(Thought Exercise) Reduce knowledge to reduce AIP scaling.

[LordSloth]

Yes, I would. On a related note, I am a stalwart player of 7/7. You're making a mistake if you assume I'm a "Cinth"^TM or Chemical_Art. Keep that in mind when you review my feedback.

I'm a bit of a packrat, so while I won't grab everything if it's going to explode ten seconds later, all of the changes I've been hearing discussed will provide sufficient incentive for me to take stuff even if I don't need the purple legendary bonus ship of slaying AIs+4 to take out Diablo AI 2.

For some of your players, squeaking out the win while being the perpetual underdog is important. For others, they like to stay completely under the radar and kill the AI before it even knows it is under attack. And then there is Cinth: Total War. I personally prefer the progression from underdog to a small but overwhelming and powerful force where I still have to pick and choose my battles with care. This plays into that power fantasy... regardless of whether or not it actually gets me closer or further from victory. I want an epic clash of titans in the end.... I'm just not ready to start out with sixteen homeworlds worth of titans.

[keith.lamothe]

Ok, so you take more stuff than you need because you want a bigger boom at the end.  Basically: because it's fun.  Right?

And that's fine, just trying to clarify.

[kasnavada]

Remember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use
10,000 k is nowhere near enough to win.

You see, since we cannot agree on that, everything else is mot.

10k is plenty.

@chemical_art, are you saying that you can win a game with only spending 10,000 K (or maybe 13,000 K due to the HW's contribution)?  Even with non-lazy AI?

Even on Diff 7 I'd consider that alarming.  On 8+ I'd consider that a major balance problem.

Edit: wait, now your post says 100k.  Which I would agree is plenty, but Faulty was talking about 10k.  <developer-confused>

I just tried a very low AIP game with lazy on, on 7.7. The save attached is just before the final assaults.

I got 19750 K left. I spent :
- 9K for ressources, I was always at max.
- 1k for mini fortress which I used to speed up golem repairs.
- 7.5k for lvl 2 of missile, bomber and bonus ship (reprocessor)
- .25k for starship scout lvl 2
- 0.5k for scout lvl 2
- 1k for reinforced FF1, and 2k for standard ff-2
- 5k for warp station.

Total : 23.5.

I did not pop zenith ship cache and got one distribution at one time I rebuild my entier fleet and a golem at the same time to speed up the process.

I think someone more patient, better at planning and playing than me I could have cut those :
- 2k on ff-2 by placing less FF by planets,
- 4.5 or 5k on ressources, and take more time, and use distribution nodes to reinforce between first and second AI assaults.
- 5k.25 on ships (needed the bomber in early game to destroy lvl 3 fortress... + scout scarship lvl 2). I could have used the zenith cache + captures from reclamation instead of the missile.
- 1k for the mini fortress, which was really useless.

I'll admit I got lucky on the fabricators, neinzul tiger is tremendously good. That puts me under 13k used.

I put all captured ships on my home planet, they stayed there.

Basically until I destroyed the first AI, AIP was below 50 and I got most guard post destroyed in a 3 system radius around my systems. Usually by sending a constant stream of tigers to a planet until it was razed, keeping the fleet to defend with the fabricator's orders being to "V to that planet". Not that at fleet of 400+ was much needed against waves of 50 bombers...

After the First AI was done, the game was a bit more complicated, but with the fabricators, golems, and the fleet built I could easily keep with whatever reinforcement / wave spawned. I lost a armored golem to a badly timed assault on first AI (there was 2 core CPA on this one...).

stuff, on AIP, wall of text, reduction of K/planet to 2K

On this single game, what made victory possible is that with low AIP, if patient enough, I could just destroy half the galaxy's guard posts and starting garrisons by raiding, with a few starting planets, and next to no opposition. Basically I only needed the warp station on late game when forced to take Core shield to keep a clean path to each AI. I took only core A shield planets, with the lvl 5 research center, providing me with a stronger fleet at low cost.

On phase 2 (preparation for the first AI assault) I took a few planets in succession (those with core shields B, C, D, E and, if possible golems). Only after the first AI did I need a bit more defenses (AIP to 120 or so).

Of course, I cannot really extrapolate from a single game. Others on the forum share, maybe, the same experience about low AIP games at higher diffs ? Of course, a lot more defenses were probably needed... but you can see the state of my defenses in the save. Far from efficient, I did not even have gravity turrets and next to no tractor beams.


Anyway :
What I would propose is give a 1 or 2 AIP for each destroyed guard post, increase the number of guard posts on 3-4 planets (or give them a AIP cost of 1 per level ?), and reduce the AIP effects overall. You will have to take planets since the AIP goes up but the K does not, and basically, once you've taken down defenses on that lvl 4 world and lost 15 AIP, is the 20 AIP going to matter much ?

[chemical_art]

I'm curious, kasnavada, was that with the lazy AI off or before it existed?

[kasnavada]

With lazy off. I would not have that much AIP floor otherwise, I did not even use the Core AI reducer (or whatever it's called).

Edit : (errr : sorry the lazy that gives AIP floor...)

[keith.lamothe]

I believe he said "with lazy on", though CSGs were also on, and winning with that on 7.6 with 23,500 K spent doesn't sound bad to me.  Of course, without the harvester upgrades that's only 14,500 K so it's possible that he could have won with only 1 planet with a lot of netflix (though eventually the CPAs would increase in size anyway... probably not enough to kill him at that diff).

If you're up to it, I'm interested to see what the same picture looks like with CSGs off and Lazy off.

[chemical_art]

if you cut AIP for some, but not all things

To clarify, as I said in that post there are only two parts of the AI response that would be unaffected: when it gets higher-mark units, and when it gets new bonus unlocks.  Are either of those a problem to not be affected by this?  Part of what I was getting from feedback was that the bonus unlocks weren't really happening much due to how much AIP you could actually take anyway.

If the tech level thing is a problem that could be adjusted too.

If techs are adjusted, and the expodential nature of 8+ games are reduced to be grow 2/3rds as well, I would have nothing to complain about aside from how it would make the player HW even more important, meaning I would try to draw out the early game as much as possible even if it means deepstriking.

Not that this is the main problem you have with the idea, I just wanted to clarify that the parts I left unaffected were because I thought that's what folks wanted to see more of.


On the more general question I think we're still talking about two different things.  To sum up, here are two questions for you:

1) If you have the power and position (including CSGs, if on) to kill the AI, would you ever take another planet?

Yes, but as my 7/7 game showed, if I took 4 CSG's, and one adv constructor (starships) I could have won even with me riding the AI floor. I didn't even make a chokepoint for that game. So I rode the floor the whole game.

2) If you do not have the power and position (including anything non-AIP increasing like hacking) to kill the AI, would you ever not take another planet?

It's a bit more complex then it would seem. It is very, very rare to get into a situation where you have NO other way of getting power aside planets. Mercs K hacking, and warheads come to mind.

[keith.lamothe]

Oh, so lazy-AI was off?  Interesting.

[LordSloth]

Ok, so you take more stuff than you need because you want a bigger boom at the end.  Basically: because it's fun.  Right?

And that's fine, just trying to clarify.

Exactly. In fact, I have no idea how much actually is enough. I'm an adherent of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates".

Rule  1: Pillage, then burn.
Rule 12:  A soft answer turneth away wrath.  Once wrath is looking the other way,
shoot it in the head.
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill'.  There is only 'Open fire' and 'I need to
reload'.

[kasnavada]

Oh, so lazy-AI was off?  Interesting.

Actually it's not clear in my head if off is with the AIP floor bonus or not :-/.

Anyway, check the save, AIP floor is a bit under 200. There is just nothing that could put it that high on this game =).

[kasnavada]

Ok, so you take more stuff than you need because you want a bigger boom at the end.  Basically: because it's fun.  Right?

And that's fine, just trying to clarify.

Exactly. In fact, I have no idea how much actually is enough. I'm an adherent of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates".

Rule  1: Pillage, then burn.
Rule 12:  A soft answer turneth away wrath.  Once wrath is looking the other way,
shoot it in the head.
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill'.  There is only 'Open fire' and 'I need to
reload'.

I usually play like you do, more fun that the low AIP route in my opinion : the AI gets much stronger, you need to take territory to defend / get K... I have to try the new reinforcements mechanic to see if I like "high" AIP better now =).

[keith.lamothe]

If techs are adjusted, and the expodential nature of 8+ games are reduced to be grow 2/3rds as well

Why would that be called for?  What I'm talking about is reducing the effect of AIP, not the rate at which it accumulates.  If I reduce both the effect and the growth-rate by 1/3rd then the actual result is 44% of the previous intensity rather than 66%.  To do the same thing on the human side would be to reduce the per-planet-K from 3000 to 2000 while also increasing all K unlock costs by 33%.

Anyway, if the exponential AIP growth is really such a big deal I can just take it out; it was added per a player request because each additional 20 AIP was becoming less and less important as each game went on.

It's a bit more complex then it would seem. It is very, very rare to get into a situation where you have NO other way of getting power aside planets. Mercs K hacking, and warheads come to mind.

Then why not sit at just your HW, hack, build mercs and warheads and whatever else, and go take out the AI  HWs?

[chemical_art]

EDIT: Not reducing the needed AI techs by 2/3rds is fine by me, since it is such a mixed bag I wouldn't consider it a nerf. Sure, maybe the AI gets something terrible, but it is just as likely to get something you can counter hard.

[chemical_art]

If techs are adjusted, and the expodential nature of 8+ games are reduced to be grow 2/3rds as well

Why would that be called for?  What I'm talking about is reducing the effect of AIP, not the rate at which it accumulates.  If I reduce both the effect and the growth-rate by 1/3rd then the actual result is 44% of the previous intensity rather than 66%.  To do the same thing on the human side would be to reduce the per-planet-K from 3000 to 2000 while also increasing all K unlock costs by 33%.

Ah, you are correct, never mind then. On the one hand, I don't mind expodentents that much. But, then again, they still nerf high AIP games so much harder, so one some level I don't like them.

Anyway, if the exponential AIP growth is really such a big deal I can just take it out; it was added per a player request because each additional 20 AIP was becoming less and less important as each game went on.

It's a bit more complex then it would seem. It is very, very rare to get into a situation where you have NO other way of getting power aside planets. Mercs K hacking, and warheads come to mind.

Then why not sit at just your HW, hack, build mercs and warheads and whatever else, and go take out the AI  HWs?

Before the current changes, deepstrikes provided a pretty decent method of preventing things. It, combined with general AI response, tended to through attrition prevent any serious assault. Even today, a cornerstone of my AI HW attacks is to establish a safe "corridor" so my fleet the enemy AI, then go almost all in*** to hit the AI hard. One HW games can do this in theory, and I have done it once in a 10/10 game, but it isn't fun spending 10 hours per AI HW assualt using mercs to knock out one guardpost at a time then rebuilding.

***Current brutal picks, as others have hinted, favor low cap units. Meaning I don't bother using high cap units in the actual HW assault anymore. I'll use them in ultra low planet games to clear a corridor, but in the actual HW attack I don't even send them in, since they are more a liability then an asset.

[RCIX]

Ok, so you take more stuff than you need because you want a bigger boom at the end.  Basically: because it's fun.  Right?

And that's fine, just trying to clarify.

Exactly. In fact, I have no idea how much actually is enough. I'm an adherent of "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates".

Rule  1: Pillage, then burn.
Rule 12:  A soft answer turneth away wrath.  Once wrath is looking the other way,
shoot it in the head.
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill'.  There is only 'Open fire' and 'I need to
reload'.

damn, no one got the reference?

I'm sure the AI's favorite is rule 34. No, not that 34, get your mind out of the gutter. "If you’re leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun."