Making the death of an AI homeworld actually matter

[resonence]

I realized recently that other than the large increase in AIP, the death of one AI homeworld doesn't actually do anything. Something that has kinda bugged me for a while is that there aren't really 2 AIs. You configure them separately in the startup menu, but once the game starts, other than the fact that they get different bonus ships and that the Exo waves belong to AI 1, there doesn't really seem to be much difference between them. The ships are even controlled jointly.

While I can certainly imagine that from a back end perspective it is much easier to have one set of control logic for all the AI ships, the two AIs are so integrated that your not really fighting two distinct forces. Maybe that's the way its intended to be, but I'd personally like to see something a little different.

The idea I kicked around was that when you take out the first AI homeworld, it somehow affects the AIs capabilities. A few ideas I kicked around were:

1. The AI that lost it's homeworld loses access to bonus ships it acquired throughout the game (or some variant of losing access to ship types).
2. The AI that lost it's homeworld loses reinforcement capabilities to some degree (it loses all its special forces post, or can only spawn units at command centers, something along those lines).
3. The AI loses access to guardian units.
4. The AI has decreased wave capabilities.

I'm sure there are some other mechanics that could be developed with some thought.

Obviously doing all of these would give the player way too big an advantage once the first AI goes down, and it would probably necessitate increasing the AIP or some other response for taking out the first AI to make the second AI respond appropriately to the weakened state of the AI forces in the galaxy, but I think adding some more effects and repercussions to the loss of an AI homeworld would make the end game more interesting.

Thoughts?

[Histidine]

It might be an interesting strategic decision. Invest heavily into punching out one of the AIs early on, to make things easier for the rest of the game.

Just need to walk that fine line between "no-brainer" and "why would I even want to do this" 

[Darloth]

If the AIP increase is commesurate with whatever settings there are making the destroyed AI easier, then it would be more a decision of "Shall I neuter this AI in exchange for supercharging the other one?" which I personally think would be a lovely idea, especially if one type has been giving you lots of trouble, but certainly not something you'd want to do every game.

Would fit nicely with hunter plots as well, since it'd be a last gasp of a now severely reduced foe.

[Kahuna]

"Shall I neuter this AI in exchange for supercharging the other one?"

That's exactly how it is atm because killing the other AI increases the AIP by 34589w346563475678346ty57893476589

[Darloth]

I think the point the original poster was making is that it's NOT that at the moment - the AI you 'kill' isn't actually that much worse off. If anything it tries to kill you even harder, right?

[resonence]

Darloth hit the nail on the head. I understand that the AI gets angry when you kill one of the home command centers, but I feel like there needs to be something to justify it being angry, other than the fact that you have checked off a box in the objective list.

If the AI home command centers really are so important to the AI operations, it seems like killing one should do something to hinder AI operations.

[Wingflier]

Yeah resonence, you've got it backwards.

Killing an AI Homeworld is not supposed to make the game easier, but harder. In that regard, it *DOES* matter, in that 100 AIP is added to your threat. If you want to make it "matter" even more, turn on the Avenger AI Plot, I promise it will matter then.

[resonence]

Wingflier, I understand what the game is set up as right now, mechanically. My argument is that I think it would be more interesting if the mechanics were different. As Darloth observed, the tradeoff between neutering one AI and pissing off the other. The game is about strategic level tradeoffs, and right now there just isn't a tradeoff when it comes to when you take out the homeworld. The only way to play (good strategy wise) is to take out both homeworlds as quickly as possible. At that macro level, there isn't a decision to make.

Of course, there is a lot of strategy involved in how you take out the AI homeworlds, but I think adding another high level would be interesting. I think it might also introduce some interesting scenarios that result from one AI hw being vulnerable long before the second is. For example, I'm currently playing a Maze A map, but one AI hw is located along the main path, and the second is something like 30 hops behind that one. If there was a mechanic where by taking out that first hw weakend one of the AIs in some way, it would introduce a tradeoff, do I go for the vulnerable AI now to weaken it, knowing that the second AI will get more aggressive, or do I wait until I can take them both.

On the point of the avenger plot, I personally have never found it to matter much. I'll grant that this is only the case because I always play with fallen spire and go for the fleet, so compared to stuff in the Exo waves a single avenger spawning isn't that dangerous. With a different set of options, the Avenger is more of a threat, granted. However, it is not a feature that adds, in my mind, the same strategic depth, it's just one more thing to kill.

I also personally believe that from a lore perspective it makes sense. In many instances throughout the game, various references are made to how important the AI home command centers are to their operations. Now if Keith decides that the lore is "two command centers means redundancy, so you have to kill both to have an effect" then that's what it is, but I think it would fit in with what has been established in the game to have it worked the way I've described.

At this point I'm just trying to generate discussion on the idea because I think it might be interesting. We'll see where things go from here.