So, this whole armor thing

[Cyborg]

My problem with all "bigger ships get more armor" ideas is that the current situation is that bigger ships are better anyway.

AND favors the bomber as the counter unit of choice.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's a counter.

And I highly object to removing armor/armor rot ships without giving them another method of fulfilling that role. You will ruin my save game library as well as remove the mechanic.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Bombers are counters for like everything that's a structure though.

[KDR_11k]

I'd say armor rotters should just get a "takes extra damage" debuff, would make them far more versatile than they currently are since they currently only do much on things with high armor and of course the durability to require lots of shots to take down.

For AP I'd have them react similar to IREs and Polarizers but based on HP, i.e. no Implosion-style infinite scaling, just something that tops out at, say, 10M HP.

Bombers as a counter are kinda boring considering the massive amount of units we have though. Plus few other ships counter stuff that hard (still hating the damage penalty for forts, I'm thinking bombers should instead get some ability like a directed shield that reduces damage dealt to the bomber from a single enemy). And well, IRL bomber is a class of units, not a single one so you've still got a wide variety of bombers (differing in range, payload, maneuverability, stealth, price, etc) instead of just one and a few gimmick versions. And in games there's usually some sort of defense against bombers (interceptors, flak, ...) that must be destroyed by faster escort units before the heavy bombers can safely move in. Against forts and such the bombers not only don't need escorts, they cannot have escorts because the fort will just slaughter those.

[Draco18s]

My problem with all "bigger ships get more armor" ideas is that the current situation is that bigger ships are better anyway.

AND favors the bomber as the counter unit of choice.

There's nothing wrong with this. It's a counter.

I mean it is the "I don't know what it is, it is big, throw bombers at it" kind of "bombers counter everything" role.

Forcefield?
Bombers
Fortress?
Bombers
Golem?
Bombers
Mothership?
Bombers
Beachhead?
Bombers

[chemical_art]

When was the last time you died because the AI zerged you, rather then sent fewer strong units at you?

[chemical_art]

Anyway, I think weapon type vs hull type + hull size is the best way to go. It will provide dozens of new "roles" that in turn would make damage mechanics more interesting.

Units like armor rotters will be stronger in practice and retain their spirit by magnifying damage.
Armor boosters and their ilk can reduce damage by %, or go really bold and give % evasion so as to favor high cap ships
Armored ships get more straight up HP

[Draco18s]

When was the last time you died because the AI zerged you, rather then sent fewer strong units at you?

Last time I played, actually.

[keith.lamothe]

And I highly object to removing armor/armor rot ships without giving them another method of fulfilling that role. You will ruin my save game library as well as remove the mechanic.

I should have been clearer: those ships who are essentially defined by their relationship to the armor mechanic (polarizers, rotters, armor boosters, etc) would need to be given something else.

As others have suggested, rot could become "magnify later damage to this target" which would probably be way more useful than the current rot mechanic.

[LaughingThesaurus]

Assuming you'll give each ammo type a bunch of hulls it does less damage to, as well as hulls it does more damage to, you could do something like;
Polarizer: All negative damage multipliers become the inverse. If it's 1/10th damage, or 1/6th damage, it instead becomes 10x or 6x damage. Kinda fits with hitting harder against more armored things.
Armor Booster: You might have this reduce damage multipliers against ships it's boosting. For instance, if a fighter hull would take 6x damage from something, the Armor Boost effect could reduce that?

[chemical_art]

When was the last time you died because the AI zerged you, rather then sent fewer strong units at you?

Last time I played, actually.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

When accounting for an equivalent "strength value", with AI War's current mechanics, would you want low cap units or high cap units to attack you?

For example, 1 Hunter Killer or 3 golems or 1000 fighters? I fear the latter much, much less.

[Draco18s]

For example, 1 Hunter Killer or 3 golems or 1000 fighters? I fear the latter much, much less.

Having never seen a H/K I have no real concept of how strong it is.

But the 1000 fighters, because lol force fields.

Now if it was 1000 bombers I'd be going "OHSHIT" in all three cases.

[KDR_11k]

Yeah but that's only because the bomber is the universal counter for defenses and your defenses are your biggest way to make up for your lower unit counts compared to the AI.

BTW, compared to any other game with fighters and bombers ours don't really behave right. Bombers in other games are strike craft, they deal massive spike damage when they hit but they can only hit the big, slooow capital ships. In AIW they're more like heavy tanks that roll up to the enemy and start pounding away. Also AIW's capital ships aren't as slow as those in other games and frigates in AIW are pretty small compared to what bombers target in other games. So the bomber association is pretty misplaced here.

[TechSY730]

On a somewhat related topic,
Do players think that having one ship type be the non-turret military structure counter (forcefields mostly), the non-military structure counter (mostly, there are a few exceptions, like harvesters), and the "big to huge mobile military" counter (again, with exceptions, like raid starships) all being in one ship is a good or bad thing?

1 Hunter/Killer is indeed scary, but something like 1000 bombers or 2000 standard fighters would be pretty darn scary too.
Several times I have lost crucial planets where the AI sent a large number of mid to low strength ships, I (foolishly) didn't think much of it, but by sheer numbers managed to overwhelm my defenses anyways and take it out.

[ZaneWolfe]

When was the last time you died because the AI zerged you, rather then sent fewer strong units at you?

I have stayed out of the armor debate until a single idea is actually agreed on and it becomes "How do we go about this?" rather than the "What should we do?" that it is right now.


But this I will respond to. I am not 100% sure, but I can  NOT say that I have ever been beaten by a single superweapon. I have however been completely and totally curbstomped when the AI showed up with 6k or more fleetships and starships. In Ultra Low caps. So all in all I am much more scared of massive amounts of starship and below level units, than I am of anything less than 10 superweapons. I am sure that if it threw 20 or more Golems at me I would be very worried. But I rarely see that happen. Most of us are not Cinth, so we don't see the AI with superweaons in the 100's or more.

When was the last time you died because the AI zerged you, rather then sent fewer strong units at you?

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

When accounting for an equivalent "strength value", with AI War's current mechanics, would you want low cap units or high cap units to attack you?

For example, 1 Hunter Killer or 3 golems or 1000 fighters? I fear the latter much, much less.

Add a zero to those and I start to worry.  Yes even the fighters. But less than that not really. (Spire Fleet, the fine art of not caring about anything less than something able to cause your complete destruction) A thousand bombers would admittedly be more of a threat though, and only because it gets a damage multiplier. Still, even that can be out classed by say 1k of Z-bombards or Z-siege engines. Or Goddess forbid 1k worth of Spire Blade Spawners. (I saw that happen once... Thank the Goddess it was only special forces and couldn't attack directly. Anything less than my main choke wouldn't even matter to that kind of death. And if not for the power of gravity, which was still broken at the time, not even that may have held against it.)

However, that being said, I do think that bombers and their type are stronger than the other 2 parts of the triangle. No I don't know what to do about that.

[Draco18s]

But this I will respond to. I am not 100% sure, but I can  NOT say that I have ever been beaten by a single superweapon. I have however been completely and totally curbstomped when the AI showed up with 6k or more fleetships and starships. In Ultra Low caps. So all in all I am much more scared of massive amounts of starship and below level units, than I am of anything less than 10 superweapons. I am sure that if it threw 20 or more Golems at me I would be very worried. But I rarely see that happen. Most of us are not Cinth, so we don't see the AI with superweaons in the 100's or more.

Quite.

I have been humbled by a single raid starship (on account of their armor being uncommon and there are few turrets *cough one* that has multipliers against it).
I have been humbled by blobs of mixed ships (on account of suiciding my army on a homeworld)
I have been humbled by globs of single ship types (usually due to poor planning or mistaking their true strength)
I have been humbled by a handful of plasma siege starships (because Force Fields)

But I have not been brought to my knees on any occasion that the AI has ever sent a golem my way.  Not once.