Ye Ol' Reactor debate

[TechSY730]

I think if we did multiple reactors then 2 would suffice to start with:
- Normal: normal output, flimsy like the current ones
- Cloaked: below-normal output, still flimsy, but cloaked

The idea would be to use the normal ones whenever you could, but the cloaked one would be there as a fallback where a planet is just too hard to defend but you want some power out of it.

This.

If my humongous layers of defenses cannot stop the enemy, having extra or less health on my reactors will not matter. So that should not be a trade-off (health, I mean). The only defensive value that will matter will be stealth.

Ah, but if you have trouble defending the planet, you will probably lose the planet pretty quickly.
If you lose the planet, you lose all your reactors. So the stealth won't help all that much unless you can somehow hold the planet.

Now that I think about it, under this proposed system, will reactors still die if the planet it lost, or will neutral planets be allowed to have working reactors? (I'm guessing the hostile planets would not have reactors, as that would be ridiculously abusable with the cloaked ones, unless, say, cloaking was disabled if the planet was in hostile (in this case, AI) hands)

[PokerChen]

Ah, but if you have trouble defending the planet, you will probably lose the planet pretty quickly.
If you lose the planet, you lose all your reactors. So the stealth won't help all that much unless you can somehow hold the planet.

Now that I think about it, under this proposed system, will reactors still die if the planet it lost, or will neutral planets be allowed to have working reactors? (I'm guessing the hostile planets would not have reactors, as that would be ridiculously abusable with the cloaked ones, unless, say, cloaking was disabled if the planet was in hostile (in this case, AI) hands)

I guess it depends if by lore the reactors work on solar power or something better. If you could draw power and knowledge from neutral systems, but NOT m+c, that could be strategically interesting. However, the AI should also be allowed to re-colonise them as well.

= = =
One note, I would agree that it really doesn't matter what health the reactors have ifthe AI is strong enough to break through the turret defenses. Interesting armoured versions must take significantly longer to go down - say, an extra 30 seconds or a 1 minute?

[Hearteater]

I was envisioning something like:
Basic: 2 million health, no armor
Armored: 4 million health, 10k armor
High Energy: 200k health, no armor
Home: 4 million health
Stealthed: 1 million health, no armor, cloaked

Basic are a good middle ground.  High Energy are extremely fragile, and can die to any Force Field ignoring unit faster than you can press pause.  Armored are the preferred Reactor got systems that see a lot of combat.  But if you keep losing the system (a forward system to soften up waves) then Stealthed are better because they can be put in a corner and survive full system destruction making rebuilding just a matter of replacing the Command Station.  But all this only works if the build cost of Reactors is enough you don't just always go High Energy because you can rebuild them for nothing.  So 40k each metal and crystal with a 3-5 minute build time should encourage strategic selection of Reactors.

[doctorfrog]

Going back slightly to the Startopia Energy Booster idea, what about, instead of a HO Reactor, a Reactor Supercharger?

The Reactor Supercharger addon would give you the benefits of having a larger reactor. So you can still build the midline reactor, then just slap on an upgrade later if it turns out you need it. There may be a cost/benefit to this, similar to how building extra reactors has currently.

The major downside with it, though, is that it looks real shiny to the AI, and if something happens to hit it, it blows up everything that currently uses that reactor.

I'm new at this, clearly.

[Eternaly_Lost]

I was envisioning something like:
Basic: 2 million health, no armor
Armored: 4 million health, 10k armor
High Energy: 200k health, no armor
Home: 4 million health
Stealthed: 1 million health, no armor, cloaked

Basic are a good middle ground.  High Energy are extremely fragile, and can die to any Force Field ignoring unit faster than you can press pause.  Armored are the preferred Reactor got systems that see a lot of combat.  But if you keep losing the system (a forward system to soften up waves) then Stealthed are better because they can be put in a corner and survive full system destruction making rebuilding just a matter of replacing the Command Station.  But all this only works if the build cost of Reactors is enough you don't just always go High Energy because you can rebuild them for nothing.  So 40k each metal and crystal with a 3-5 minute build time should encourage strategic selection of Reactors.

The issue is, and I am sure it the same for a lot of people.

Either the reactors are safe (so they might as well have 1 hp) or they are not and the rest of the system is dying to the AI attacks. I personally have never see a case were the AI strikes my reactors above everything else in the system to attack (command station) and I think every reactor I have lost has been because the Command station that is right next door dies to the point where you might as well make them modules on the command station and be done with it. Well in theory a set exists when you lose reactors but nothing else in the system. I think in real play that set is effectively null, but it could just be the way that I play. Then again, I guess you could stick your reactors right next to the worm holes on the other side of the system, but I think you be insane to do so.

[amethyst]

I personally have never see a case were the AI strikes my reactors above everything else in the system to attack (command station) and I think every reactor I have lost has been because the Command station that is right next door dies to the point where you might as well make them modules on the command station and be done with it. Well in theory a set exists when you lose reactors but nothing else in the system. I think in real play that set is effectively null, but it could just be the way that I play. Then again, I guess you could stick your reactors right next to the worm holes on the other side of the system, but I think you be insane to do so.

In my experience, many FF-immune units seem to like targetting reactors first, particularly Vampire Claws; I've had a couple of brownouts due to that. So while losing reactors without losing the command center is uncommon, it does happen.

[keith.lamothe]

Yea, raid starships and whatnot assassinating reactors is relatively common.

[Diazo]

Interesting thread.

I don't have any solutions, just a couple observations.

1) Currently in the early game energy is a big problem for me. Because I play single-HW and a slower expansion game I almost always have 3+ of each reactor going in my starting system. Once I get a couple systems under my belt, energy is never an issue, I'm willing to stack the reactors I need to get my fleet going.

I tried an early game golem once, had something like 15 active reactors in each of my systems.

But my slower play style allows this, I can afford to ignore the m+c costs to run that many reactors in a system because I expand slow enough that the losses I take don't cripple my fleet even though my M+C is bottomed out.

2) Reactor HP/armor should have nothing to do with their balance. Reactors are not a combat unit, players are going to build the most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack.

3) Reactor balance needs other mechanics then. The current M+C works, but what about a wormhole reactor? Must be build in proximity to a wormhole but is more efficient? Or requires a structure on both sides of a wormhole so you have to control the system on both sides. Or messes with waves, alert or AIP somehow?

4) What about a system cap of 1 reactor that has no m+c cost and a single reactor type with no cap that costs M+C but is quite inefficient? Then give 4 or 5 reactor options that have strategic effects of some sort. One that boosts attack power? One with a decent set of guns?

The point is, you have to provide options to make reactors interesting, right now there are no options, it's a simple: I need X energy, how can I get that for the least M+C consumed?.

Actually, tie this into the Command station Modules discussion? Make reactors a command station module that consume a slot to build?

D.

[keith.lamothe]

4) What about a system cap of 1 reactor that has no m+c cost and a single reactor type with no cap that costs M+C but is quite inefficient? Then give 4 or 5 reactor options that have strategic effects of some sort. One that boosts attack power? One with a decent set of guns?

That first sentence is basically what I was thinking in an earlier post

Actually, tie this into the Command station Modules discussion? Make reactors a command station module that consume a slot to build?

Normally I would be inclined to do something like that, but one of the very few things Chris has told me to definitely not do is ever make modules a part of the core game

[Wanderer]

Actually, tie this into the Command station Modules discussion? Make reactors a command station module that consume a slot to build?

Normally I would be inclined to do something like that, but one of the very few things Chris has told me to definitely not do is ever make modules a part of the core game

I just cried man tears.  That's horrible.

[Wingflier]

2) Reactor HP/armor should have nothing to do with their balance. Reactors are not a combat unit, players are going to build the most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.  By this logic, nobody would ever use anything but the Economic Orbital Command.

Let's be honest, 90% of the time the Military Orbital Command isn't doing much of anything, but that 10% of the time that it is makes it worth building in a vast variety of situations. 

I do think that if we are to make individual types of reactors, there has to be a benefit and drawback for all of them.  In short, a simple efficiency vs. utility ratio:

Type 1. "The Sun"
-Produces a huge amount of energy.  Fragile and must be built a certain distance away from the Orbital Command Station on a planet.  When it explodes it takes your Orbital and Shields with it.  The concept behind this idea is that this reactor, though powerful, must be built on the edge of your forcefield, and when it dies it immediately gives the AI access to the next planet.

Type 2. "The Runner"
-Produces a medium amount of energy, but is mobile.  Moves at an average speed.  Good for running before you lose your forcefield or kiting an enemy to take some pressure off of your Orbital Command.  Can't move through wormholes.

Type 3. "The Phantom"
-Produces a small amount of energy but is cloaked, and is therefore unlikely to be detected by the enemy.

Type 4. "The Trap!"
-Produces a medium amount of energy, but when it explodes it sets off a planet-wide EMP to give your units some time to respond.

Type 5.  "The Tank"
-Produces a miniscule amount of energy but has huge amounts of health and armor.  Used as a decoy since it is still a high-priority target for the AI, meaning they will focus it giving you time to respond.

Type 6. "Special Beam Cannon!"
-Produces a low-medium amount of energy, is decently durable, and channels its energy into a powerful beam (think Heavy Beam Cannons) that annihilates foes.  Only loses 25% damage under forcefields.

Type 7. "The Turtle"
-Produces a low amount of energy, creates a moderate shield around itself.

Just some ideas.  It would be even cooler if all of these Energy Reactors had an MK2 and 3 upgrade.  On a normal economy a player could get away with just using MK1 Reactors, but if you were doing something particularly energy expensive (like Golems) you could spend 8k (or so) to access ALL new reactor types.  The one knowledge investment would give access to all reactor types.

I agree that the reactor function should be changed as well.  Making it so that units can't enter low-power mode would be a big step forward.

[Eternaly_Lost]

2) Reactor HP/armor should have nothing to do with their balance. Reactors are not a combat unit, players are going to build the most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly.  By this logic, nobody would ever use anything but the Economic Orbital Command.

Your wrong there as the three/four different Command stations have different uses.

Logistics makes your ships move faster and the AI ships move slower.

Military makes your ships stronger (+damage) and at the highest level removes all cloaking.

Economic puts out a lot of resources.

And lastly, The Warp Jammier stops nearby planets from going on alert.

By the logic that you use the most most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack works perfectly here. Because unlike the reactors that only produce power as a main goal with different levels of protection. The command stations all claim a system as a main goal and have extra effects as the side effect.

Looking at your list, I personally would always use the "The Sun" reactor and be done, but I think that has to do with the fact that I play Fallen Spire, so I never noticed raid starships trying to sneak in around the Golems and Hunter killers that tried to sneak in and I had to stop.

 

[Wingflier]

Your wrong there as the three/four different Command stations have different uses.

All the Reactors I listed have different uses.

By the logic that you use the most most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack works perfectly here. Because unlike the reactors that only produce power as a main goal with different levels of protection. The command stations all claim a system as a main goal and have extra effects as the side effect.

Looking at your list, I personally would always use the "The Sun" reactor and be done, but I think that has to do with the fact that I play Fallen Spire, so I never noticed raid starships trying to sneak in around the Golems and Hunter killers that tried to sneak in and I had to stop.

Maybe you missed the part under "The Sun" Reactor description, that says it must be placed on the edge of a forcefield, and when it blows up it takes any shields and Orbital Commands with it.  You can build these exclusively, but if there's a "leak" of enemy ships cascading through your system, especially those that can fire through forcefields or kill them quickly, you'll probably lose the game instantly.

Personally I don't think that, with this limitation, it would be a wise idea to build only "Suns".  And if they were too powerful, you could simply reduce their output until they were balanced with the rest.

[Eternaly_Lost]

Your wrong there as the three/four different Command stations have different uses.

All the Reactors I listed have different uses.

By the logic that you use the most most efficient one and just rebuild if they lose one to an attack works perfectly here. Because unlike the reactors that only produce power as a main goal with different levels of protection. The command stations all claim a system as a main goal and have extra effects as the side effect.

Looking at your list, I personally would always use the "The Sun" reactor and be done, but I think that has to do with the fact that I play Fallen Spire, so I never noticed raid starships trying to sneak in around the Golems and Hunter killers that tried to sneak in and I had to stop.

Maybe you missed the part under "The Sun" Reactor description, that says it must be placed on the edge of a forcefield, and when it blows up it takes any shields and Orbital Commands with it.  You can build these exclusively, but if there's a "leak" of enemy ships cascading through your system, especially those that can fire through forcefields or kill them quickly, you'll probably lose the game instantly.

Personally I don't think that, with this limitation, it would be a wise idea to build only "Suns".  And if they were too powerful, you could simply reduce their output until they were balanced with the rest.

Given that I play Fallen Spire, Normal waves don't do that much next to the EXO waves of golems and hunter killers.

I very rarely have a case where things break into the system and take out just a few things, every case I can think of is that the EXO wave breaks the defenses and I have to fall back to the next system to build to stop them so I lose everything in the system, or they don't and I only lose a few defending ships.

Having a reactor that blows up the Shields and Command Station when it dies is quite simply not a major thing for me. As soon as I would be losing reactors normally, I would have lost the system anyway.
 
Plus, here I how saw the other reactors.

Runner: Pointless. Average speed is too slow, it will just be caught by fast ships or snipers. I like my reactors were they go up, and the Command station can't move so...

Phantom: Just dies with the command station anyway...

Trap: Galaxy wide EMP, well nice, is unlikely to be that useful over an EMP warhead. I doubt I be able to do more more then attack one system when it blows, but the fact that it would effect the AI homeworlds might be a little useful.

Tank: Reactors are not meant as Decoys. They are support structures, and should be built in the backlines, not in the front lines when you can avoid it.

Special Beam Cannon, I might use these but for some reason I don't think they will be that much better then using a turret and a reactor.

The Turtle: What exactly would you be protecting with a shield around a reactor? Another reactor?

[Wingflier]

In terms of the different reactors in general, the most useful ones would be completely depend ON the game you're playing.  The player's responsibility is to choose which reactor is the most useful for each specific situation and each specific game.  Tough choices are what make good strategy games.  In theory, all the choices of Reactors would be viable in different situations (sort of like the Orbital Command Stations are now).  I get the feeling that if this debate between us were about the "new" Orbital Stations before they had been implemented, you would be just as against it since you seem to have a very conservative attitude towards change - but look how positively that change affected the game.

Given that I play Fallen Spire, Normal waves don't do that much next to the EXO waves of golems and hunter killers.

You tend to play your games in a vacuum, and that's fine, but since you make your games into the exact same scenario everytime (Fallen Spire), the same Reactor(s) are more likely to be useful to you.  However, for players who play with more variety, the choices would be much more interesting. 

Runner: Pointless. Average speed is too slow, it will just be caught by fast ships or snipers. I like my reactors were they go up, and the Command station can't move so...

Your argument seems to be - "I wouldn't use this, so it's pointless".  Honestly though, I think your attitude is very disingenuous.  Most players probably don't use any more than half of the bonus ship types, does that mean the other half they don't like using are worthless?  Your playstyle is not the only one in existence, and shouldn't be treated as such.

The Runner could be used for players who enjoy micromanaging their fleet (I know they're out there) to split to the enemy fleet into two groups, thus taking pressure off of the Orbital Command and giving the player extra time to respond.  It could also be used to run in the event that the Force Field covering the Orbital Command is about to die.  It could persist on the death of the Orbital, as long as the planet is in supply.

Phantom: Just dies with the command station anyway...

Make it persist on Command Station Death like The Runner, as long as the planet is in supply.

Trap: Galaxy wide EMP, well nice, is unlikely to be that useful over an EMP warhead. I doubt I be able to do more more then attack one system when it blows, but the fact that it would effect the AI homeworlds might be a little useful.

Planet-wide EMP when it's destroyed (typo).

Tank: Reactors are not meant as Decoys. They are support structures, and should be built in the backlines, not in the front lines when you can avoid it.

That's what makes the idea ingenious.  Though it doesn't produce much energy, the AI doesn't know it's a decoy, so it spends a significant amount of time trying to destroy it, giving you time to respond.

Special Beam Cannon, I might use these but for some reason I don't think they will be that much better then using a turret and a reactor.

Turrets have a limit, you can build a new Reactor on every planet.

The Turtle: What exactly would you be protecting with a shield around a reactor? Another reactor?

Some extra protection for your Orbital Command or another key-asset on the planet.

The idea is to add more strategy to the choice of Reactor.  Maybe it wouldn't affect your conservative and repetitive playstyle, but for people who enjoy new and unique challenges every game, the Reactors would be just as (or maybe more) important of a choice as Orbital Command type.  Just my 2 cents, I think you improve strategy games by adding more strategy.