Wave sizes vs. available targets.

[Diazo]

Okay, first I need to preface this by saying this is all theory-crafting and I have not tried the current formulas.

Having said that, another thread made me realize that the reason I play such a super-low AIP strategy is that on Diff 10, I simply don't have the units to cover multiple systems in defensive beachheads, which got me thinking about wave size.

From patch 5.036:

On Diff 7+ the randomization of wave intervals (which feeds directly into step 5 of the wave size formula) has been changed to consider the number of planets that the AI can send waves against (and thus the probable defensive power of those worlds, i.e. chokepoints, and the viability or lack thereof of smaller waves):

    If there are 6+ wave-targetable planets it uses the normal (pre-5.036) formula of adding a random number from (AIDifficulty*-60) to (AIDifficulty*120).
    If there are 5 wave-targetable planets the random is from (AIDifficulty*-30) to (AIDifficulty*120).
    If there are 4 the random is from 0 to (AIDifficulty*120).
    If 3, from (AIDifficulty*30) to (AIDifficulty*120).
    If 2, from (AIDifficulty*60) to (AIDifficulty*120).
    If 1, from (AIDifficulty*90) to (AIDifficulty*150) (making it actually able to hit single-chokepoints harder than it used to).
    The upshot is that it makes the AI a little "smarter" about figuring out that it may as well not bother sending small waves against concentrated defenses and should just save up for stronger attack forces. Accordingly, since the AI on <7 is intentionally a bit dumb it doesn't get this new rule at all.

Averaging out the wave multiplier ends up as:
[Attack points] = [Multiplier]
6+ = 30 (Max 120)
5 = 45 (Max 120)
4 = 60 (max 120)
3 = 75 (Max 120)
2 = 90 (Max 120)
1 = 120 (Max 150)

Now, the average wave size I think looks about right, but the problem is the Max Wave size is 120 for almost all of them, and with the number of waves that attack you, you are going to get multiple waves up there at the 120 end of things so you have to plan your defences around that, which means you don't have enough units as the number of systems you are defending increases while the Wave Multiplier you are building the defences to repel stays up at 120.

Could we see the Max wave multiplier also get reduced as the number of attack points goes up? The decreasing average is nice, but we have to plan for the worst case scenario which means waves multipliers of 120 across the board.

I'm thinking it should not drop as fast as the average does, maybe by 10 per level (as opposed to the average dropping by 15) so that at 6+ systems the max wave multiplier is 80?

(Again, I have not actually played with numbers as they currently are, this is theory crafting based on numbers and my current super-low AIP playstyle.)

D.

edit: Minimum multiplier would have to adjust as necessary to keep the average multiplier about the same.

[Minotaar]

I had to switch from two chokepoints to one in my last game because of this exact thing. You have 1/2 of the turrets to defend 4/5 of the units, no real reason not to single-choke it. Unless it's a highly connected map type and you just can't.

[Trandrin]

Keith pointed out to me a good tactic. Have your choke point world fully fortified. Capture another world connected to it, leading into AI space and leave it open. So you have two ingress points. The world you capture ahead of the choke point doesn't need much/any defense and will just need a replacement every now and then. This keeps you from recieving the largest waves that one ingress point can give you.

When the AI launches its assault against the bait planet it will cruise through it and then right on into the fortified world. So far it has worked for me in my game.

[Diazo]

That requires the map co-operating and being able to afford leaving an empty system, neither of which I can afford in my current game.

I agree it is a valid strategy as you are paying 20 AIP to do so, but 20 AIP can be too much to pay depending on what else is happening.

D.

[Hearteater]

I don't think having more than one ingress is going to be viable on 10/10 no matter what changes are made.  Two might be workable sometimes, but three and up is probably a no-go.  So it probably isn't necessary to consider 10/10 play for this suggestion because 10/10 isn't going to be affected by it.  This is likely to have the most effect on sub-9 games.

[Diazo]

Really?

My current game is single attack point, my fixed defences are handling the waves quite handily.

If I went to 3 attack points, reducing my max wave modifier from 150 to 110, I'm thinking that would be doable.

At least something I would test, my current game has the AIP pretty low still.

As it is, the numbers prevent me from even thinking about it.

D.

[Hearteater]

If you go from 1 to 2, you reduce the max modifier to 120 from 150, which sounds like it should be workable.  I don't see how going to 3 and 110 max is going to be better than 2 at 120 when comparing to the 1 at 150 you have now.

[Diazo]

Hmmm I guess our opinions are going to differ.

110 is 73% of 150, that is a significantly smaller wave in my opinion.

Smaller enough to make multiple attack points viable? That would require play testing.

We can bat around numbers on paper all we like but until we play test it is a guessing game.

D.

[Hearteater]

Currently, you have the option of 1 choke point with a max multiplier of 150
Or, two choke points with a max multiplier of 120
So for a 100% increase in systems defended, you get a 20% reduction in wave size.

You are suggesting three choke points with a max multiplier of 110
That would give you the third choice of 200% increase in systems defended for a 26.7% reduction in wave size.

I'm just not seeing how a 26.7% reduction is worth it, and a 20% isn't.

[Diazo]

Actually, to bat numbers around actually requires numbers, here's a table that should show where I am coming from:

Attack Points	| Now Max Multi	| % of Single	| Now Avg. Multi	| % of Single	| My Max Multi	| % of Single	| My Avg. Multi	| % of Single	| Defences % at each
1	| 150	| 100%	| 120	| 100%	| 150	| 100%	| 120	| 100%	| 100%
2	| 120	| 80%	| 90	| 75%	| 120	| 80%	| 90	| 75%	| 50%
3	| 120	| 80%	| 75	| 50%	| 110	| 73%	| 75	| 50%	| 33%
4	| 120	| 80%	| 60	| 40%	| 100	| 66%	| 60	| 40%	| 25%
5	| 120	| 80%	| 45	| 30%	| 90	| 60%	| 45	| 30%	| 20%
6+	| 120	| 80%	| 30	| 20%	| 80	| 53%	| 30	| 20%	| 17%

I'm using the 150 wave multiplier as 100% as that is the single chokepoint value.

The Defences % column is how much of your defence is available to each attack point (so 100 / # of attack points.)

Having punched the numbers out, I'm going to think on this for a bit. Defending multiple systems should be harder so I do not want it to be a straight ratio based on the number of attack points, but what it should be is up for debate.

D.

Currently, you have the option of 1 choke point with a max multiplier of 150
Or, two choke points with a max multiplier of 120
So for a 100% increase in systems defended, you get a 20% reduction in wave size.

You are suggesting three choke points with a max multiplier of 110
That would give you the third choice of 200% increase in systems defended for a 26.7% reduction in wave size.

I'm just not seeing how a 26.7% reduction is worth it, and a 20% isn't.

That's the thing, what's worth it?

Right now the single chokepoint is overwhelmingly the better choice. It should stay that way from a defensive perspective but I'd like multiple attack vectors to at least be an option. Right now the defensive choice is "get only a single system exposed" because that choice is so much better then any other option.

I'm looking at the numbers and trying to make a suggestion that I think will open up more gameplay options.