Forts in times of distributed defenses

[Hearteater]

The following changes to mechanics + AI behaviour might be worthwhile:

1) Force Fields require X seconds after construction or movement before they project their bubble. (30 or 60?)
2) Turrets require X seconds after construction before they come online. (30?)
3) If a Force Field is protecting something the AI wants to kill, it will switch to that Force Field if the following are true: a) it is no longer protecting the original target, b) another force field is protecting the original target.

Most of the time if the AI just finished off Force Fields things would go worse for the player because micro cheese is then prevented.

[TechSY730]

Nope, wouldn't help.  The most efficient way to do the micro you're referring to would not change with your suggestion.

If you instead overlap your forcefields like a venn diagram with the command station in the center (spot 7):
[image omitted for space concerns]

Then you don't have to move any of them to repair any of them.  Or move them small amounts.  As soon as one isn't protecting the command station, it ceases to be covering it, touching the others, and thus repairable.  The repair of a half-dozen engineers is fast enough to bring it back up to 90% before it takes damage (even the 1 point from the forcefield network rule).

True, but then you don't get the "full HP" of protection of all the forcefields. What if the DPS is so high it can shrink all of the shields such that spot 7 becomes exposed, and they take out your command station faster than the forcefields can be moved back into place? This might be preventable if the forcefields were "traditionally placed" (all near the command station, or whatever it is you wanted to protect).

Might be able to be worked around though with some forcefields on the command station in stand-down mode, turning them on only in such a case, which would (hopefully) buy enough time for the other forcefields to move into position.


Nevertheless, your point is still well taken. I would not mind a nerf to forcefields by increasing their build time (and thus their repair times), potentially in addition to what I proposed before (the "cooldown after move" time). Not sure whether a heavy increase in resource costs is needed; placing a bunch of them even now can pretty harshly tax your economy, especially in the early to mid game. Maybe a small one, IDK.

[TechSY730]

The following changes to mechanics + AI behaviour might be worthwhile:

1) Force Fields require X seconds after construction or movement before they project their bubble. (30 or 60?)
2) Turrets require X seconds after construction before they come online. (30?)
3) If a Force Field is protecting something the AI wants to kill, it will switch to that Force Field if the following are true: a) it is no longer protecting the original target, b) another force field is protecting the original target.

Most of the time if the AI just finished off Force Fields things would go worse for the player because micro cheese is then prevented.

Instead of making this an "always rule", how about a "split the tasks" rule? Like some of the fleet will finish off the forcefield, and some will continue against their original target (not sure what the ratio should be though). There is already some of that sort of stuff for "after command station destroyed" logic (some will stay behind to clean up the planet, others will go off to new planets).
One of the reasons FF micro works is that the AI can get predictable about what it targets. Simply trading one predictability for another might not actually "fix" things.

EDIT:

30 seconds feels a bit too long for turrets. 15 seconds maybe? 20?
30 seconds for post forcefield movement or construction seems fair.

What about fortresses, do they need a "cooldown" for firing as well as repairing? (Maybe not, because those are galactic capped)

[Draco18s]

True, but then you don't get the "full HP" of protection of all the forcefields. What if the DPS is so high it can shrink all of the shields such that spot 7 becomes exposed, and they take out your command station faster than the forcefields can be moved back into place? This might be preventable if the forcefields were "traditionally placed" (all near the command station, or whatever it is you wanted to protect).

The trick is figuring out what radius to use and how many force fields in total.

Generally speaking I've got at least four: one as close as possible and three satellites.

[corfe83]

I realize this is probably getting pretty far off the original post, but reading through the thread here are my thoughts:

The strategy of "have multiple planets behind my whipping boy using per planet caps, and just rebuild any that get destroyed" seems very OP right now, and gets quite a bit more powerful as you gain knowledge (by spending even a small amount of your knowledge more per-planet defenses, and building those per-planet defenses on multiple layers behind the whipping boy). So powerful that my homeworld feels pretty much unreachable in my current "let's try capturing all the planets" game (7/7 difficulty), AIP=600 so far. To mitigate this:
1) What if AI progress affected difficulty more-than-linearly, but this was only significant enough to be noticeable once you got above a certain AIP point (such as above 200 or 300)?
2) What if losing a command station resulted in a permanent punishment in the form of slightly lower per-planet cap on that world? For example, the first time you lose it you get 5 less needler turret cap on only that planet (affects all marks, permanent). The next time it's laser turrets, etc. And it's cumulative with other punishments, so if you have multiple planets that continually get destroyed as part of your strategy, those front lines will get worn down and more dangerous over time, and the game can retain a sense of "losing command stations for planets I want to keep is bad" and "it requires careful strategizing to protect my homeworld in the long-term". Perhaps the mechanics would exclude command stations being destroyed that were just rebuilt (only command stations that have been alive longer than 10 minutes might count for this, for example)
3) What if minifortresses had zero (or near-zero) energy usage, to make them more useful in a most-turrets-are-per-planet-cap-anyway world? Or maybe they are already, I can't access the game to check right now.
4) Force field micro cheese should be fixed too. I think the easiest way is to make the repair cooldown (right now for a specific forcefield) to be a per-planet cooldown - meaning if ANY force field owned by the player on that planet was attacked recently, NONE of them can be repaired.

[Toranth]

I think I need to agree with Peter here - With sufficient resources, almost all the normal turrets can be rebuilt in less than a minute, allowing for travelling banks of semi-chokepoints.  If you play on Epic speed, this is trivial.  So much so that you can even do this within a given system, scrapping and rebuilding short-range turrets.
It's a lot of micro, so I almost never did it, but it can be done.

And if, at the logical end of that thought, all the cheap stuff is made per-planet for simple defense and in-depth defense, then all the galaxy-cap stuff can be made expensive (and appropriately powerful) for chokepoints and so that the trash-rebuild process because more difficult.  (Although I'd like to have a mini-fort-like mini-FF, with 20K HP each - just a little something to protect valuables in each system without being a real power.)

On the other hand, if you do something to make that sort of ad-hoc defense in depth totally impractical with any variety of turret, we revert back to the older situation of "Chokepoint Uber Alles", with maps like X becoming orders of magnitude easier than Honeycomb or Grid types.

I also find the idea of a system wearing down or losing capacity or such when lost to be very distasteful.   First off, because you are losing something permanently - not something 'extra' like a Fab, but something basic like turret or FF capacity.  And second, because lowering the system's ability to defend itself whenever it fails to defend itself seems like an excellent way to trigger and endless spiral of doom.

If you want to discourage sacrificial systems, you can just enable Shark plots.
If you REALLY want to discourage sacrificial systems, Keith could give the AI the ability to re-capture neutral systems...

[RockyBst]

Just want to chime in to say the torpedo launcher miniforts are a fantastic idea. They've lost a lot of utility with the per-planet turret caps, and currently I only unlock them from inertia / for repair support.

[Kahuna]

Here. I did some calculations.

Matter Converter produced 50.000 Energy and costs 200M/s.
So 250 Energy = 1 Metal/second
CapUpkeepCost=CapEnergyCost/250

Mark I Fortress
DPS: 8.000
Cap DPS: 40.000
Total DPS: 40.000
Energy Cost: 90.000
Cap Energy Cost: 450.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 1.800 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 1.800 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 3.000
Total Knowledge Cost: 3.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 22,222
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 13,333

Mark II Fortress
DPS: 18.667
Cap DPS: 74.667
Total DPS: 114.667
Energy Cost: 120.000
Cap Energy Cost: 480.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 1.920 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 3.720 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 4.000
Total Knowledge Cost: 7.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 30,824
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 16,381

Mark III Fortress
DPS: 33.333
Cap DPS: 100.000
Total DPS: 214.667
Energy Cost: 180.000
Cap Energy Cost: 540.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 2160
Total Upkeep Cost: 5.880
Knowledge Cost: 5.000
Total Knowledge Cost: 12.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 36,507
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 17,888

Super Fortress
DPS: 200.000
Energy Cost: 300.000
Upkeep Cost: 1.200
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 166,667
vs Mark III Fortresses: Cap DPS/Upkeep Cost: 99,382

Mark I-III Fortresses and Super Fortress with Zenith Power Generator
DPS: 414.667
Energy Cost: 840.000-600.000=240.000
Upkeep Cost: 960 M/s
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 431,944

Mini-Fortress
DPS: 800
Cap DPS: 1.600
Energy Cost: 9.000
Cap Energy Cost: 18.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 72 M/s (The game should pay ME for using these things)
Knowledge Cost: 1.000
Cap DPS/Cap Upkeep Cost: 22,222
Cap DPS/Knowledge: 1,6

Mark I Heavy Beam Cannon
DPS: 1.200
Cap DPS: 14.400
Total DPS: 14.400
Energy Cost: 1.650
Cap Energy Cost: 19.800
Cap Upkeep Cost: 79 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 79 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 500
Total Knowledge Cost: 500
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 182,278
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 28,8

Mark II Heavy Beam Cannon
DPS: 3.600
Cap DPS: 28.800
Total DPS: 43.200
Energy Cost: 2.500
Cap Energy Cost: 20.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 80 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 159 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 2.500
Total Knowledge Cost: 3.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 271,698
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 9,6

Mark III Heavy Beam Cannon
DPS: 10.800
Cap DPS: 43.200
Total DPS: 86.400
Energy Cost: 5.000
Cap Energy Cost: 20.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 80 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 239 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 3.000
Total Knowledge Cost: 6.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 361,506
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 14,4

Mark IV Heavy Beam Cannon
DPS: 58.000
Cap DPS: 58.000
Total DPS: 144.400
Energy Cost: 20.000
Cap Energy Cost: 20.000
Cap Upkeep Cost: 80 M/s
Total Upkeep Cost: 319 M/s
Knowledge Cost: 3.000
Total Knowledge Cost: 9.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 452,664
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 16,044

Mark I Laser Turret
DPS: 112,5
Cap DPS: 5.400
Total DPS: 5.400
Energy Cost: 400
Cap Energy Cost: 19.200
Cap Upkeep Cost: 76,8
Total Upkeep Cost: 76,8
Knowledge Cost: 0
Total Knowledge Cost: 0
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 70,312
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: -

Mark II Laser Turret
DPS: 225
Cap DPS: 10.800
Total DPS: 16.200
Energy Cost: 400
Cap Energy Cost: 19.200
Cap Upkeep Cost: 76,8
Total Upkeep Cost: 153,6
Knowledge Cost: 750
Total Knowledge Cost: 750
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 105,468
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 21,6

Mark III Laser Turret
DPS: 337,5
Cap DPS: 16.200
Total DPS: 32.400
Energy Cost: 400
Cap Energy Cost: 19.200
Cap Upkeep Cost: 76,8
Total Upkeep Cost: 230,4
Knowledge Cost: 1.250
Total Knowledge Cost: 2.000
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 140,625
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 16,2

Mark IV Laser Turret
DPS: 450
Cap DPS: 21.600
Total DPS: 54.000
Energy Cost: 400
Cap Energy Cost: 19.200
Cap Upkeep Cost: 76,8
Total Upkeep Cost: 307,2
Knowledge Cost: 1.500
Total Knowledge Cost: 3.500
Total DPS/Total Upkeep Cost: 175,781
Total DPS/Total Knowledge: 15,428

EDIT:
Conclusion:
It seems to me that Turrets and Fortresses are quite well balanced. Though Fortresses are a viable option only if the player has a Zenith Power Generator. They're also only for small/medium sized empires (+-7 planets including Homeworld). For small/medium sized empires because Fortresses have galactic cap and large empires have "too many" planets connected to the AI planets so the player would run out of Fortresses. Of course you can do gate raiding but you can't really control where the CPAs and Exos come from. Fortresses should be combined with Missile or Sniper Turrets to counter Bombers. I'd choose Missile Turrets over Sniper Turrets because Missile Turrets shoot.. missiles.. Missile Turret shoots 3 missiles and if the target is destroyed before all missiles hit the missiles will find another target. So Missile Turrets aren't as likely to overkill an AI ship. Less damage wasted. Also they have damage multiplier vs Neutron so they will help you to get rid of those pesky Zenith Starships. And since you're (probably) going to use Economical Command Stations Munitions Boosters are a very strong starting ship.. so you might want to get Mark II Munitions Boosters and Mark IV Fighters (and Bombers too.. always Mark IV Bombers (maybe)). Last but not least.. Fortresses got an indirect buff when the Carriers were changed. Thanks to these new Carriers Fortresses aren't as likely to face Bombers because the new Carriers can't be destroyed like the old ones. Fortresses are more likely do their full damage because damaging the Carrier damages the ships inside the Carrier.. so even if those ships were Bombers the Fortresses are going to do their full damage. Now don't get me wrong.. overall the new Carriers make the game harder but it still was a small indirect buff to Fortresses.

Turrets are OP early game (but not in a bad way. not too OP) but become balanced as the game progresses to mid/late game. As you can see Laser Turrets' cost effectiveness decreases as the Mark level increases. In my opinion it's a fair trade off for the per planet cap and low Knowledge costs. Turrets are at their best with Economical Command Stations and for large empires or for small/medium empires with beachheads. If you're running a small/medium empires with very few of no beachheads Military Command Stations are the better choice. Turrets are the #1 choice for low AIP games.

I'd say Heavy Beam Turrets aren't as OP as people think. They're quite expensive in term of Knowledge but are very cost effective in terms of DPS/Metal. They also have galactic caps.. so they're good for small/medium sized empires. Thanks to their metal-cost-effectiveness they're at their best when combined with Mark III Military Command Stations. No Economical Command Stations needed.

Last but not least: Mini-Fortresses are bad.

EDIT 2: Once again.. I don't understand why people complain that per planet Turrets make the game too easy. I mean I understand where you're coming from but you can always increase the difficulty level unless you're already playing on 10/10. To me 9 difficulty AI seems pretty much lobotomized so I'm not surprised some find the game easy. Also as I said in my conclusion Turrets are OP early/mid game and become less cost effective at mid/late game and as the Mark level gets higher.

Finally.. if you think Turrets are too overpowered.. take a look at the stats in this post and tell me your opinion how (normal) Turrets compare to Fortresses and HBCs.

[Cinth]

I don't think it was the turrets themselves, but the depth of which you can make your defense.  Turrets on one planet is good.  Turrets on two planets is better (and so on).  This assumes the AI has to travel through each planet that has turrets in turn.  I am assuming that their complaint is that the E it takes to set it up is to low.

I'd like to say that it is a trade off.  You spend E to have a better defense rather than a stronger mobile fleet (same can be said for K spending).

[Kahuna]

I am assuming that their complaint is that the E it takes to set it up is to low.

Well I'd say it certainly isn't too low.. In my current game I have 4 planets, Mark II Economical Command Stations and 4 additional Turret unlocks and I need to run 5 Matter Converters which cost 1000 M/s. And I don't have any beachheads.

If someone has 20 planets and can afford to beachhead half of the galaxy then it's time to increase the difficulty level. Or maybe tweak settings so it's not too easy.

[Cinth]

I am assuming that their complaint is that the E it takes to set it up is to low.

Well I'd say it certainly isn't too low.. In my current game I have 4 planets, Mark II Economical Command Stations and 4 additional Turret unlocks and I need to run 5 Matter Converters which cost 1000 M/s. And I don't have any beachheads.

If someone has 20 planets and can afford to beachhead half of the galaxy then it's time to increase the difficulty level. Or maybe tweak settings so it's not too easy.

I'd like to take that as proving a point with the added bonus of you trading econ for more E to support what you are doing.  I see it all as a choice or set of choices the player can make.  There are tradeoffs to each one and I think that is good.

[RockyBst]

Wow, okay, so I just actually looking into the mini-forts. I have 12 planets (2 homeworlds), and they're currently costing an unholy 430,000 energy to run. They're my third biggest expense, right after the full caps of spider and sniper turrets on every planet. For reference, 430,000 energy is roughly 11 caps of fleet ships or four modular fortresses.

I don't think I can justify unlocking these anymore. Even though the EMP immunity and repairing is nice, the upkeep just exceeds their utility by far too much.

[motai]

just be more selective in their deployment. they dont really need to be everywhere. i mostly use them to repair zombie fleets and rally points for neutrals like the dyson

[Histidine]

Miniforts are just Mk I forts with 1/10th the HP, DPS, cost and E cost (and shorter range but no polycrystal damage penalty, and can get damage boosts).

The standard Minifort pair costs only uses 12% of its planet's 150k Energy Collector output. But given that Mk I Laser Turrets have a DPS:E cost ratio of about 0.28 whilet Mk I Fortress only has 0.088 (higher mark forts have somewhat better ratios), the Minifort keeping the Fortress's DPS to energy ratio while being vastly scaled down doesn't favor them.

As Kahuna's numbers show, Miniforts really don't add much to a single planet defence; you need to put them on around 8 planets before they have DPS: E cost equivalent to a Mk I Fortress. Not to mention that, as I'm sure most of us know, a single big unit is much stronger than 10 units with the same combined health and DPS.

I'd do one or more of the following:

• Upgrade them from 1/10th forts to 1/5th forts, so they add more punch to the planet they're on. This also makes them more obviously something that only gets placed on planets that need an extra degree of protection, rather than every speedbump the AI might pass over (regular turrets have that role now with their per-planet caps).
• Raise per-planet cap to 3
• Reduce K cost to 250-500, or even make them free
• Reduce their energy cost (but that breaks the nice 1/10th rule)
• Replace their weapon with something completely novel that doesn't need to follow the 1/10th rule, like a paralyzer, heat beam or armor rotter

(Also, I just noticed that their tooltip text still assumes turrets have a galaxy-wide cap...)

[Peter Ebbesen]

Come, Histidine, join the lightning torpedo defence platform heresy for mini-fort change. You know you want to. 


-----

And on the original issue, might I note that Kahuna's numbers and conclusions on mark I-III forts providing roughly the same DPS/total_knowledge but vastly inferior DPS/total_upkeep_cost does, unsurprisingly, support the notion of making forts have per-planet caps rather than per-galaxy, as doing that won't in any way make them supersede turrets, but will make them available in useful amounts in the non-minimum AIP games that can afford large scale deployment in the first place, and in those games make for much more interesting strategic choices regarding defence in depth, choosing how to balance the use of cheap sniper type turrets, missile turrets, and short-range turrets with the expensive forts that have long range and repair facilities, but an inability to harm polycrystal.