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

[ShadowOTE]

Hmm, if this isnt the case already (and I don't think it is, but I havent checked and can't recall for certain off the top of my head) perhaps make MRS require supply? Then again, I know there are rumbles about changing it anyway, so perhaps there are other ways to reduce their ability to support deep strike fleets - reduced efficiency outside of supply perhaps? As it now stands now, leeches, MRS, and careful play can substantially impact how far you can successfully deep strike.

[Ozymandiaz]

Hmm, if this isnt the case already (and I don't think it is, but I havent checked and can't recall for certain off the top of my head) perhaps make MRS require supply? Then again, I know there are rumbles about changing it anyway, so perhaps there are other ways to reduce their ability to support deep strike fleets - reduced efficiency outside of supply perhaps? As it now stands now, leeches, MRS, and careful play can substantially impact how far you can successfully deep strike.

Some restrictions of MRS and some more AI units in general I think would do it.

[Kemeno]

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?

How about making AI Eyes that are more than X hops away from a human controlled planet invulnerable? Or make them invulnerable on all planets unless the warp gate on the planet is destroyed. Not sure if this solves the problem, though, since you can still send units in small groups to rally at eye-less planets. (Eyes would have to count units in transports for this to work well too).

[ShadowOTE]

Invulnerable until after the command station/warp gate is gone? That sounds like a bad idea - I can think of several situations where that might result in defenses that can't be really be breached until AFTER you assassinate the AI Eye - fighting fortress barons, for example (whom tend to get tons of superfortresses from what I recall - throw in the entourage mechanic and it's entirely possible they end up surrounded by fighters and eat attacking fleets for breakfast as a result).

[Wingflier]

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? Wink

I don't know if "being punished" is the correct way to look at it.  Are you being punished everytime you take out an Orbital Command Station?  Well sure, but these are the kinds of decisions the player has to make.  The fact of the matter is, the game has been built around a direct correlation between AIP increase and player progress.  Deep-raiding circumvents this mechanic by allowing the player to progress substantially without gaining any AIP at all.  Though there are alternative solutions to it, I think the most easily understandable and coherent solution is to find a way to accrue AIP for deep-raiding, as it is consistent with game principles already in place.

[Sizzle]

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?

The problem is not the "deep strike" tactic, but the "floor AIP" method along with deep striking.  Deep striking has its place, but the fact that "least is best" method works so well means that people are not experimenting with ships, they're completing with the "least challenge" (lowest AIP) possible and slicing off entire chunks of the game experience in the same stroke.  You're supposed to take AIP progress into consideration in how much is TOO much, but on the other hand, there's such a thing as too minimalist in terms of AIP, in that it's throwing out half the game in order to get the easiest homeworld assaults done in the shortest timeframe.

[superking]

alternate, non-AIP related suggestion:

when military ships (units in transports do not apply) belonging to the player enter an world more than 3 hops out, the AI
a) reinforces when ships enter the planet, as golems used to cause
b) are enraged (move to engage on their planet like the tagteamer, but without becoming freed)

[Red Cossack]

Give the AI a floating "reaction fleet" that is deploys to crisis points.  A crisis point would be called by certain units (Eye being one of them), based on adjusting criteria (how deep into enemy territory, size of your fleet ect).  Build in some limitations that the user can use tactics to reduce effectiveness, but make mean enough to challenge. 

[shugyosha]

Maybe we should try to tie the problem of deepstriking to AIP generation by destruction or capture.

Mechanic A
Taking a system 3 hops out costs 20 additional AIP. The trick is that the AIP can be triggered multiple times so replacing a lost command station too far out actually costs AIP as the AI witnesses your persistence to operate far away from regular supply lines. This will attack the weakness of the deepstriker which is coordinated defense.

Mechanic B
Alternatively holding a command station three hops away costs 5 AIP every 15 minutes. Therefore after an hour this planet alone has generated enough extra AIP to justify a strategy of 3x Hop > Capture instead of 2x Hop > Hop > Capture.
The two important and I think elegant things about this mechanic are...
1. that it in fact still allows deepstriking but makes it a brutal race against the clock which most players wouldn't dare to try.
2. Losing a command station in your chain of planets can actually trigger this. This is a bit harder to justify but is quite a nice thriller moment when you loose a planet to a wave and a countdown starts. Better take back this planet in 15 minutes or the AI gets really angry.

[Suzera]

Maybe we should try to tie the problem of deepstriking to AIP generation by destruction or capture.

Mechanic A
Taking a system 3 hops out costs 20 additional AIP. The trick is that the AIP can be triggered multiple times so replacing a lost command station too far out actually costs AIP as the AI witnesses your persistence to operate far away from regular supply lines. This will attack the weakness of the deepstriker which is coordinated defense.

Mechanic B
Alternatively holding a command station three hops away costs 5 AIP every 15 minutes. Therefore after an hour this planet alone has generated enough extra AIP to justify a strategy of 3x Hop > Capture instead of 2x Hop > Hop > Capture.
The two important and I think elegant things about this mechanic are...
1. that it in fact still allows deepstriking but makes it a brutal race against the clock which most players wouldn't dare to try.
2. Losing a command station in your chain of planets can actually trigger this. This is a bit harder to justify but is quite a nice thriller moment when you loose a planet to a wave and a countdown starts. Better take back this planet in 15 minutes or the AI gets really angry.

Permanent disadvantage for temporary gain is why I never ever use warheads. Right now with the planet gangups deepstriking seems hard enough. Without being able to floor AIP forever, defense is a challenge too.

[shugyosha]

Permanent disadvantage for temporary gain is why I never ever use warheads. Right now with the planet gangups deepstriking seems hard enough. Without being able to floor AIP forever, defense is a challenge too.

And how exactly is AIP per minute for a fleet deep in AI territory not permanent disadvantage for temporary gain, if not even more so?

[Suzera]

Permanent disadvantage for temporary gain is why I never ever use warheads. Right now with the planet gangups deepstriking seems hard enough. Without being able to floor AIP forever, defense is a challenge too.

And how exactly is AIP per minute for a fleet deep in AI territory not permanent disadvantage for temporary gain, if not even more so?

They are both permanent disadvantage for temporary gain. They're both bad in my opinion. You're just the only one I happened to quote. My bad.

[Wingflier]

Permanent disadvantage for temporary gain is why I never ever use warheads. Right now with the planet gangups deepstriking seems hard enough. Without being able to floor AIP forever, defense is a challenge too.

And how exactly is AIP per minute for a fleet deep in AI territory not permanent disadvantage for temporary gain, if not even more so?

I disagree with both of you.  For me it's almost mandatory practice to nuke each AI Homeworld before I strike.  Is the gain temporary?  Sure, but it makes the job so much easier to do, and offers a greater benefit in the long run (in my opinion).

Secondly, consider you are 4 planets away from a data center or two.  If you deep-raid that data center, will it really take 20 minutes to get in there, kill it, and get out?  Absolutely not, and in this situation the AIP you gained is much less than you destroyed.  The AIP per minute (and Chris hasn't even decided that it will be per minute btw) is a disincentive for deep-raiding, just like AIP per Orbital Command is a disincentive from killing those.  The key operator here is finding the correct balance that forces the player to make a choice.  Right now, there is no choice, you deep-raid and you win.

[RogueThunder]

Injecting a thought...
I see one VERY good reason to absolutely not do X AIP per Y min more than Z hops out.

It massively subtracts from the TBS side of the games game-play. Yes, we have AIP/time. This is an adjustable number that last I checked, that people have WIDE different preferences on.

I'm among those that play some games of AI Wars slow-and-methodically, and some lets-push-my-luck-bwhahaha-die-all-of-you. And even once in a blue moon somewhere in between.


Now. Some sort of reactive, non-friendly world attacking force based response I could see... But honestly AI Eyes already do that. Honestly, I find AI Eyes last I played to be a bit over-reactive at times.

The question is, how can deep raiding be made costly if overdone but not excessively ship-eating that deep raids are nothing but suicide runs.


Huh. Just a random thought. Some sort of small-count "Enforcer" ship that is just strong enough that once it shows up you have to divert raiding resource to destroy it or it starts notably gnawing through your ships. Yet is on some sort of a respawn timer as long as it's triggered. Prehaps the longer it's triggered the more it spawns each wave to counterattack with, resetting after having been left untriggered galactically for a while. Getting the strength of the ship right would be hard...
But if ya got it right, you would be punished for excessive deep raiding by it getting progressively harder to do so constantly.

Something along the lines of a ship that dies over ~3 times it's spawn period... So they can build up but only temporarily if you raid and ignore them. Probably fast, but not raid starship fast.

Good name for such a ship... Counter-raid Enforcer

Not a very thought out idea. Just my random 1.9 cents. (sorry .1 cent was lost to exhaustion taxes)

[shugyosha]

I disagree with both of you.  For me it's almost mandatory practice to nuke each AI Homeworld before I strike.  Is the gain temporary?  Sure, but it makes the job so much easier to do, and offers a greater benefit in the long run (in my opinion).

Secondly, consider you are 4 planets away from a data center or two.  If you deep-raid that data center, will it really take 20 minutes to get in there, kill it, and get out?  Absolutely not, and in this situation the AIP you gained is much less than you destroyed.  The AIP per minute (and Chris hasn't even decided that it will be per minute btw) is a disincentive for deep-raiding, just like AIP per Orbital Command is a disincentive from killing those.  The key operator here is finding the correct balance that forces the player to make a choice.  Right now, there is no choice, you deep-raid and you win.

The problem with ship based AIP is the same as with Raid engines and such. There are so many borderline cases. Scouts, Zombies, cloaked vessels, transports, how large has a fleet to be? All this can be solved I have no doubt but it messy to implement and taxing for the player. Its a simple concept and I like it but in reality it is complicated and difficult to show.

AIP for command stations three hops away is much more cleaner and in effect is more or less the same core concept. It can easily be explained to new players and veterans and you really don't have to show it in the game thereafter. A simple message about the AIP and a switch to the galaxy map shows what is going on. Its all there.

Also I think this whole discussion is about preventing extreme planethopping to win the game without hurting the normal player. It has nothing to to with deep raiding afaik.

The question is, how can deep raiding be made costly if overdone but not excessively ship-eating that deep raids are nothing but suicide runs.

The mechanic of X AIP per Y minutes for condition Z which is discussed here does not harm the slow and methodical player unless he is deepstriking. x4000 wants to banish deepstriking as a way of winning more or less from the game. Instead of doing so the discussed mechanic would in fact still allow it but be time sensitive and dangerous. Some amount of AIP has to be timebased or you could just gather resources on a low AIP for a long time. That's the whole reason for +1 AIP per 30 minutes default.