Author Topic: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter  (Read 6241 times)

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2016, 06:00:14 PM »
Looks good except for one alarming thing.

Shield bearers are being eliminated? That is my favorite unit. There is a lot of strategy available from that mechanic. Is it possible to mod that stuff back in, as a player? I hope that this isn't about cheese, because transports are way more cheesy than shield bearers.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2016, 06:41:46 PM »
Looks good except for one alarming thing.

Shield bearers are being eliminated? That is my favorite unit. There is a lot of strategy available from that mechanic. Is it possible to mod that stuff back in, as a player? I hope that this isn't about cheese, because transports are way more cheesy than shield bearers.
That's being moved to a starship that's part of the always available set. The main reason is that having lots of forcefields is a performance drain. So having a smaller number of stronger ones is preferable. You could certainly mod their cap up easily.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline jenya

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2016, 06:46:49 PM »
I had a lot of fan with mines due to the AI predisposition to bee-line directly to the command station, right through my long string of mines. I kinda see why they should be removed, AI can't counter them effectively.

Offline NichG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2016, 10:37:22 PM »
It does prevent a loss of an power source on planet A shutting down the defenses on planet B. It doesn't stop the loss of a power source on planet A shutting down the defenses on planet A. In fact, it makes it very likely that a strike against your power source will shut things down on that planet, since the stuff on the planet can't be powered from something elsewhere.

Well, I note it because in my last campaign at least, this was a serious midgame consideration for me after an almost-wipe due to some boonies planets having their Econ stations knocked out by residual threat during a Fallen Spire exo wave. It made me seriously think 'do I want to pay the 20-40 AIP to grab one of the Zenith Power Generators a few worlds from my border?', though what I ended up doing was just to micro the turrets a bit (scrap turrets in the directions the AI wasn't attacking from and rebuild after). So yeah, a bit good but also a bit bad due to the micro.

Maybe a way to provide that sort of non-local defense aspect of the game would be if planets with Turret Controllers need to be held for those turrets to function at all (rather than just needing to hold the planet to build them)? That way, if the AI pops your Missile Turret V world first, it can soften up your defensive line protecting your Ark or other core planets? (I should say that I always play with Chivalric since I think I'd likely just savescum on permanently losing a fabricator or turret controller otherwise, so that may influence my take on this).

Also, for Admirals/Aspects, I think that 'Aspect' is too abstract. Admiral is nice because I sort of get that this is a rare, solitary unit that has large-scale strategic implications as to where it's placed. But if you want to avoid person names, why not keep up the Chess analogy and actually call it a Tower?

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2016, 01:20:25 AM »
Also is their going to be any sort of short form game? Not defender mode, but I always wished there was a way to have the same game but could be played in under 2-4 hours.

Given that it's moddable, I was planning to do a mod to do exactly that. I'm not sure it needs to be in the base game, but I'd certainly like it too. That said, if additional races can't be in, this probably can't be in either.

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2016, 11:03:54 AM »
So if I'm understanding this right, I should forget what I read in the first document and read these ones instead? That means things like solar systems that were in that one but not this one are out?

It looks like a pretty solid scope, overall. Disappointed by the lack of Spire, but I guess that was inevitable with the budget cut. Hopefully they make it back in some form.

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2016, 11:13:10 AM »
I have no doubt that the spire will be back someday. This is just for 1.0.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2016, 11:21:18 AM »
So if I'm understanding this right, I should forget what I read in the first document and read these ones instead? That means things like solar systems that were in that one but not this one are out?
Correct.

Quote
disappointed by the lack of Spire, but I guess that was inevitable with the budget cut. Hopefully they make it back in some form.
Yep, me too. There will be a stretch goal.

I don't like the idea of mutually exclusive toolsets, but having the playstyle available is important. Perhaps a middle ground where you start with a Spire Colony Ship in addition to your Ark.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2016, 11:28:16 AM »
So if I'm understanding this right, I should forget what I read in the first document and read these ones instead? That means things like solar systems that were in that one but not this one are out?
Correct.

Okay thanks. It looks pretty solid. :)

Quote
disappointed by the lack of Spire, but I guess that was inevitable with the budget cut. Hopefully they make it back in some form.
Yep, me too. There will be a stretch goal.

I don't like the idea of mutually exclusive toolsets, but having the playstyle available is important. Perhaps a middle ground where you start with a Spire Colony Ship in addition to your Ark.
[/quote]

Cool. :)

Offline wyvern83

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2016, 11:34:43 AM »
Why not call the Admirals/Aspects --> Command Ships?

Its an existing term that would denote its function and strategic importance without reinventing the wheel to come up with a different one. In usage in science fiction command ships are often special and more powerful than regular ships.

It appears that you've gone with Overseer for the time being since I read the document yesterday. It's a shorter word, adequately descriptive, and has the advantage of being distinct from other ship names currently in use. It does have a corporate or empire type feeling to it, though it could still work depending on the human faction of origin if there is going to be any lore surrounding them.



Offline NichG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2016, 11:48:03 AM »
Overseer reminds me of Starcraft, even though that's not actually the unit name in Starcraft. It's just close enough that I look at it twice and say 'waita... no'.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2016, 12:11:09 PM »
Why not call the Admirals/Aspects --> Command Ships?
I think Chris wants to avoid multi word names for those. But it does raise a good point: why not just call them flagships.

There is the Starship with the same name, but munitions boosting is shifting towards stationary/rare stuff so those would end up being called something different anyway.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline wyvern83

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 398
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2016, 01:08:47 PM »
Overseer reminds me of Starcraft, even though that's not actually the unit name in Starcraft. It's just close enough that I look at it twice and say 'waita... no'.

I thought of it as well. It actually is by the way, its an upgraded/transformed Overlord in Starcraft 2.

Why not call the Admirals/Aspects --> Command Ships?
I think Chris wants to avoid multi word names for those. But it does raise a good point: why not just call them flagships.

There is the Starship with the same name, but munitions boosting is shifting towards stationary/rare stuff so those would end up being called something different anyway.

I kinda figured that would be a good reason not to use it after thinking about it for abit. Flagship on the other hand I didn't even think of and it communicates the same thing. If it's becoming free anyway it would be a great choice. 

I notice the Bouncer AI Personality is listed as being retained in the second document, but wormhole guardposts are listed as unlikely to make it into the game so is the implication then that this personality's static positions are or include the wormhole entry points?

I'd like more information about stuff in the AI defense section. It possibly doesn't need to be in the initial document but as a veteran player of the first game I'm curious how things will transition or be different in AI War II. Questions I find myself asking are as follows:

- Will there be far fewer guard-posts in each system than before or will they simply be more centralized in the one or two static positions per planet mentioned in the document?

- If the ratio of guard posts to guardians number wise is shifting towards more guardians will the power level of each change respectively? Will both see an increase in power for example for being less or more numerous than they were before? Especially as all guardians are essentially planet bound carriers now. Barracks, the other available comparison, were weak in the first game though so perhaps not.  Edit: I remembered guardians are capable of wormhole travel so I guess what I'm really asking is will their toughness be adjusted up or not due to them now housing units in times of inaction?

- How will the AI dispense its defense budget? With wormhole guard posts likely out and in addition to potentially fewer guard posts in each system in general will guardians now be counted for defense budget allocation?

- How will Special Force regional bases work in relation to where their fleets decide to patrol? (also can a regional base support more than one fleet?) Do they path towards other bases and back? Or do they patrol a certain number of jumps away and back at random? How far will they travel outside their usual region of operations in response to perceived threats and attacks?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 02:22:00 PM by wyvern83 »

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2016, 09:14:49 PM »
I notice the Bouncer AI Personality is listed as being retained in the second document, but wormhole guardposts are listed as unlikely to make it into the game so is the implication then that this personality's static positions are or include the wormhole entry points?
That's a good point. That AI type was invented to be less annoying than normal (because it's easy to clean the wormholes, even though you take more casualties entering the first time). Making it have static defense around every wormhole (when that's not the norm) would be more annoying than normal.

It could be repurposed, or it might just go away. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.

Quote
- Will there be far fewer guard-posts in each system than before or will they simply be more centralized in the one or two static positions per planet mentioned in the document?
Both fewer and number and concentrated, probably. The guardians would basically become mobile guard posts.

Quote
- If the ratio of guard posts to guardians number wise is shifting towards more guardians will the power level of each change respectively?
Yea, balance in general is likely to involve very different numbers than AIW 1.

Quote
- How will the AI dispense its defense budget? With wormhole guard posts likely out and in addition to potentially fewer guard posts in each system in general will guardians now be counted for defense budget allocation?
Yep, when they're guarding the system versus being free threat.

Quote
- How will Special Force regional bases work in relation to where their fleets decide to patrol? (also can a regional base support more than one fleet?) Do they path towards other bases and back? Or do they patrol a certain number of jumps away and back at random? How far will they travel outside their usual region of operations in response to perceived threats and attacks?
One fleet per base, and they'd have a set group of planets to consider. Probably 2 or 3 hops out from the base, with the potential for overlapping with other bases.

Anyway, good info to have in a document somewhere, yes.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Captain Jack

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
  • Just lucky
Re: (Please review) Design info for re-launch of AIW 2 Kickstarter
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2016, 01:12:10 AM »
I see you ended up going with "flagships" in place of admiral or aspect. Good choice!

Don't have much to add, except to say years late that the Zenith Descendant AI type should really be named the "Zenith Inheritor" and a few other naming things that might not end up mattering!