Defense Supply Mechanic

[Wanderer]

The origination of this discussion:

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.

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"

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]

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.

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.

[keith.lamothe]

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.

One of the more entertaining tactics I remember from the 3.0 days was players speed-building a full cap of fortresses on a particularly tough AI planet in mid-attack.  After that, they required supply

While building a full cap of them is probably more than can reasonably be balanced, I would like players to be able to throw one up during the fight; it would give some additional value to the upgrades for them, too.

[Hearteater]

Keith did suggest Defensive Control available in a system would be the maximum value present, so stacking Fortresses doesn't get you any more control.  I'm not sure that is necessary though.  With stacked Fortresses giving you a huge turret ball you basically make baiting impossible.  Further, if a Fortress is the only supplier of DC (dang, the abbreviation looks like Data Center) then losing it can shut down all your turrets.

I could see two abilities providing Defensive Control: Base Defensive Control X gives you a base amount, and you only get the best base amount in a given system.  Bonus Defensive Control X would stack together and add to any Base Defensive Control present in the system.  The latter would be much smaller values.  Not sure that necessary though.

[keith.lamothe]

I could see two abilities providing Defensive Control: Base Defensive Control X gives you a base amount, and you only get the best base amount in a given system.  Bonus Defensive Control X would stack together and add to any Base Defensive Control present in the system.  The latter would be much smaller values.  Not sure that necessary though.

Definitely worthwhile to keep in mind, though.

[Wanderer]

While building a full cap of them is probably more than can reasonably be balanced, I would like players to be able to throw one up during the fight; it would give some additional value to the upgrades for them, too.

Heh, if you can speed-build 2.5 million resources worth of units before the fight's over, the problem is the econ, not the tactic.  Or they're overvaluing what's a 'tough world'.  At most you can bank two Fort Is, or most of a Fort II, before you're 'maxxed off'.  You'd need to do something like that to establish a serious beach-head though.

[Wanderer]

I could see two abilities providing Defensive Control: Base Defensive Control X gives you a base amount, and you only get the best base amount in a given system.  Bonus Defensive Control X would stack together and add to any Base Defensive Control present in the system.  The latter would be much smaller values.  Not sure that necessary though.

Definitely worthwhile to keep in mind, though.

Hm, that's almost treating it like the firepower bonuses not stacking then.  Well, it's already a precedent, I could see it, but I wonder if that's not over-complicating the mechanic.  It would have to be made very obvious which of these each provided.

I notice my control reactor idea is being mulled over and not commented.  Tis cool, but if the problem is 'icons' I could make one that won't offend base astetics until a real artist could get involved.  I'm thinking it'd basically be a radio tower.  Anyways, I'll leave that alone until it's nodded at.

However, what would stop me, other than base/bonus control, to drop a cap of mobile builders into a whipping boy to 'shore up' a weakening defensive line?  I barely use them anyway, and Beach-Heads are a temporary thing, I don't need them for long, usually.

[Diazo]

Hmmm.

I think this mechanic (and the reason for it) is the very reason I refuse to play the 'single-path' maps.

I always play on realistic, and more recently lattice, type maps precisely to avoid the single chokepoint setup.

One thing to be careful of is that the single chokepoint setup seems to be popular, I know several map types have been added that are predisposed towards having chokepoints because of community demand and this mechanic would be implemented to weaken those chokepoints people seem to like.

Which takes us back to map types and their difficulty, but that is a different discussion.

I'm thinking there has to be a better way to account for chokepoints, maybe a mechanic based on number of human controlled worlds adjacent to AI worlds? Or re-work beachheads somehow? Beachheads seem like they were *supposed* to achieve what this discussion is talking about and failed because they are too brutal so no one enables them.

Not sure where I'm going with this any more, but those are my initial thoughts on this. I suppose I don't like being told 'you are limited by ship cap' and now 'you are limited per planet also', it just feels redundant and clunky to me.

D.

edit: Or how about 2 types of ship caps, one galaxy wide for mobile stuff and a per planet cap for defences and a unit would be subject to one or the other of these caps?

[keith.lamothe]

I considered something like control towers but the main reason I'd like to stick to command stations being the sole providers (except for in-the-field deployment) is it's just simpler: no new unit types, only one provider per planet, you just pick which one.  I don't know if it's the best approach, just starting simple.

One thing to be careful of is that the single chokepoint setup seems to be popular, I know several map types have been added that are predisposed towards having chokepoints because of community demand and this mechanic would be implemented to weaken those chokepoints people seem to like.

This is the main point I can think of against the overall idea: if a lot of people enjoy playing the game where 90% of all AI ships (and 99% of all AI ships that are attacking) die in a 25-square-foot area... who am I to change that?  It's not like it breaks the game.  But I think it does put a very strong limitation on how much of a ruckus defense can be, and thus on the fun.  But it's not for me to tell people what's fun for them.

For that reason I'm fairly sure that if I did this there would at least be an option to turn it off (kinda like core shield gens; that was too much to ask everyone to play with on all the time, but if you turn it off you know you're getting a somewhat less challenging scenario than it would be with the same settings and that's ok).

[Wanderer]

Not sure where I'm going with this any more, but those are my initial thoughts on this. I suppose I don't like being told 'you are limited by ship cap' and now 'you are limited per planet also', it just feels redundant and clunky to me.

It actually makes more sense to me from the idea that you have a control room in the back with a bunch of guys manning screens working turrets from afar then sitting in the Basic Turret that just got destroyed as primary target AGAIN.  Humans breed fast but not THAT fast!   What human would dare allow AI targetting anymore in this realm, either?

edit: Or how about 2 types of ship caps, one galaxy wide for mobile stuff and a per planet cap for defences and a unit would be subject to one or the other of these caps?

All caps discussed here are for turrets only.  These already have caps in place, and if you chokepoint you have a 'cap' for how much you can shove onto a single world already.  This discussion is more along the lines of reducing how much of each cap of defensive turreting you can shove on x world, while also increasing their ability to do what they were meant to do, defend.  It's quite possible (and something I'm hoping for) that the existing caps will disappear, and control caps will be the only capping of turrets left, so really it's just a change of capping mechanics for turrets.

[keith.lamothe]

What human would dare allow AI targetting anymore in this realm, either?

From what Chris wrote in the run-up to 4.0/5.0 and is on the steam store page for the base game:

You do have a few things going in your favor. Your ships are much faster. You have safe AI routines to automate defenses and mining outposts. You have production techniques that can churn out fully-outfitted unmanned fighters in seconds.

Personally I think that's silly   Safe AI.  That's gonna fly.  Yeaaaaah.  But it does explain the breeding issue.

All caps discussed here are for turrets only.

I'd actually like it to apply to forts too.  And while I don't mind folks putting all their FFs on a single planet, I'd like them to have the option to throw one or two up in the field, but I wouldn't want them to be able to put a dozen way out in the middle of nowhere (just get supply if you want to do that).

It's quite possible (and something I'm hoping for) that the existing caps will disappear, and control caps will be the only capping of turrets left, so really it's just a change of capping mechanics for turrets.

I thought about that too, but then I realized: then once you unlock basic II, why ever build basic I again?  And if you unlock MLRS III, why invest in Basic/Laser/Missile/etc upgrades?  Those upgrades would then only give hull-bonus-variety to your dps output, but wouldn't add any raw dps, and I think it would get pretty hard for a player to justify spending K upgrading another turret type just for that.

[Wanderer]

I considered something like control towers but the main reason I'd like to stick to command stations being the sole providers (except for in-the-field deployment) is it's just simpler: no new unit types, only one provider per planet, you just pick which one.  I don't know if it's the best approach, just starting simple.

Aye, but then you run into the other problems you mentioned for multiplayer and offworld and the like.  But yes, I get where you're going.

This is the main point I can think of against the overall idea: if a lot of people enjoy playing the game where 90% of all AI ships (and 99% of all AI ships that are attacking) die in a 25-square-foot area... who am I to change that?  It's not like it breaks the game.  But I think it does put a very strong limitation on how much of a ruckus defense can be, and thus on the fun.  But it's not for me to tell people what's fun for them.

Retreat and defense always feels like I'm 'losing' to me.  Even my defenses have always been offensive in nature.  An example:

If anyone here's ever played the turn based 'General' series, Star General/Panzer General or any of the others, there's a mechanic where artillery units can hit 2-3 hexes out.  They also did something else, they support ships being attacked with an artillery salvo on the attacker before combat resolved.

My assault units would do their work, and 'move the defensive line'.  Immediately following, my mass of artillery units would come up right behind them, screened by the armor/heavy ships, and create a defensive wall that could obliterate anything that rolled up on the front units.  This was only limited by ammo, which could be replenished with time.

Losing ground and being concerned with the backfield is not 'fun' to me.  Attacking and making gains and 'winning' is fun.  That said, a good war cannot only be fought on the winning end of things unless your enemy is a complete idiot, so defense is part of good/excellent game design.

That said, I'm not against things that can make defense more interesting, thus possibly fun.  However, in the current implementation, a hardened chokepoint that makes sure I rarely-never lose any component of my economic base is the most effective to me.

For that reason I'm fairly sure that if I did this there would at least be an option to turn it off (kinda like core shield gens; that was too much to ask everyone to play with on all the time, but if you turn it off you know you're getting a somewhat less challenging scenario than it would be with the same settings and that's ok).

Adjustment of ship caps, turret power, and the rest seems pretty invasive.  How would you allot for that with the 'on/off' switch?