevent an unrealistic snowballing juggernaut effect. Pepe did us all a favour by demonstrating it so graphically. I think the tester base here are basically nice guys (gals?) and don’t play like beasts unless given an opportunity like Skirmish and even then most held back. He didn’t and the games development is the better for it - or it may be if the lessons are learned. Lets not forget the idea of Skirmish was a community proposed one a LOOOOOONG time ago, we finally got it and we learned a LOT in one month!
This is what frustrates me, its like we get a rule change proposed and it takes less than a second to see that less than a Minute was taken considering the logical consequences of said change! The DEVS must love being flamed as all it takes is a moments thought to see where most of these changes of late have been bad ideas or have obvious flaws.
The correct process is:
Brainstorm an idea (or listen to feed back)
Consider a change
Ask yourselves “What would real people do if that happened”
Amend adjust as needed
Repeat step 3, if you cant think of any THEN (and only then)
Propose it to community
Propose amended version
Repeat 6, if nothing drastic is flagged then:
Build some code and patch into game for testing under live conditions.
Why is this so hard to grasp? Just… just bring in Step 3 above and you’ll save so much time and wasted effort…
It just bothers me that I can create troops from the extra population from my planets, but I can in no way use those troops to defend an embattled planet, only invade, so to do those troops defensively, I need to let my opponent invade my planet, and then invade my own world…
If I could at least add my own troops to that planet and fight it out, the issue described by the devs, while still significant, changes and is more balanced. We also really need ally and alliance (2 different sets) of notifications. Players may decide its in their interests to pay each other to watch over their territories while they are away, giving way to another long set of coding that needs to be added, when a player tells his fleet to deploy troops, he needs to be able to tell the game if he’s a defender or invader.
I dont know the background of our devs, but i do have some personal experience with this. the process can sometimes be a long one when it can be much faster to just do it and then ask for forgiveness if things go awry. While i agree, it is much easier on us to see where the devs are coming from and help them plan the path forward, we did sign up to test their ideas.
As much as i dont like the direction the game is going in, i hope the features were removed to add something better.
Also, i just now looked up how many troops mankind can have on a corvette and am not happy that not only do mankind have the fewest troops to transport across the board, but ripchee can have almost 6 times my max capacity on theirs.
This is very true. Its also a great way to alienate folks. Frankly if they wanna throw stuff out “just to see if it flys” i am good with that. What I am less good with is the stone walling when great swathes of the community say “uh uh no nope don’t do that it’ll not… Uh the numbers say different… Well I ran the numbers and…” and yet STILL they carry on. That’s not trying stuff out on testers that steamrollering the folks you asked to help you in defiance of reasoned calculated arguments often backed up with in game examples.
Eaiser sure, dumb though. Plus doing stuff (apparently) hit and miss will indeed make for just as longer process. More sensible would be to listen to the few thousand folks they have signed up. Though the level of participation in the open forum is poor, but that in itself begs the quest ion :Why As you say we did sign up to test their ideas. I have very little patience for folks that wont actually test, though I acknowledge that given the lack of feed back from many may simply be saying “why should I bother, others have said it already…”
That is a terrible mistake on the communities part. Its like democrasy the moment you stop doing it you loose it by default. Joe has been pretty good at times saying “because the community feels so strongly we…” Had more folks chipped in their opinion we might not be where we are.
You forgot to add Mankind alone have 1.0 Troop rating so they have less troops and less effective troops…
I seem to recall many moons ago there was plans for a rework on how Mil bases produced troops. If that’s correct then all this blathering from us (and changes they make to the game) are rather pointless as when you do that you change the whole metric once more.
Fix root causes not symptoms. We have an over simplified system that is not fit for purpose. Add in some properly explained and documented complications and the whole experience improves tenfold…
I only just realized how unclear i actually was. I meant that it is wise to talk things over and come up with solutions, but like me with my wife about how to do the work around my house, it is rather pointless and makes more sense for me to just do it the best way and then ask for forgiveness afterwards rather than talking it over with her and then having to make my own decision.
Just because we all like option A better, doesn’t mean its the best when it takes 10 times the effort to code and puts 5 times the weight on the server. I am always trying to be sensitive to the fact that i do not know what the devs can see, while also trying to impress upon them what i see. For example, removing 1 favored feature is bad, but maybe there is a good reason for it. Removing a lot of good features without really replacing them with anything substantive leaves me wondering, which is why i spit ball a lot of ideas.
I am having some trouble explaining more clearly than this, but if they ask for our feedback, they should at least inform us why our feedback isn’t sufficient for example, option B is better than A, it’s just going to take a few steps to get there.
I suck as a programmer but I have done enough of it to have near limitless sympathy for those that have a gift in that area trying to achieve something wonderful.
I wish with all my heart though that some of the well reasoned and logical arguments & suggestions given here (and in this I discount ALL my own posts - many other have made much better contributions that I have!) would be just tried: they are so much better than some of the things done over the last year.
Back to topic then: So if each Mil Base did a few things we would all like it I suspect:
They slowly convert Population to troops at a set speed per hour based on the Race & the Tech level of the Mil Base
They hold a maximum amount of troopers based on their Tech level.
When you load troops onto a Space ship fleet it comes off the trained troops currently held in the Mil Bases. If you didn’t have enough then tough!
Something like that I think? Opinions my learned colleagues??
First you have to define “slowly”, currently they are already converted from population to military when you build the base, they aren’t military at any level (except home guard) until the base is built. So in theory this is already occurring, just possibly not at the pace you’d prefer.
Considering this has never been introduced, if a method of using only trained military were to be introduced, it would need to be in either the next Alpha or at Beta. Given the lack of usefulness that military held before, it’s doubtful that many have allowed for enough population that could be used only as military for both defense of your planets and to be used for expansion via invasion. If this were implemented, I’d want to build a few dedicated planets to the “invasion” military and not take it from defending my own planets.
And this would not stop someone from acquiring the population to take to said base for conversion to military, all it might do is slow down the process a bit. The only possible limitation you might place on removing the conquered population might be happiness, if the population is very happy with their new “dictator”, why wouldn’t they accept a post within their military? But if they weren’t happy, maybe they wouldn’t be so inclined. A 22k beron rich planet (of which many exist but aren’t normally very useful if alone) would be great homes for said military.
The developers are already placing enough limitations, through excessive defense changes, on invasions to make them almost impossible to carry out, we don’t need something else to further hinder invasions.
Your going to bind yourselves too tightly with this… means you cant ever increase fleet sizes or troop capacities, as you know in software dev if you tightly couple things you’re in a world of pain so why do it in the game… and who in their right mind will build 60 military bases… let alone 240…
A series of ODS upgrades from 25% to 95% and firing times from 60 down to 10 minutes could do what you need… make the early ones cheaper and later ones expensive… this is not coupled to fleets size nor troop capacity… ODS is a cross cutting feature with no dependencies… apply what you know about software development to solve game problems… create the monolith at your peril…
I agree that at some point soldiers need to be an actual resource that you train over time rather then just instantly convert from population. When this should happen is up for debate as there are many priorities to pick from. And in a perfect world the ODS would only destroy alot of troop transports if it is still online when invasion is in process. I think the ODS’s need to be a beefier deterent that need to be dealt with if you want to interact with an enemy planet without taking heavy losses to ships/troops. They should be tough to take down and capable of being brought back online relativly quickly thus allowing only so much time for the attacker to accomplish their mission.
Well yes but this is a simple variable that can be tweaked as the idea is tested. If you want a number for now then I’d say 50% of the population growth figure for that planet per base as a ceiling. Ideally the speed should be either player definded of dependant on how war like the race is. Likewise if a base is destroyed then troops over what the remaining bases can support need to be reintegrated with the local pop at a similar rate.
No it is not occurring in any way right now. When you build a Mil base you “get” 1500 pop transform into soldiers that cannot die if their base is intact. No matter how many invasion they fight in as long as the sacred re-spawn base lives so do they: not so the attackers troops.
Battle over worlds as I have said elsewhere should take re time hours to complete with stages to the fight (at least three - Beachhead - advance- consolidate) having a finite amount of troops that you can manually adjust to compensate for losses means you have an actual fight rather than merely waking up one morning and seeing which planets swapped allegiances, which is highly yawnsworthy.
You are absolutely correct this would need at the very least to be added to a new Galaxy to give all folks an even footing! I don’t see why a new Alpha or Beta would be required: plenty of things were tweaked for skirmish why not this? In fact why not USE the short lived skirmish model to fast test these ideas… Oh dear I am being Wildly optimistic at the level of logic here aren’t I… never mind.
I really like the comment on the large beron rich world with a decent size but are otherwise unremarkable. These would make excellent training camps. Be nice to make these oft overlooked worlds actually useful! Because unless they also had Giants on them they really aren’t worth the effort to develop unless they are the only rich source of Be in that system?
Ah now you hit the nail on the head with the talk of limitations. In my mind this sorta system was a tactical option not a limit per say but that’s why feedback is so important. One mans option can be seen as another’s limitation: fair enough. Not my intent but I now see your point. Don’t completely agree with it but yes It could be a complication, though as most know I feel all complications are good PROVIDED they are documented and perhaps walked through with a tutorial.
The main thing Pepe antics showed me was the silliness of having a Pop that was fighting against him one moment suddenly turn into shock troops the next minute. Making battles longer helps but can’t overcome that brain achingly illogical situation. I think I suggested elsewhere a cool down period after a planet is taken where output and happiness drop as the new overlord establishes control. If that period of pacification (during which Corruption from that planet should NOT be added to the new owners total: no chance for it see, he is imposing military rule and corrupt types would be shot so are laying low) also meant you could only conscript troops via bases at a much reduced rate (conscripts are never enthusiastic as a rule) the conquest Juggernaut would have been slowed to a manageable rate.
Hmm do we simply have a cultural difference here old chap: Found this offering an interesting insight that may be germane to the discussion:
According to that east & west look on these conflicts in a different light which might allow for our difference of opinion. However; in the context of this kinda game I submit that initial conquests can never be wars of liberation that the population welcomes. Now if I was to attempt to take a world back from you then thats another matter.
But also even more of a complication that even I would be asking fro LOL!
Bottom line I feel a period of pacification is logical and reasonable after a planetary conquest still.
What determines a happy population can be a myriad of things such as individual wealth and individual freedoms, both of which can have positive and negative affects for going both up and down. in most countries having wealth grants freedom and if both simply grant happiness then why have so many famous artists and athletes of all sorts committed suicide or turned to drugs? This is not a conversation I will have here as either does not necessarily have to do with their own individual happiness and is therefore an ever more compicated issue. It is for this reason, imo, happiness should not play a large lasting role in this game. Where it is now is good, it would be fine to add operations for an invader and defender to affect it, but imo, we should not change its role.
We are all aware of a plot hole in any game, odd game rules and quirks wouldn’t make sense in real life. IRL, multiple “pieces” move at the same time but in chess and checkers, this is not so. In Vega, it takes 3 minutes to travel to the far side of your neighboring sector using cutters (the fastest ship class), but to disassemble, move, and reconstruct your base in the middle of a heavy war is not only safe, but only takes the blink of an eye even though it took you a year to build each structure. Game rules should be easy to follow and remember, therefore simple, but this does not mean that the game itself should be simple.
Beyond this, I feel that every structure should be augmentable and the details of that should be left largely up to the player with respect to the defender. Reload time, damage done, bombardment protection, security vs covert ops, security vs overt ops, as well as energy management, and the like can very easily be added and be the primary cause to mine B late into the game whereas now, B relatively useless after a player becomes well developed. Patterns can be research just like ship designs and then applied. The details of how to manage the individual upgrades is probably more important than what should be augmentable.
Augmentations will allow players to choose the rate their bases produce troops and the capacity to which they are stored or increased repair rates. They can alter radar stations to detect invisible fleets or increase sensor range (with an energy cost increase of course), or left standard without augmentations in pursuit of other benefits.
I can come up with different concepts and methods but I haven’t felt like people wanted this level of customisation.
So the above is an old post, that i do not feel we should use, but as far as food for thought goes, i do not think any game uses it and possibly for good reason. The system is somewhat clunky and doesnt flow well, but if someone has a way to make it better, i wouldnt mind hearing it. Possibly, when the building is selected with the upgrade button, a side menu can be added with a list of upgrades and upgraded structures of that type. Again, I like the individual customization, but that’s about the only upside imo.
More simple ideas are based off of augmentation slots. Structures can have 1 or more augmentation slots based on the structure and/or level but this may develop a lot of friction as the game moves forward, having to produce and attach 30 augments every day can be tiresome. Because of that, this kind of augmentation is generally more global; augmentation slot(s) per planet for example and dont typically come with negatives but this promotes each planet’s individual specialization which seems to be what we are trying to avoid. The last 2 can be global augmentations that affect your whole empire. These can be research based or some sort of 1 per player structure. Again, this lacks the individual player customization and no one is going to pick an OD mod over resource production or ship production unless these mods are scarce. The more global the affect and design, the more simple the mechanic, but it allows for less customization.
I personally believe the best modifications should come in the form of building type; mines can all get the same mod and if the mod is determined by the cost of the structures, then after it is applied, all future structures costs increase to match take up the difference. specialized structures (ones that you are limited to by planet), each could/should have their modifications. An additional button can be added to bring up an augmentations menu or it can be added someplace to the structures menu when one is selected.
The next part of this is that we would need a method to acquire the modifications. They can be researched and/or constructed, won in mini-events, or earned in fights or by completing quests. We can also have augments won from previous galaxies, but these should be limited to what essentially should be decals avatars and badges. I feel that this system should be simple because if not, later in the game it will become too much, however it can also take up time early game if the player finds it interesting. Maybe a fully automated system could be added to create them?
The next conversation should be about what functions each building should be able to be augmented with, and i feel that each structure should have 1 special augment for that only be attached to that structure, for example, only a military base can train troops and therefore be augmented with troop training speed. Only a mine can be augmented with additional deep mine functions. Imo, all structures should be able to be augmented to hold troops (which would resist covert and overt operations vs those structures), reduce energy consumption, shield vs bombardment strikes, and other generic functions.
The next conversation would be the magnitude of the augments, which is a hard conversation to have when you haven’t nailed down all of the previous options but I personally dont mind stronger augmentations that will also require more energy, workers, or other downside.
i forgot to bring up the thought about rarity. These are generally thought to be common, but can instead be made quite rare which is not specifically something I am ok with. If producing them was time consuming, but they could be acquired through multiple means, meaning that they would achieve a common occurrence based on a player’s progression, to me, it would highly depend on the frequency they would be acquired. Naturally a top tiered player would develop the mods faster than a player ranked 60, but the issue I have would be that this affect would assist the top player to stay on top. For this reason, if the augments are not common or easily constructed, they should be acquired at a diminishing rate relative to the effort put forth to get them as they are acquired but completing quests should not affect the rate as this would cause players to avoid the quests initially.
It maybe best to have players design their own and produce them. Maybe it would be best to research the upgrade path, then design and research the actual upgrade, and produce it, similarly to how ships are produced. Idk.
About changes to troop mechanics: it’s not something we planned to change just yet, but we do agree with the changes to troops/military bases proposed. And the devs think they could get it done quite quickly (possibly the next patch, more likely the one after). So to summarise what this would entail:
Military bases would be entirely responsible for producing/supporting troops (for attack and defense)
A base would train X troops an hour, up to the limit of troops it could support (if troops are transferred away more are trained)
Troops can be left on the colony to defend it if invaded
Troops can be loaded on to fleets using assault troop carriers (to transfer to another colony to defend it, or to invade another player’s colony)
If troops are transferred to a planet with not enough military bases to support them (including after winning an invasion) their numbers gradually decrease (converted to regular colonists)
And we wouldn’t decrease the capacity of assault troop carriers
Does that sound good to go or does anyone have any questions or concerns?
If we could get troop mechanics reworked, we’d then be able to get to expanding invasion mechanics towards some of the suggestions posted. We don’t have a lot of spare time, but some simple changes would go a long way e.g. increase the duration of invasions and allow both attacker and defender to affect the outcome by sending in troop reinforcements.