Command Station and its Survival Necessity

[colonyan]

Default command centers are not expensive. They are rebuilt quickly.
Thus, in last game, I just didn't defend some of the not so critically needed planets at all and just replaced the command station quickly in case of its destruction.

Actually it was kind of annoying to replace the command stations but I actually managed to win the game.

Instead, I thought it will be more exciting if game gave us some good reason to defend the command stations properly instead of treating it as temporary resource dispenser.

I was about to suggest on mantis to giving players some reward such as extra research points but seems like small 1 or 2 AI progress seems more balanced in the event of destruction of command station.

Do you think it is  needed or have any other way to make players want defend command station properly?

After thoughts
AI progress: If AI progress increase each time I lose any of my command stations, I better be defending it.
                 Thing is that game will be generally more harder.
Tech: If command station survives X time it generates Y tech points with the presence of research station.
         Ummm... This looks difficult to balance.

I still think AI progress seems better overall.

[Mánagarmr]

On higher difficulties, and in particular if you do not have a uniform territory (which you can't on high difficulty/large maps due to AIP issues), the destruction of a command station is rather devastating. That whole system no longer produces ANY resources (energy or metal/crystal) at all, and everything is out of supply, which means that forcefields, turrets and similar things shut down.

I feel the penalty for losing one is already harsch enough.

[x4000]

The problem with AI Progress increments on that is that when players scrap the command station it would also have to increase it.  That's a big problem for upgrading a command station.  Alternatively, if you make it NOT apply then, players will just scrap their command stations in anticipation of being attacked.

Generally speaking, if it annoys you to lose them, then don't lose them.  I've thought about a system like this many times in the past, it holds a certain appeal to me, but I think it winds up penalizing the player too much in close-call situations.  The balance of the game has changed so much in recent versions that may no longer be true, though; I'd be interested to hear what folks think.  There is something to be said for there being a cost to losing command stations.

[Winter Born]

It might be worthwhile to drop the number of colony ships down from 60. With zero energy cost now there is no reason not to stash a few at every endangered planet making replacement rather simple esp if engineers are present. If there were a cap of  only 5 colony ships losing a com station could be tough to recover from if the colony ships were off somewhere across a ho the map. Perhaps the cap could scale with AI difficulty (5 +1 per point of AI difficulty over 7)  and/or planet count (1 per 10 planets with a min of 4)

Separate idea:
Colony ships would presumably be huge requiring the starship factory to build

[Ozymandiaz]

Default command centers are not expensive. They are rebuilt quickly.
Thus, in last game, I just didn't defend some of the not so critically needed planets at all and just replaced the command station quickly in case of its destruction.

Actually it was kind of annoying to replace the command stations but I actually managed to win the game.

Instead, I thought it will be more exciting if game gave us some good reason to defend the command stations properly instead of treating it as temporary resource dispenser.

I was about to suggest on mantis to giving players some reward such as extra research points but seems like small 1 or 2 AI progress seems more balanced in the event of destruction of command station.

Do you think it is  needed or have any other way to make players want defend command station properly?

After thoughts
AI progress: If AI progress increase each time I lose any of my command stations, I better be defending it.
                 Thing is that game will be generally more harder.
Tech: If command station survives X time it generates Y tech points with the presence of research station.
         Ummm... This looks difficult to balance.

I still think AI progress seems better overall.

I do not think its a good idea in general.

For various reason, say I capture a ADR planet in the middle of hostile territory, I might not have any intention to keep that planet at all, since its far away, it has lots of wormholes etc. Then in practise it cost me AIP to get the ADR. If they do cost AIP to loose, I also forsee that players will eventually turret blob them all the time.

The only way I would see AIP justified is on a specal kind of command station, one giving more special bonuses then the regular ones. Otherwise I do not like the idea.

[colonyan]

OK. AI progress seemed too harsh.
How about if orbital mining had partial or full dependency on command station for its full potential mining.
Mines produce at full potential whether there is or no command station in planet(given that planet has supply I assume). Instead if they depend its functionality to command station, losing of command station will be even worse. Same could be done with power stations.

Another or additional option is requiring command station construction token(ticket or imagine as necessary officers).
For an example, at game's beginning, 5 token will be given. Each command station uses one or more depending on its tech level.
Home world produces 1 token each 30 minutes. Some planet could give you one time bonus token upon capturing.
Token could be bought at 300k/300k cost if needed urgently. One time inexpensive tech could give 3 tokens or so.
Making another condition to command station building will make command station survival vital for steady expansion given that
token is scarce. Different difficulty level could give different numbers.

Actually I was not really felt good about proposing new resource type but given its importance, I thought it could add great value in defending command station. Loosing too much command station could result in massive loss of time/resource which could also mean more auto AI progress making defeat more certain.

[Buttons840]

It'd be cool if command stations became more useful over time.  Perhaps their resource output slowly ramps up over the course of an hour or two until it reaches it's (current) maximum resource output?

Reminds me of the factories in SupCom2.  Sure, you can rebuild them easily, but once a factory has been around a while it becomes more efficient (producing cheaper units faster), and losing an experience factory can cost you the game.

[Vinraith]

It'd be cool if command stations became more useful over time.  Perhaps their resource output slowly ramps up over the course of an hour or two until it reaches it's (current) maximum resource output?

That's a good idea, actually. It removes the "penalty for upgrades/repositioning" issue, but incentivizes keeping them intact to the degree possible. Rather than punishing losses, it's more about rewarding keeping the station alive.

[colonyan]

It'd be cool if command stations became more useful over time.  Perhaps their resource output slowly ramps up over the course of an hour or two until it reaches it's (current) maximum resource output?

I actually thought about that before posting my last post, but I thought that just made your income smaller.
It does actually makes you feel like you are growing the command station but from AI's point of view, it just doesn't matter the fact that you get little less resource from command station. They will just attack on their own pace.

[Sizzle]

It'd be cool if command stations became more useful over time.  Perhaps their resource output slowly ramps up over the course of an hour or two until it reaches it's (current) maximum resource output?

That's a good idea, actually. It removes the "penalty for upgrades/repositioning" issue, but incentivizes keeping them intact to the degree possible. Rather than punishing losses, it's more about rewarding keeping the station alive.

Along those lines,  an interesting progression:

Start below the current maximum, allow to go ABOVE the current maximum via auto upgrade to economy II or III if you have them unlocked.  It would require some re-balancing of the current economic system, but it really rewards not losing a station, because you simply can't immediately replace with a III, you'd have to start from a I all over again.

If you manage to hold onto a system for a long time, you're well rewarded as this potentially removes the "cap" for number of III stations you can own.  Higher risk, higher reward.

[Lancefighter]

Honestly I can't imagine needing more than 6 mk3 Econ stations, but I certainly wouldn't complain if I was allowed to have more.

Some random things I can think of:
player command stations (possibly mil only)  generate build points over time, which they can dump into buildings to instantly build them. This would mean that having a military station with a ton of build points available can become an instant defensive wall, if you have enough resources.

Econstations might be able to have a growing resource multiplier, where over time, the economy of the system goes up by a few percet each tick ( say, after an hour or so you are at +30% or something)

a logistics station.. Well, makes stuff even faster later on :/

[colonyan]

Seamless command station upgrade sounds interesting. But should all command station will upgrade?

If human can assume AI targets near maturing command station, defense will be lot more easy.
At the same time game becomes predictable.

I think fun is there from the fact that you can't guess where the attack will occur or have no relevance to economic level of a planet thus harder to predict the AI's move. Thus, I'd say growing station is redundant.

My personal view is to not lose specific stations
but you want to defend every single command station you've built. Thus making colonization choice making more
serious matter. With token method I've written above, game can effectively control the total number of
command station you can build/rebuild.

Example
1 command station point required per one colony ship construction.
Initially available command station point = 15 - difficulty level
Home command station generates 1 points each 10 minutes + difficulty*3.
For example at difficulty 7, you start with 8 points and one points at each 31 minutes.
You absolutely want to avoid having 0 points since you wont be able to rebuild any command station.

[Winter Born]

Interesting idea -- evolving comm stations. You would have to unlock the mk2 mk3 for them to progress you could build a mk1 then allow it to mature over time but keep the same ship caps ie all your econ would never exceed the individual caps for a mk lvl
like 10 mature econ would be 6 Mk3 and the rest would be mk2. and if a mk3 died or whatever, one of the mk2 would promote to be a replacement mk3.

One of X4000 core mechanics for the game is non upgradeable units. He has blog and wiki articles on that subject.
Look at the new higher costs for higher tier units, his comment ws that it made the lower tier units more useful again from a cost benefit example