Semi-Poll: Increased AIP for indestructible capturables?

[Diazo]

Anyway, to everyone, two questions to settle two things that have come up a few times here:

1) In a game with no exo sources, are AdvFact/ASC/Fab structures, assuming they're worth capturing, reasonably defensible?

Very. Now, playstyles strike again. With no exo-sources I am 99% guaranteed to be playing low AIP. That means by the time I'm capturing a fac/fab, most to all of my Mk I units are now relegated to defense so when a wave hits the fac/fab planet, I have a decent part of my mobile fleet there to back the static defenses up.

If I lose a fac/fab in a non-exo game, it's because I messed up somewhere, not because the AI was sneaky or it overwhelmed me.

2) In a game with no superweapons, are AdvFact/ASC/Fab structures, assuming they're reasonably defensible, worth capturing?

Yes, yes and yes.

Note that I am agreeing they are worth capturing, not that I need them to win the game. As Fabs are now all Mk V, that is a significant chunk of firepower and makes a noticeable difference with no golems or spirecraft to overshadow them.

The specific type of fab determines just how valuable it is, which determines how far out of my way I am willing to go to capture it.

As I don't need the fab to win the game, if a Bomber Mk V fab is far enough out of the way, I won't capture it despite how helpful that would be.

D.

edit: I don't feel I need buffer worlds either (in a non-exo game) to keep the fab alive, so my AIP costs and whatnot are a lot smaller then what chemical_art feels he needs to capture a fab.

[keith.lamothe]

No Exo Source (with or without Super Weapons)
Below 9/9, I won't lose any AF/ASC/Fab I actually bother to hold.

Ok, that's what I've been thinking I've been hearing: in this base case (which is the main one I have to balance around; superweapons are important but they can have their own balancing factors added, whereas the base game has to work by itself), these are Not. Too. Hard. To. Defend.

The other side of the question is: do you ever want to take-and-hold them?  Why or why not?  Aside from being forced to by the CSG mechanic.

The answer I'm picking up here is that the AIP/K involved in "actually bother to hold" exceeds the benefit derived from the structures.

[keith.lamothe]

Note that I am agreeing they are worth capturing, not that I need them to win the game.

Which I suppose brings up another question: are there any scenarios where you actually need these to win the game?  If so, are they defensible in those scenarios?

I mean, I guess they're fun to play with even if you don't need them (particularly if you've been shield-bearer deprived all game and find a core shield bearer fab or something like that), but it'd be kind of funny if they're basically always superfluous to any scenario where they can be held.

[Diazo]

The problem is that we are now getting into difficulty levels.

If I'm actually challenging myself, rather then just playing a 'fun' game, I'm up in the high 9's or 10.

At that level, the extra ships from a fab don't matter, I'm going to win or lose based on other factors because the AIP scales so steeply when you get difficulty up that high.

Which also is a consideration when balancing the pros and cons of capturing a fab. The pros don't change but as difficulty rises, the cons to capturing a fab rise also.

Having said that, I do like capturing fabs, the units are a very nice addition to my forces and allow me to move faster as I have a larger fleet.

Now, the Adv Fac is another story, that can very easily be a game winner for me as it gets me multiple Mk IV ships and we are now talking a significant chunk of my fleet.

I want to say I could still win any game if I did not capture an Adv Fac, but that's a lot more iffy. I can think of games where if I did not have the Adv Fac the warheads would have been a much more common sight.

D.

[Hearteater]

The other side of the question is: do you ever want to take-and-hold them?  Why or why not?  Aside from being forced to by the CSG mechanic.

Too tedious to hold generally for the power they give.  Or rather, for the power I need to win.  I find Mark II of my starting 4 ships  plus four ARS pick-ups is generally enough to win the game.  I generally unlock Fort Is, Hardened FF I, FF II, both Harvester IIIs, Tachyon, HBC and Gravity.  That's enough to win anything below 9/9*.  I kind of think the Mark III unlock is too expensive for me most of the time, because it is priced with Mark IV included free.  As a result I rarely take it, so I rarely care too much about an AF.  If I do go that route, I'm taking the AF late so I don't really get to play with my higher mark toys long.

Warp Gate paralysis changes should help.  Maybe Mark IVs should be produced from a AF even if you don't have Mark III unlocked.  Actually, maybe it could always produce Mark IVs of triangle+your starting bonus ship(s) but NOT any ARS units.  Then the Mark III K-cost can be priced better.  That would also make your bonus ship pick more important throughout the game, rather than just the early game.

* Red AI types really are an entirely different game, so assume non-red AI types whenever I've mentioned difficulty level

[TechSY730]

Yea, they aren't needed but they can be really helpful.

Like one time, I was trying to take out a wraith guard post (pre-nerf), and I didn't have any cloaking ships on me. Well, I found a Mk. V space plane manufactory, and used that to help me take it out.

Could I have won without it? Yes, as when I was "bashing my head" into it with my fleet ball, I was accumulating damage each time, enough to overcome the auto-regen, even given rebuild times.

However, doing it that way was very slow and somewhat boring, so getting that fabricator opened up a new possibility that let me do something much more quickly and cost efficiently, not to mention less grindy.



That said, when you are properly managing AI buildup, you generally don't need more than Mk. II to win, even if you go up to "mid AIP" (around 250) and take no superweapons. It just takes longer (or maybe shorter, depending on how much the AI grows each AIP point and the map layout) (as mentioned, only if both AIs are <9)


Maybe this is stemming back to the feeling some have the AIP is currently TOO restrictive right now even at the "balance point" levels (6-8.x), and needs a "nerf". (I still do contend that the exponential scaling of the AI >=8.3 or whatever is indeed too restrictive. I would push for polynomial growth at these difficulties instead)

[keith.lamothe]

I generally unlock Fort Is, Hardened FF I, FF II, both Harvester IIIs, Tachyon, HBC and Gravity.  That's enough to win anything below 9/9*.

How much of the tachyon, HBC, and grav lines?  If just mkI of each I'm seeing:

fort I - 3000
HFF I - 1000
FF II - 2000
Tachyon I - 250
HBC I - 500
Grav I - 500
Both Harvester IIIs - 9000

16250 knowledge, or 2 planets captured (13k + 2*3k) with K leftover.

Something tells me I'm misunderstanding

Maybe Mark IVs should be produced from a AF even if you don't have Mark III unlocked.  Actually, maybe it could always produce Mark IVs of triangle+your starting bonus ship(s) but NOT any ARS units.  Then the Mark III K-cost can be priced better.  That would also make your bonus ship pick more important throughout the game, rather than just the early game.

Hmm, it's easy enough to remove the tech prereq from the three triangle fleet ship types (I'm guessing you don't mean to include the scout here), but the starting bonus type would be trickier since to "give" you only that one you'd have to start with mkIII unlocked, which would look kind of weird.  Not that players would immediately object to starting with mkI-III of your chosen bonus type, but I'm not sure it'd be good for the game

Anyway, I think perhaps one approach would be to price the mkIIIs entirely as if the mkIII was all you got from them, so getting an AdvFact was just gravy on top of that rather than requiring a K outlay on top of the effort in taking (and perhaps holding) it.


Though I'm starting to wonder if knowledge costs are too low

[TechSY730]

Anyway, I think perhaps one approach would be to price the mkIIIs entirely as if the mkIII was all you got from them, so getting an AdvFact was just gravy on top of that rather than requiring a K outlay on top of the effort in taking (and perhaps holding) it.

That seems a bit extreme. Why not a compromise? Take what the natural progression would imply for Mk. III (with no Mk. IV) considerations, and just multiply that a little bit, but nowhere near the amount we have now.

Like if a "fair" Mk. III only knowledge cost would be 3500, and the Mk. III with Mk. IV possibility cost is 6000 (the current), then under this compromise, the Mk. III would be like 4000-4500 or something.

Similar thing with the Starships Mk. III.

Also, this would allow the Mk. IV enclave knowledge costs to come down considerably (though it should still be higher than the natural mk. knowledge progression would imply, just not as much).


Then again, it seems that the problem is more about the worthwhileness of the fabricators, not the Advanced Factory (I'm seeing several reports that adv. factories are indeed often (not always) worth the cost of securing them)

[keith.lamothe]

Also, this would allow the Mk. IV enclave knowledge costs to come down considerably (though it should still be higher than the natural mk. knowledge progression would imply, just not as much).

Actually it would reinforce the need to keep the mkIV enclave's K cost high, because now you wouldn't need to spend as much K elsewhere to benefit from it.

[Hearteater]

16250 knowledge, or 2 planets captured (13k + 2*3k) with K leftover.

Something tells me I'm misunderstanding

No, that looks right.  The other K I spend goes towards Mark II unlocks of triangle and any super-useful bonus ships.  But I often end with 5-10,000 K in the bank.  I keep that around to bust up any problems I find on the home world.  Cloaker II and MRS are the most common extras I'll get, but even then they aren't that common.

[chemical_art]

Yeah generally getting anything but iii

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, so mkIII ships aren't really in favor?

I jest somewhat, but I'm curious.

[Toranth]

Ok, so mkIII ships aren't really in favor?

I jest somewhat, but I'm curious.

Hearteater's unlocks look a lot like mine.  I generally stop at Mk II of fleetships, with some rare exceptions.  Now that Starships have gotten so buffed, I'm far more likely to try to get an ASC over a AdvFac.  To get 2 fleetships from Mk I to Mk III/IV is 17,000K.  That same knowledge can be used to unlock 4 entire lines of Starship.  Even just upgrading 2 fleetships from Mk II to Mk III/IV is 12,000K -- three entire Starship lines.


So, AdvFacs are way down on my list of desirable capturables.  I prefer Fabs, actually, because I can use those right away with no investment of Knowledge at all.

[chemical_art]

Keith part of the thing is that factories are not free. you have to pay k to take advantage of.them. if i have the mentality that factories are hard to hold then i dont depend on them. if i dont depend on them, then the thought of dropping 6k on a iii is.silly.

It is a chicken and.egg syndrome. if i dont have a factory, i dont get iii. if i dont hqve iii, i dont need a factory.
If factories.are meant to be bonuses,  the iiis shouldnt be balanced like it is expected you will get a factory

[Faulty Logic]

1) In a game with no exo sources, are AdvFact/ASC/Fab structures, assuming they're worth capturing, reasonably defensible?

2) In a game with no superweapons, are AdvFact/ASC/Fab structures, assuming they're reasonably defensible, worth capturing?

Circular logic much?

1} Yes, I can hold these for most of the game for ~6000 k (warp jammers, miniforts, captured defences, and a portion of the fleet).

2.fabs} Yes. I always like to capture and hold fabricators. However, I often play only capturing 8 or 9 systems, so I only get a few.

2.b-net} They are either ignorable or absolutely vital, depending on the game.