Rebuilding is a big part of the "grind."

[Shrugging Khan]

I like to play like that as well, but constantly shipping colony ships around - even though there are no threats to endanger them - is a real hassle :/

[keith.lamothe]

I ran into the rebuilding hassle quite a bit in the game I played through to test out the Fallen Spire campaign, because the exo waves and various other huge attacks would invariably burn an entire arm of my empire as I fought a rolling retreat up to my homeworld and then finally stopped them.  I got faster at rebuilding the planets but it was frustrating.  But it didn't happen often enough to really impact the fun, and Chris really doesn't like game-playing-for-you stuff (neither do I, though I tend to stray more towards it with stuff like auto-explore; which inevitably gets tons and tons of extension requests from people who want it to really play for them).

[TechSY730]

I think the whole "throwaway planets" thing is something that Chris wants to nerf badly. There have already been many steps towards this (like, not being able to have harvesters or generators on neutral planets, going as far as outright killing them if a planet becomes neutral, and the whole colony ships and mobile builders die on command station death thing). In other words, extensive use of "throwaway" planets is something that is trying to be stopped. This seems odd, as very rarely have I seen you guys trying to directly target a stratagy.

I'm not saying that "throwaway planets" should never be used; they can be very nifty. But what I am saying is that if you use them extensively, don't expect any cooperation from the game, its UI, or its mechanics (in fact, you can expect outright hostility towards it).

[zebramatt]

Losing a planet is, and should be, a big deal.

[TechSY730]

Losing a planet is, and should be, a big deal.

Agreed. I'm just saying it seems strange that they took steps to make it an even bigger deal for that very reason.

[Buttons840]

Losing a planet is, and should be, a big deal.

It's bothersome, but not really a big deal.  As said, most planets I lose take about 10 seconds to re-establish once the AI is gone.  It's just a lot to manage; moving your engineers and baby-sitting colony ships.

Maybe part of the problem is the long and painful death which occurs when your in over your head.  Like the game I gave up on after spending literally hours doing nothing but rebuilding lost planets.  I wonder how X desires such games to end?  Just grind away for hours while the AIP goes up a few point per hour?  Better just to quit.

[Sunshine!]

I can't say that I think they're trying to nerf "throwaway" planets (even though they're far from that), they're just trying to make things more consistent.  The AI doesn't currently have the logic input to take time to fully clear a planet.  This is good because it keeps the pressure on a player by not allowing the player to stall out an AI offensive by having too many targets for the AI to clear.  So an assumption is made that the AI wouldn't normally leave planetary infrastructure intact, so the self destruct mechanic is implemented as a gameplay streamlining thing - the player gets plenty of those, so it's not all that problematic if the AI gets a few.

That being said, there is no such thing as a throwaway planet if you're playing at a difficulty matching your skill level because of the AIP cost as soon as the command station goes boom, so really there's nothing to nerf.

If you're having a problem with needing to constantly rebuild your planets, there are steps that can be taken to mitigate that.  Unlock more turrets, fortresses, and forcefields, or use more (and higher tier) logistics stations so that your fleet has both the speed and the time (by slowing AI down) to get where it needs to be.  Learn AI attack patterns, because often you'll hit a point in the game where most CPAs, carriers, and exogalactic strike forces will follow certain paths, and you can generally control where waves go.  Make use of the Alert mechanic on your border planets so you don't get caught unawares, and disperse your mk1 scouts along those border planets so you can monitor fleet buildups.  Having a fleet of transports available can also help, since they're generally faster than most of your ships.  Load your fleet into the transports when an attack happens, and zoom them all off - they'll deploy instantly on friendly planets, so it's all good (and no waiting for the missile frigates).  If you've unlocked the mk2, your fleet will always be in top shape without having to deal with engineer interference.

[TechSY730]

Maybe part of the problem is the long and painful death which occurs when your in over your head.  Like the game I gave up on after spending literally hours doing nothing but rebuilding lost planets.  I wonder how X desires such games to end?  Just grind away for hours while the AIP goes up a few point per hour?  Better just to quit.

You do bring up one big weakness of AI war's current design, how long it takes the AI to take you out if you are in over your head. Unless your have ridiculously over-committed yourself, the game won't end quickly, but rather just plateau in the mid game for hours on end until the AIP finally gets big enough for the AI to crush you. Compare to most other traditional RTSs (and most other games in general), where if you are in over your head, the game will noticeably and quickly start shifting towards your opponents advantage, and then quickly accelerate from there to your demise.

This can and has tripped up newbies before, where if they over-committed themselves, they (wrongly) assumed they still have a reasonable chance to win just because the game has not noticeably shifted over to he AI's advantage yet. So then they (wrongly) assume that the crazy grindfest that this situation entails is an intended part of the game, and thus get a bad impression of the game.

However, I'm not really sure what can be done about this, as I am not trained in managing high level game pacing and balancing.

[Shrugging Khan]

I don't see what the problem with throwaway planets is. The adjacent planets still generate reinforcements, the taken planets still cost a lot of AIP to take, and they tend to thin out your caps if you try to place even modest defences.

Why is the man so against throwaways? It's not like you can prevent planets from being taken; there always comes a point from which on you can no longer ensure the safety of all planets. FF caps run out, the enemy's damage potential outweighs your damage soak/prevention, and your empire becomes too thinly spread to react to all kinds of waves and non-wave attacks. Throwaways are literally the only solution in many situations

[TechSY730]

I don't see what the problem with throwaway planets is. The adjacent planets still generate reinforcements, the taken planets still cost a lot of AIP to take, and they tend to thin out your caps if you try to place even modest defences.

Why is the man so against throwaways? It's not like you can prevent planets from being taken; there always comes a point from which on you can no longer ensure the safety of all planets. FF caps run out, the enemy's damage potential outweighs your damage soak/prevention, and your empire becomes too thinly spread to react to all kinds of waves and non-wave attacks. Throwaways are literally the only solution in many situations

Yep, and that is part of the challenge. How do you defend your empire with not enough resources to defend everything? (made necessary thanks to a smallish penalty of losing your resources if a planet falls)

And again, I am talking about using throwaway planets as a major part of your defensive strategy. Having a few isn't so bad, even with the nerfs to neutral planets that recent versions have brought about.

[Shrugging Khan]

One more thing is that I really don't like the "game plays itself" argument. It doesn't. It wouldn't. The game isn't about repeating the same series of clicks again and again, it's about strategy and tactics. Grumblingly sending colony ships on their way and having engineers come after temporarily to speed up the build phase isn't exactly much of a mental task, it's a chore. If automating that was the game playing itself, then it would be a very, very easy and boring game.

[BobTheJanitor]

I'll just be repeating my points, but I'm with Khan here. If this was implemented and you make this take as much real time delay and as much resource consumption as building a colony ship and sending it through a wormhole and dropping a comm station, you're not lessening the gameplay value at all.

And with the active pause feature, there's no way you can say this takes your attention off of something else. It can literally take less than a second to accomplish all of this because you can pause, drop the colony ship, select engineers and assign them to it if desired, and click the unbuilt colony ship and ctrl click the wormhole. Elapsed game time so far, 0. Go play the game for 30 seconds or a minute while it builds and moves to the world. Pause again while you check on it. If the colony ship is there, you can drop the command station while on pause and assign any engineers to it while on pause. Again, elapsed real game time spent ONLY on setting up the command station is 0. So in gameplay terms, nothing is different. In real-time player terms though, you do spend time going back and forth to check on it and so on. But that doesn't count for the game itself; all time on pause is spent in magic land.

But anyway, it feels like I'm arguing too much over what would ultimately be a very minor convenience. I just can't stop giving my opinion.

[Shrugging Khan]

But anyway, it feels like I'm arguing too much over what would ultimately be a very minor convenience. I just can't stop giving my opinion.

If people like you stopped giving their opinions, the conservatives would win!

Don't want that.

[Sunshine!]

I understand the points that are being made here in favor of this, but there is kind of a loss of game value.  With the rebuild mechanic as proposed, there would be very little penalty for losing a throwaway planet.  Right now the penalty is the irritation of having to take the time to re-establish the planet and whatever fortifications/layout it has.  This is a minor cost, but noticeable. 

The rebuild mechanic would necessitate a higher cost for building a command station in terms of resources, time, or both, simply because as an automated process, it's something you're not going to notice unless you lose a whole swathe of planets and take a major hit to your resource production.

This is (I think) the whole point that X has been making of the game playing itself for you - it's not about whether it's tedious for the player, it's about the player noticing what is happening and being aware of their territory.  Turrets are one thing, since they're "common" and spammable, but losing a planet should not bring about this blase reaction of "oh well, the computer will deal with it."  So yeah, losing a planet should be at least minorly annoying, if at least to keep the player aware on the defensive, and in more serious cases to make players reconsider their defensive strategy if they're losing tons of planets with every attack (if they don't want to go through the hassle of rebuilding).

[Buttons840]

I understand the points that are being made here in favor of this, but there is kind of a loss of game value.  With the rebuild mechanic as proposed, there would be very little penalty for losing a throwaway planet.  Right now the penalty is the irritation of having to take the time to re-establish the planet and whatever fortifications/layout it has.  This is a minor cost, but noticeable.  

The rebuild mechanic would necessitate a higher cost for building a command station in terms of resources, time, or both, simply because as an automated process, it's something you're not going to notice unless you lose a whole swathe of planets and take a major hit to your resource production.

This is (I think) the whole point that X has been making of the game playing itself for you - it's not about whether it's tedious for the player, it's about the player noticing what is happening and being aware of their territory.  Turrets are one thing, since they're "common" and spammable, but losing a planet should not bring about this blase reaction of "oh well, the computer will deal with it."  So yeah, losing a planet should be at least minorly annoying, if at least to keep the player aware on the defensive, and in more serious cases to make players reconsider their defensive strategy if they're losing tons of planets with every attack (if they don't want to go through the hassle of rebuilding).

I would never intentionally use "irritation" as a game penalty, otherwise every planet lost is not only a meta-loss, but a real life monetary loss for Arcen.  Irritated players don't buy expansions.

I can appreciate being aware of your defenses, but optional automation would make the game more enjoyable.  (Again, does anyone actually enjoy rebuilding command stations?)

Personally, from a meta-game perspective I see no reason why rebuilding planets often is a problem, considering its fast and cheap.  The main reason frequent rebuilding is avoided is probably that it is so annoying and displeasing to the player, and only because the game makes it this way.  Should planet layout be decided by strategic merit or by the amount of hassle and grief it will give the player as he fumbles around with the interface?

It's all about the player.  The game is not successful because it keeps the player aware of their own territory, the game is successful because it's fun.  Removing a tedious aspect of the game will make the game more enjoyable, and it doesn't really matter if the player is less aware of their territory.