Prerelease 1.013A (Faster Starts For Human Players, Buffed Forts)

[Revenantus]

Yeah, I know just what you mean, too.  I think that this will let people basically fall into different "civs" that they prefer.  For example, econ is hugely important to me even above having extra military hardware.  So I'm always likely to go Command Station II right at the start (same as I always go French in AoEIII).  Then I have a choice of some turrets, or Mark II somethings right from the start, or whatever.

Personally I'm quite likely to go for Engineer IIs at the beginning for maintenance purposes (I love those guys). Command Station IIs are something I also really like, until now I tended to wait for a resource analysis of the nearby worlds before committing to them, but with the initial knowledge increases they could well become a no-brainer for many players. I think players would have to be seriously squeezed for resources at the beginning to go for the Tech III version!

Other people might go for the Fort right from the start, when they otherwise would not (my dad likes these, so I think he will).

Wow, Fortresses at the start sounds like a big investment! My initial reaction to that is it seems like defensive overkill, but I'll have to experiment with how many turrets a Fortress effectively equates to, especially with their new improvements. I have to admit I've been fairly ignorant to the potential of Fortresses for wormhole defense up until now.

Or they can get turrets or mobile repair stations right from the start if they do that.

Are any players here commonly deploying Mobile Repair Stations? I use them occasionally, but feel a little as though unlocking those AND tech II engineers is questionable.

I think that people will fall into a dozen or so different "civ styles" with this, with minor variances, but it will also be interesting to see how this changes and evolves as more and more techs are added to the game.  The DLC and expansions items probably more than triple the number of techs available, so a year or two from now you could be seeing even more huge of a variance in what people might do -- kind of like how most RTS games add more civs in their expansions, I feel like.

I have plans to experiment with deploying Tech III forcefields as soon as possible. It'll take a bit of trial and error to find the correct ship numbers/mixes, but I'm hoping to find a recipe for an extremely durable SWAT team.

Defensive turret technologies are unlikely to be a wise investment right at the beginning of the game. They tend to become more desirable as the game progresses and you have more territory to defend. You'll know precisely when you reach the point that you need them in that you simply won't have enough turrets/firepower to adequately blockade wormholes / defend Command Stations.

The main benefit of investing in turrets is that you get considerably more firepower for their resource costs than you do with mobile military ships. The obvious downside is that they don't have engines and therefore can't participate in assaults, except perhaps in the formation of beach heads - For this reason you generally shouldn't invest in turrets unless you actually require them for defense. Ships are much more versatile.

I tend to actually go for Mark II short range turrets earlier than a lot of people, I think.  Usually not until I've captured maybe 8 or so planets, but now that there is a 10k starting bonus I think I will often get them sooner than later.  They really pack more of a punch for less cost, as you say, and this frees up more of my fleet/resources for offense.  But this isn't such and obvious thing that even I will always do it, it will most likely depend on how much I'm being attacked right at the start.

This is interesting to me as I generally try to stave off investing in technologies that I can't use in an offensive manner for as long as possible. I make heavy use of Warp Gate raids to minimize the number of turrets I need to deploy. What are everyone else's thoughts on the deployment of turrets? I'm genuinely interested in what your philosophies are on when the best time to unlock them is.

(Note that I'm in no way knocking turrets, they're a necessity and I unlock them regularly too)

I usually unlock the MkII Short Range and MLRS turrets in a game, more rarely do I reach the point where I require Tech III turrets but it certainly happens. An alternative to investing in more turrets is to station some of your weaker ships near wormholes. Cruiser Is make particularly good sentries, just make sure that you have tractor beam turrets at the wormholes to prevent the AI ships from reaching the cruisers.

I tend to keep my cruiser Is in my main fleets since they have such a long range and thus also tend to be so good in combat in general.  I also tend to go Mark II and III of the short range turret, then maybe the missile turret (which has been really buffed in the last month, if you didn't try them more recently).  That would usually be all of my turret unlocks over the course of a game. But it's more personal preference than anything else, that just fits my playstyle most.  And in some games I certainly need counter-whatever turrets or something else.  Or, if I have teleporting battle stations or teleporting raiders or snipers, I might unlock fewer turrets in general since they can protect whole worlds more easily.

Absolutely agree regarding the teleporting ships. They present great difficulties when you attempt to integrate them with the main fleets, however they are fantastic for defensive purposes and having a squad of tele-stations ready to be called upon at a moment's notice is always handy.

With regards to ship garrisons, using ships to defend wormholes isn't something I would recommend that players actually plan to do, but in the case of heavily contested worlds they can be a good temporary measure when the required Knowledge isn't for new turrets isn't available, or you need the Knowledge for other purposes.

As for fortresses, well, you can essentially think of them as just really beefy turrets, though of special consideration are the facts that they counter negative energy and can't be repaired. I have personally never unlocked fortresses due to their immense knowledge costs, though with their new strength increases I may have to reevaluate that policy.

Also, all of those non-repairable units like forts and forcefields have auto-regen as of a couple of releases ago, by the way.  So it will heal back to full health in about 3 hours if it is fully damaged, or faster if it is less damaged.

I'm aware that they can regenerate, but the inability to artificially accelerate their repair rate is a significant mechanic that affects them and not turrets. Indeed, 3 hours is a long time, though certainly an appropriate one.

In conclusion, some general guidelines are;

 - Preferentially invest in technologies that increase your ability to attack the AI.
 - Invest in defensive technologies ONLY as required.

I pretty much follow those, myself, even though I'm a bit turtleish at times (I attack the AI early and often, but I also like to know that my personal defenses are really solid while I do so, which is why I'm say "a bit").  I think these are good general guidelines, and people with turtle tendencies will feel like defensive techs are required faster than other players.

True, AI War presents so many tactical possibilities that it's impossible to supply any hard rules, and it would ultimately be undesirable to do so as it's a great thing to have a game that allows so many different preferred play styles to be used effectively. Though If I were introducing a new player, I'd probably offer those as hints, and will do so to my Dad and Brother as soon as I can convince them to buy the game.

[x4000]

Personally I'm quite likely to go for Engineer IIs at the beginning for maintenance purposes (I love those guys).

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that -- I don't use them overmuch, but I'm glad they have bee such a hit with others.

Command Station IIs are something I also really like, until now I tended to wait for a resource analysis of the nearby worlds before committing to them, but with the initial knowledge increases they could well become a no-brainer for many players. I think player's would have to be seriously squeezed for resources at the beginning to go for the Tech III version!

Agreed!

Wow, Fortresses at the start sounds like a big investment! My initial reaction to that is it seems like defensive overkill, but I'll have to experiment with how many turrets a Fortress effectively equates to, especially with their new improvements. I have to admit I've been fairly ignorant to the potential of Fortresses for wormhole defense up until now.

Yeah, that's definitely a big investment, but some people really like the security of putting one of those next to their force fields or something like that.  I may need to buff these even more, it's hard to say, but the idea is that these are like the forts in AoEIII in many regards -- those were absolutley indispensable for my RTS group.

Are any players here commonly deploying Mobile Repair Stations? I use them occasionally, but feel a little as though unlocking those AND tech II engineers is questionable.

From all the commentary and requests I get about space tugs, I think there are at least two or three regulars using these regularly.  In the larger game population, I don't know what the percentages are.

I have plans to experiment with deploying Tech III forcefields as soon as possible. It'll take a bit of trial and error to find the correct ship numbers/mixes, but I'm hoping to find a recipe for an extremely durable SWAT team.

Ha, I think that could work really well.  I just hope it's not overpowered.

This is interesting to me as I generally try to stave off investing in technologies that I can't use in an offensive manner for as long as possible. I make heavy use of Warp Gate raids to minimize the number of turrets I need to deploy. What are everyone else's thoughts on the deployment of turrets? I'm genuinely interested in what your philosophies are on when the best time to unlock them is.

(Note that I'm in no way knocking turrets, they're a necessity and I unlock them regularly too)

I gotcha.  I think it just comes down to differences in style.  I do gate raids also, but usually I can't get all the gates on all the planets.  So in those cases I will need a mobile garrison.  For the other planets where I did kill the adjacent warp gates, I try to get by with zero mobile ships, just turrets, unless it's my home planet.  That way those defenses are pretty self sustaining (with an engineer or two present), and I can keep my mobile guys almost all on the offensive.  For me, I treat the Mark II turrets almost like an effective population cap increase for my mobile ships, because that means I can keep the on offense or on defending the more-contested worlds, rather than having them be so spread out all over the place.

With regards to ship garrisons, using ships to defend wormholes isn't something I would recommend that players actually plan to do, but in the case of heavily contested worlds they can be a good temporary measure when the required Knowledge isn't for new turrets isn't available, or you need the Knowledge for other purposes.

I agree -- whenever possible, turrets and tractor beams are the way to go.  But sometimes it's not possible, of course.  And when a wave is coming, I move ships to defend at the wormhole or at the most likely targets the AI might attack (well, the things I want most to protect -- command stations and constructors and captive human settlements, etc).

I'm aware that they can regenerate, but the inability to artificially accelerate their repair rate is a significant mechanic that affects them and not turrets. Indeed, 3 hours is a long time, though certainly an appropriate one.

Cool, just wanted to make sure you knew -- for a while there, they had no regen AND could not be repaired, which was too heavy of a nerf for players, but necessary as a nerf for the AI.  This keeps more of a balance, but still might need tweaking.

True, AI War presents so many tactical possibilities that it's impossible to supply any hard rules, and it would ultimately be undesirable to do so as it's a great thing to have a game that allows so many different preferred play styles to be used effectively. Though If I were introducing a new player, I'd probably offer those as hints, and will do so to my Dad and Brother as soon as I can convince them to buy the game.

I think those are manual-worthy hints, to be honest.  Then players can find their own preferences as they go.  I hope you do get your dad and brother into the game, I play with my dad and uncle and it's a blast.  Also got my wife into it, but more on an off-and-on basis.  She's a gamer, but hasn't touched another RTS since the original Empire Earth, so that was pretty cool to have her hooked on it for a while.  I don't know who was more surprised that she got so into it, her or me.

[Pandemic]

This has been bothering me for a while, although it's not really a big problem.

If two people are in a lobby, not entirely sure what triggers it (I'll figure that out later...), but it's something like one person ready's up, and the host leaves. The point is, one person has clicked "Ready", and they need to rehost. When they host it up again, the person who clicked "Ready" will still have the "Ready" icon up, even though the game thinks he's "Not Ready".

Caused minor confusion, until we figured out what's up .


-Pandemic

[Revenantus]

Quick question - Is it intentional that Shuttle Is have a greater range than their upgraded counterparts?

http://arcengames.com/communitywiki/index.php?title=Unit_Types_and_Tactics#Electric_Shuttle

[Revenantus]

Suggestion

Game should not display, "Game Does Not Have Input Focus", message when the player presses Enter to bring up the chat box, especially as it is still possible to give ship orders whilst the chat box is up.

Incredibly Trivial Bug Report

Pressing escape to bring up the menu whilst in game, and then clicking on the black space around the buttons results in the, "Game Does Not Have Input Focus", message appearing. This message also appears briefly when the player left clicks a button on that menu, and will persist while the player holds down left click.

[Pandemic]

Out of curiosity, any reason why ForceFields tier 1/2 have engine health? .


-Pandemic

[x4000]

If two people are in a lobby, not entirely sure what triggers it (I'll figure that out later...), but it's something like one person ready's up, and the host leaves.

Thanks for reporting it!  Added to my list:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,584.0.html

[x4000]

Quick question - Is it intentional that Shuttle Is have a greater range than their upgraded counterparts?

http://arcengames.com/communitywiki/index.php?title=Unit_Types_and_Tactics#Electric_Shuttle

Whoops, that was not intentional.  Actually, the effective range of the shuttles is the same all the way up, it's just a display thing.  There is a different internal variable used for "explosion range" with the electric shuttles, lightning turret, and lighting and armored missiles.  I've been setting the normal attack range to equal the explosion range so that it would be visible to players, but in this case they got out of sync at some point.  So even in the current version, the actual range is fine, but in the next version the display of that range will be fixed. 

The "explosion" type ships are the only ones that work like that, all of the other ships' range is what-you-see-is-what-you-get.  The reason for the discrepancy here is so that ships can have both an "explosion" type attack as well as a conventional attack.  No ships currently do, but this lets the engine support it for the future if need be.  Thanks for letting me know about the issue!

[x4000]

Suggestion

Game should not display, "Game Does Not Have Input Focus", message when the player presses Enter to bring up the chat box, especially as it is still possible to give ship orders whilst the chat box is up.

Incredibly Trivial Bug Report

Pressing escape to bring up the menu whilst in game, and then clicking on the black space around the buttons results in the, "Game Does Not Have Input Focus", message appearing. This message also appears briefly when the player left clicks a button on that menu, and will persist while the player holds down left click.

Actually, both of these are by design, although I agree it is mildly strange/annoying/confusing.  Thoughts on this are welcome.

At any rate, presently the game shows the "Game Does Not Have Input Focus" message whenever normal keyboard shortcuts and mouse wheel scrolls will not work.  When you are in the text editor or in any sub-window that is GDI-based, then the focus can be shifted to those sub-windows and away from the game itself, thus preventing those other inputs from working.

In much older versions, players sometimes would get confused when their mouse wheel scroll would mysteriously not be working at some point.  This message is intended to defuse that situation, and make it obvious when the mouse wheel scroll will not work because of the main window not having focus (in the windows programming sense of the term).

At any point when the game does not have input focus, if you click the game it generally brings it back up.  In the case of clicking the black area inside the Escape menu, you are actually clicking into a sub-window that removes focus from the game.  When you click back somewhere else, it give the focus back.  With the chat text window, if I recall the textbox takes precedence over everything since it is an input control, and it prevents players from properly re-focusing on the game (even if they click the main game window) until the textbox is gone.

So, that's the long version of what's going on there.  The basic idea is that it simply shows that message when the input hotkeys and mouse scroll won't work in the proper way.  It doesn't care why they won't work (why the game window does not have direct focus), it just tells you that they won't.  My feeling has been that if I were to get more specific and start filtering out that message sometimes (such as when the chat window is up, etc), then that's just going to lead to inevitable larger confusion and people mistakenly thinking that the mouse wheel is spotty or something (as happened before).  But I'm certainly open to other thoughts on this.

[x4000]

Out of curiosity, any reason why ForceFields tier 1/2 have engine health? .

All ships have engine health, it's just a property for all of them.  Some are explicitly set to a certain value (higher, lower, or infinite), but otherwise every ship has engine health of 100, whether or not it can move.  But, you bring up a good point for the display.  I've changed Mark I and II force fields, as well as fortresses, to have infinite engine health.

[Pandemic]

Well, I guess that was more my question: Why isn't their health infinite .


-Pandemic

[x4000]

Well, I guess that was more my question: Why isn't their health infinite .

Got it!  Well, now it will be.

[x4000]

New version:  http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,585.0.html