Author Topic: [Chris says: let's discuss!] Ship bays as a means of managing perplanet assets  (Read 3424 times)

Offline Nuc_Temeron

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 24
I will say comparing AI Wars to Distant Worlds is like trying to compare a documentary on shrimp to a documentary on whales. They are both documentaries and both feature oceans, but the comparisons end there.

Well-said.

but as automation there is done mostly right

I dunno about that. I played it automated at first, but after learning the game more thoroughly I discovered that the AI ship designs were always horrible, their suggestions almost always bad ones. When I play Distant Worlds I delete ALL starting designs and play in Expert mode (no automation) because I don't trust the game to do an adequate job of it.

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Quote from: chemical_art on Today at 01:24:43 AM
I will say comparing AI Wars to Distant Worlds is like trying to compare a documentary on shrimp to a documentary on whales. They are both documentaries and both feature oceans, but the comparisons end there.
Well-said.

Errr, I don't usually answer people that state things like those "matter of factly", it to avoid the drama... but not really well said at all. Chemical_art surprises me there.

Being different is completely relevant to being a source of inspiration. It's because it's different that it is a source of inspiration. If it was the same, or if the differences were minor, there would be no inspiration to take from.

History is filled with people taking completely different fields into consideration to make discoveries, and people have had insights (to solve issues from political to scientific, abstract or concrete) by watching something unrelated, probably for about as long as intellect existed. It's also a common plot device in stories, from the oldest myths to series like "House" (done quite heavy handedly there). That said, it doesn't happen always, but dismissing entire inspiration possibilities just because "it's different"... nope. Can't "well said" that. It's like the base of creative thinking.


Just one article I found speaking of that.
http://thinkjarcollective.com/articles/creative-thinking-leonardo-da-vinci/


As a whole, greatest advice I received would be "if you don't know, ask". In that case, if you don't see the connection, ask what the other sees. If it's nothing, then nothing lost. If there is something... do I have to explain ?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2016, 02:07:26 PM by kasnavada »

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
That doesn't mean it's necessarily a useful thing to compare from, as they're very different styles of game.

But, if we're doing comparisons and talking about automation - Civilization VI has handled automation in previous games in the series by eliminating it this time. Workers in particular can no longer be automated - because they build whatever they're assigned to do in a single turn, and after a few uses are consumed and go away. The argument being that something that gets automated en-masse is not an "interesting choice" and thus not adding anything to the game (and not being a micro focused game, the interesting choices effectively *are* the game).

Which, incidentally, is exactly how I feel about what was being discussed here.

But that's a turn based strategy game, so I'm not sure just how applicable what Firaxis is doing should be. :)

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
I strongly support this.

Here is my take on simplifying management:
1) No more engineers and better non-boosted build times.
2) Low-cap, expensive factories for more important AI-targets and meaningful production locations.
3) No more remain rebuilders and automatic rebuild when planet is clear (and if still controlled).
4) Automatic healing on controlled, AI-free planets (or enclave-like healing drones spawned by the OCStation).
5) "Battlefield" engineers for beachheads and healing-in-hostile-territory.

(Also merge Power production and Knowledge gathering within the OCStation.)

I am good with most option above. Except for merging power production into orbital command station. I think it could become an interface mess if we tried to treat power production as modules within an objects (champion modules, fallen spire huge ships, and etc...) mess.

It might be better to keep power/fuel production as a separate object the same way metal mines are right now in AI Classic.

Maybe make some system have more power or more fuel collecting point. It would make take a fuel rich planet vs power/energy rich planet an interesting strategic decision.

Offline Sestren

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Nah, you just make the command station itself generate the power (econ stations in classic do that already). No module or anything. As it stands now there are vanishingly few situations where the fact that the energy generator is a separate unit matters. If you want it to matter (for some reason) then you should mandate that for 'reasons' it is not safe to have the reactor within some distance of the command station (large radius where it can't be built), forcing the player to defend at least two different locations in each system. I don't really think that's a terribly great idea, but its the only reason I can think of for making them separate. If you don't want to do that then just lump the two together in the name of convenience.

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
Nah, you just make the command station itself generate the power (econ stations in classic do that already). No module or anything. As it stands now there are vanishingly few situations where the fact that the energy generator is a separate unit matters. If you want it to matter (for some reason) then you should mandate that for 'reasons' it is not safe to have the reactor within some distance of the command station (large radius where it can't be built), forcing the player to defend at least two different locations in each system. I don't really think that's a terribly great idea, but its the only reason I can think of for making them separate. If you don't want to do that then just lump the two together in the name of convenience.

What you do if you need more power than the command station itself alone can provide?

Don't forget that in AI Classic each command station (regardless of which one you are using) allow you to build an energy collector which gives 150k power and more power at a cost of metal for more as necessary.

How are we going to translate that into command station providing everything power-wise?

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
How are we going to translate that into command station providing everything power-wise?

Does it need to ?
Power is per-planet now anyway. I don't really see the point of the additional power generators. And, before, there was 3 levels of generators... which I think everyone automated construction of. For me, whatever little role it had is translated in the design document, section "fuel".

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
What I meant is if you need to build a full cap of mk1-mkv turret and every fort in a single planet. A tiny fixed power budge from the command station may work against a super choke that some campaign would require you to do.

What I am saying if you need extra power budge you can pay for it as needed. The basic command station can provide enough power for a distributed defensive setup.

Fuel sound like something you always want more of anyway so some kind of granular setup is required for both.

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
How are we going to translate that into command station providing everything power-wise?

Does it need to ?
Power is per-planet now anyway. I don't really see the point of the additional power generators. And, before, there was 3 levels of generators... which I think everyone automated construction of. For me, whatever little role it had is translated in the design document, section "fuel".

That got replaced in later versions. In Classic right now, there's a single generator that provides the power all three used to. It builds automatically when you build a command station, and it costs no metal to operate. Additional power comes from matter converters, which DO cost metal to operate.

If you folded that base power generator into the command station itself and didn't have an extra building, it wouldn't make a diference. That's what people are talking about.

Offline kasnavada

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
::)
Hum, thanks, but I had figured the part where the power station & the command station merged, and that the old 3 levels were replaced by one years ago...

I asked if it posed a problem, because, the additional "eat-metal" power generator are currently here to stay, but... the fuel mechanics does takes the place of whatever role it could take, as stated in the design doc, see section :
2.d. Power for Stationary, Fuel for Mobile

Did you read that part ? It's stated there that old energy mechanics would work as before, but as energy is per planet, my guess is that Chris either didn't think it completely, or that he specifically wants matter convertors to eat metal being placed ON the very planet there's a chokepoint on as separate unit, in order to allow the possibilities of a brown-outs. Of course, as sestren stated above, there's little point if they're all clumped under one forcefield.

Now... for the proposal...
Merging the command station & the energy production (variable, or not) would mean that until the command station's dead, brownouts can't occur, but then again, whatever's defending the command stations probably will defend energy production.

Hence the question... Do you need to have, somehow, variable energy provided completely by command station ?


I'm personally fine with a raid starship / infiltrator disabling some defenses by shooting a matter convertor on a front line. Not so much if my entire defenses littelrally get shot when a single building gets shot.

Offline Tridus

  • Master Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,305
  • I'm going to do what I do best: lecture her!
I asked if it posed a problem, because, the additional "eat-metal" power generator are currently here to stay, but... the fuel mechanics does takes the place of whatever role it could take, as stated in the design doc, see section :
2.d. Power for Stationary, Fuel for Mobile

Did you read that part ? It's stated there that old energy mechanics would work as before, but as energy is per planet, my guess is that Chris either didn't think it completely, or that he specifically wants matter convertors to eat metal being placed ON the very planet there's a chokepoint on as separate unit, in order to allow the possibilities of a brown-outs. Of course, as sestren stated above, there's little point if they're all clumped under one forcefield.

Matter converters are there in the design doc for the case where you want more defenses on a planet than the normal power generation can support. That's it. Course, they don't actually have to exist as a seperate unit either, if you just put some button on the command station that lets you tell it how much extra power to generate. Or they can be a seperate unit. I don't care either way on that. :)

Offline chemical_art

  • Core Member Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,941
  • Fabulous
Sorry to jump in late this day. I would wait till tomorrow to give a better response, but, knowing Chris, he will give a grand response of sorts knowing his behavior (No hate Chris, just giving speculation on your behavior  ;) )

My analogy on the documentaries of ocean creatures was a shorthand. Both AI Wars and Distant worlds are strategy games set in space. However from there they diverge in greatly different ways. I adore Distant Worlds. The one thing I would not emulate from them is their automation. Their actual interface which involves an substantial in game encyclopedia and other features is good. But the automation leaves a lot to be desired. I consider it a "quirk" which is a very charitable definition of what many can reasonably say "flawed". Inspiration or not actual execution is more important. I prefer the AIW1 execution more for it is safe and acceptable. I would not want to go off on wild tangents when a strict time and resource budget is needed. The potential gains are uncertain but the cost and alienation is given.
Life is short. Have fun.

Offline Pumpkin

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,195
  • Neinzul Gardener Enclave
Wow, that thread goes on very fast, compared to the rest of the forum. I caught up rapidly and I just want to address a specific point.

About command station generating power: of course it wouldn't be modules! (I would be even more tedious than having a separated unit). My point was (as mentioned, but I confirm) to make the station itself produce the base power (in AIWC, it would be the 150K per planet). If extra power is required, a metal->power conversion could be set with a slider in a per-planet GUI. No stray unit would uselessly pile under the OCStation's FField.

Wether or not the energy variability is required is another question. (More or less debated here.)
Please excuse my english: I'm not a native speaker. Don't hesitate to correct me.
Pumpkin>> Do I need another cure about paranoia on top of overexcitement?
Mal>> We play AI War, enthusiasm and paranoia are both required!

Offline Vyndicu

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
The problem is do we want to have a "weak link" in the power infrastructure that AI can snipe and take advantage of or not?

Especially since we moved from galaxy-wide cap of power to per-planet power cap. So if one planet grid went offline it won't be as deadly of a blow back. But definitely keep the tension feeling around.

If you move the power generation (variable or not) into command station itself as a single unit. I am somewhat concerned that we may be giving command station too many roles (engineer are already becoming part of shipyard/command station in another thread). It may become a something that AI will always 'target' over everything else in an unhealthy obsessive way.

Offline Sestren

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 32
It may become a something that AI will always 'target' over everything else in an unhealthy obsessive way.

It always does that anyway. That's all I have ever seen it do with the exception of exowaves (and some very very small early waves that occasionally go after harvesters). Not to mention bullheaded behavior makes this approach MANDATORY for the affected units.