Keeping the AI down

[Nibelung44]

Hi,

I have 12 or so AI controlled system where everything but the command station and galactic gate is removed, and on each significant defenses, enough (by a large margin) to kill the 50-100 ships that the AI add on these systems when it decides to reinforce it (thanks for the Turrets V system cap)

So my question is, I'm hampering significantly the whole AI this way, by sucking away a lot of its power or it really means nothing overall (i.e it will be anyway as strong elsewhere as if I had no such system) ? Am I draining partially its capacity to send big stuff on me (not a regular wave, but perhaps CPA? )

[Tridus]

You are hindering it's ability to build up, yes. The AI doesn't have unlimited reinforcements, and you're killing a lot of them. That keeps those worlds from buliding up huge numbers of ships that could be launched at you if they ever become free threat, and takes away reinforcements that could have gone somewhere else. I'm not sure if it affects CPAs or not.

[keith.lamothe]

Neutering AI planets, keeping them on alert, and assassinating the reinforcements in detail is generally a sound thing to do if you can pull it off without slowing down your own offensives too much.

The main benefit is that it cuts down on reinforcements that go somewhere that can actually frustrate your offensives.  For instance if you have a single border AI planet but you're holding 10 planets that single alerted AI planet can get 10 (or so)reinforcements each go.  That can quickly pile up to uncomfortable levels.  In your case even if it has reinforcements left over for its non-neutered alerted planets (if any) they're not going to have nearly as much pile-up effect.

A secondary benefit is cutting down on the available population for CPAs, but with the Strategic Reserve available the AI generally still has enough ships to fill out a CPA in most reasonable cases.  That said, it lets you siphon off a potentially-huge chunk of the Reserve; that refills relatively quickly but if you time a homeworld assault for right after a CPA that was mostly funded from the Reserve it could help you.  Of course, warheads usually deal with the Reserve pretty well, if needed.

Anyway, in general these sorts of tactics aren't the most efficient use of time: victory usually comes by hitting the enemy in the right places, and hitting it quickly.  Not by trying to wrestle down all the arms on the octopus.  But depending on the scenario it can be helpful to try.

[Bognor]

Depending on the map, all those extra turrets might help you survive a CPA if they can hit freed ships on their way to your planets.

[Nibelung44]

Thanks Keith (and others!) for the helpful answers, you are a nice bunch

Keith, the options you propose are numerous, true. Still, there are some controls that are not there, and given the number of patches you put out, if they are not there, should I suppose it is because you don't want to see them? But then, you strive to accommodate several players styles, so why don't you allow orders like guard or patrol to exist? They are present in many RTS (almost all in fact) and would increase automation.

For example a group of fighter patrolling within the perimeter of turrets and mini fortress would be great... FRD is not filling this role, they will rush without support against a wave.

Or the guard order. I would so much like to define several subformations as guard to a Spire Artillery, advanced lab, etc.

[Diazo]

It depends on your defensive setup, but have you looked at the "Limit FRD range to 80,000" in the controls window?

I've not used it myself as I don't FRD my mobile military but that sounds like it might do what you want.

As for the Guard order, that order itself does not exist but if you put all the units in the same control group and Group-Move them, they will stay together effectively make them escorts for the high-value unit.

Again, you can enable "Group-Move by default" in the controls window so that when you issue a move order the ships selected all move at the same speed by default.

D.

[keith.lamothe]

Keith, the options you propose are numerous, true. Still, there are some controls that are not there, and given the number of patches you put out, if they are not there, should I suppose it is because you don't want to see them? But then, you strive to accommodate several players styles, so why don't you allow orders like guard or patrol to exist? They are present in many RTS (almost all in fact) and would increase automation.

I wouldn't assume the absence of anything means said absence is intentional   The things you mention (to the extent not already covered by FRD/etc) would be significantly complex since they amount to specialized AI for your units.  Which is what FRD is, but adding more is additional complexity on top of it all, etc.

Anyway, it's not that I specifically don't want those features in the game (not sure how Chris feels about them) but a matter of there being enough of a community consensus that they are important enough to warrant the time it would take to implement them, and (more to the point) more worthy of that attention than other things that time could go towards.