Ideas for making deep AI territory scarier without it being impossible.

[x4000]

This is a tricky discussion, and not something I'm necessarily planning on acting on immediately or even all that soon, but I wanted to get this started as a discussion, at least.  The comment has been that going deep into AI territory doesn't feel all that dangerous.  And to some extent, that's by design: when I move my bishop to the next-to-back row of my opponent in Chess, that's not all that dangerous if he's not in position to attack my bishop there.  It's about opportunity and position, more than direct adjacency.

To some extent, that's what makes deep striking (or indeed, the game at all) possible.  It would be a good thing to see what we can do for making the really deep territories of the AI seem more dangerous.

Players have talked about having roving bands of really tough ships that are only in deep AI territory, but how exactly would that help?  That also winds up making the endgame waaay tougher, which isn't really a side goal of this.

Well, I could write more, but I'll leave it at that for today.  I don't tend to do extreme deep striking, so I'm not the best one to answer this specific question.  I'm curious what folks that do deep strike so far think.

[x4000]

Well, maybe there's a simple and elegant answer right here:

If I'm understanding correctly, the problem (and reason) for Core Shield Generators is that deep raiding as a mechanic is too powerful, and allows the player to circumvent AIP.

I propose a solution that causes the player to accrue 1 AIP every minute everytime they have an attacking force over 3 planets away from one of their owned planets.  The logic behind this is simple, the AI, when you are taking planets in a normal and understandable fashion, finds the human threat to be "manageable".  However, when you start "deep-striking" them, they realize that the threat is greater than they had previously anticipated, and will thus begin reevaluating their original assessment of you.

Causing AIP per minute for deep-strikes doesn't render them useless, but forces the player to actually make the decision of whether the strike will be worth it or not.  And with this mechanic, there is no way you can "deep strike" your way through the game without accruing a significant amount of AIP.  Please add my suggestion to the list, thank you.

That's actually REALLY interesting.  I think that some players would still really like the CSGs (RCIX, et al), but that might be a way to really neatly balance the actual deep striking problem.

[Wingflier]

Yeah, it doesn't have to be 1 AIP per minute, it can be more or less (maybe more on harder difficulties etc.), but basically it will require playtesting to determine how much is needed to prevent the exploitive deep-raiding strategies, while hopefully keeping some incentive to do it in certain situations.  It also doesn't add confusing elements to the game like "hunter-killers", and allows the player the freedom of choice that everybody has been so adamant about keeping.

Thank you for considering it.

[x4000]

And to clarify, that 1-AIP-per-minute could actually be something like 1 per 5 minutes or something if the balance isn't right.  It's more about the core idea, than the specific numbers, that I'm excited about.

EDIT: ninja'd.   Yes, all good points.

[Wingflier]

Haha good to know we're on the same page

[ShadowOTE]

I'd say it would have to be at LEAST 1 per minute, since that would just shift the strategy from "how many can I jump before I have to take something" to "jump as deep as fast as possible, then take a world and throw down a command station". Of course, you'd have to HOLD that station to avoid the mechanic, but you'd only have to hold ONE station behind AI lines to prevent autoprogress, leading to "leap-frogging". Yes, more systems are taken, but outside of map types that have very deep routes to the AI homeworld it only bumps the AI progress by one or two worlds, and you only need to keep one of those long enough to get to the next!

[Wingflier]

I'd say it would have to be at LEAST 1 per minute, since that would just shift the strategy from "how many can I jump before I have to take something" to "jump as deep as fast as possible, then take a world and throw down a command station". Of course, you'd have to HOLD that station to avoid the mechanic, but you'd only have to hold ONE station behind AI lines to prevent autoprogress, leading to "leap-frogging". Yes, more systems are taken, but outside of map types that have very deep routes to the AI homeworld it only bumps the AI progress by one or two worlds, and you only need to keep one of those long enough to get to the next!

Then make it so the AIP goes up when you are 2 planets out instead of 3 etc.  Basically I think you can make this work, you just have to tweak the numbers accordingly.

[ShadowOTE]

Yeah, that's pretty much my thought as well. It certainly strikes me as being on the right track, but balancing it will be key to the mechanic's success.

[Foogsert]

Honestly, I actually quite like the AIP per minute idea. 1 per minute seems reasonable enough to me (perhaps it could be adjusted like the AIP per time elapsed, with 1 per minute as a default? though not sure if we need more AIP options). If the player is just running 2-3 sectors and throwing down a command station, then I'd think the goal was met anyways. Go with that, and make the current generator mechanic into an AI plot or minor faction or some such is my vote. I think just throwing the generator setup would be a waste, as they are interesting, if not to everyone's taste.

[Invelios]

This AIP per minute solution actually sounds pretty good, but I have to ask, what accounts as "an attacking force"? Any mobile military at all? Or a certain number? Or perhaps a certain amount of Firepower? This should probably be clarified. In my last game, I sent a couple of spirecraft jumpships, with cloaking and siege starships to take out the co-processors and data centers that where pretty deep in enemy territory. Would this be enough of an "attacking force" to trigger the AIP increase, or would I need many more ships to trigger it?

[Foogsert]

I'd probably say any non-scout at all. Ideally co-proc and data center raids shouldn't take you so long that you waste their bonus. If it'd take you too long, you probably shouldn't be striking them down from that far away.

[Varone]

Planet that is 4 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 2X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 5 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 4X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 6 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 8X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 7 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 16X armor boost to all AI units in this system.

you get the idea.

Deep enemy territory is practically impenetrable unless more planets are taken.

[Sizzle]

Planet that is 4 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 2X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 5 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 4X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 6 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 8X armor boost to all AI units in this system.
Planet that is 7 hops away from nearest friendly planet has 16X armor boost to all AI units in this system.

you get the idea.

Deep enemy territory is practically impenetrable unless more planets are taken.

Problem is it is very easy to make "throw away" planets to hop scotch across the galaxy and keep the "nearest friendly planet" very close, while actually being VERY far away from your actual home systems.

We'd need some concept of "friendly system density" to make any real use of that sort of concept... perhaps the average distance to ALL friendly systems?  You'd end up with a number that is more or less the distance to the "core" of the friendly empire.

[Ozymandiaz]

I am not really too fond of the idea of AIP per time unit for deep raids at all, does not seem to change the underlying problem imo. It also takes some of the pace away form us who likes not to rush it . I know how I would do it, if it costs me AIP to deep raid, I do it either with some huge powerful starship to do it quickly, or a big old blob to be able to do it quickly by ganking anything in my way. In a way it seem to punish slower guerrilla methods (e.g like sending in a small force with some decent close range protection but high range firepower like sentinel frigs and snipers as the main weapon to pick off stuff).


I would rather see the methods of going deep be hindered, e.g. removing transports, needing a support fleet to get things done, needing bases to repair a fleet etc. If its currently perceived as too simple to go deep in, why not make it harder to go deep in rather then punishing going deep in?


Currently tho, to me it seem generally AI planets have far too little units on them by default. If the unit counts was raised, it would also be harder to go deeper in due to losses you incur and such, but it will be approx the same close by when talking a new planet. After all the AI owns the galaxy, it would make sense it has a decent sized garrison there.


Or maybe, it will start sending waves at some planets deeper in if a fleet is there?

[Invelios]

I'd probably say any non-scout at all. Ideally co-proc and data center raids shouldn't take you so long that you waste their bonus. If it'd take you too long, you probably shouldn't be striking them down from that far away.

Yeah, I guess that would probably be right. The only time it would be a big issue is if one of the AI's was a Oneway Doormaster, cause of the blackhole machines, but under that circumstance you should probably alter your strategy anyways. I just wanted a little clarification.