Fatal refleeting.

[Cinth]

Cool.  Conceptually, this seems to have some support. Hopefully Chris gets a chance to look at it.

I think it's a sound idea that kinda refines what Threat Fleet and SF should do in certain cases.  I'd think the veterans would support something like this also.

Some will; TechSY730 suggested essentially this solution in message #10 in this thread.  I blame that Chris guy for trying to introduce a new mechanic instead of fixing an existing one.

It's something that has been suggested a lot over time actually.

[Mánagarmr]

I don't see how that matters. If the AI can't beat your defenses, it doesn't matter how long it takes you to beat theirs. You will, eventually. It's only a question of time, and you have all kinds of time when you have unbeatable defense.

Not necessarily. Barring high level low-AIP strats, you are eventually going to run into either overwhelming waves or a too massive reinforcement, leading to you being stumped and unable to break the AIs defenses.

[kasnavada]

I don't see how that matters. If the AI can't beat your defenses, it doesn't matter how long it takes you to beat theirs. You will, eventually. It's only a question of time, and you have all kinds of time when you have unbeatable defense.

Not necessarily. Barring high level low-AIP strats, you are eventually going to run into either overwhelming waves or a too massive reinforcement, leading to you being stumped and unable to break the AIs defenses.

Unless someone else than I actually plan to remove the low AIP strat, I feel like tridus is right. Also, I seem to recall from other threads that tridus has quite the experience with 110 planet capture challenges, so... if he tells it so, I listen to his opinion. With this option in the game, I fear that low AIP is going to be even more of the default strat than before. Also, with low AIP strat, the whole point of the "let's beat the player with reinforcement" falls apart, because there is little to no reinforcement.

[Pumpkin]

A sort of dynamic "preemption", maybe? Like the AI slowly releasing defense units into threat when they are "overflowing"? If the player inflicted great looses to the AI at the expense of its own fleet, both teams will spend some time rebuilding themselves. But if the player just crashed on an MkXVIII AI wall, the AI has barely no reinforcement to do and start releasing the threat.

Also, as noted several times before, a smarter, or at least more aggressive threat might be the perfect solution. "Don't let the Humans get back on their feet."

[Tridus]

I don't see how that matters. If the AI can't beat your defenses, it doesn't matter how long it takes you to beat theirs. You will, eventually. It's only a question of time, and you have all kinds of time when you have unbeatable defense.

Not necessarily. Barring high level low-AIP strats, you are eventually going to run into either overwhelming waves or a too massive reinforcement, leading to you being stumped and unable to break the AIs defenses.

Unless someone else than I actually plan to remove the low AIP strat, I feel like tridus is right. Also, I seem to recall from other threads that tridus has quite the experience with 110 planet capture challenges, so... if he tells it so, I listen to his opinion. With this option in the game, I fear that low AIP is going to be even more of the default strat than before. Also, with low AIP strat, the whole point of the "let's beat the player with reinforcement" falls apart, because there is little to no reinforcement.

Well, I know the setup I use pretty well. Other setups are different, so I'd assume that the person disagreeing with me also knows what they're talking about.

A game where you try to get the Control 110 Achievement is very different than a low AIP no superweapons 9/9 game. In that situation, it very well could reach an effective stalemate.

[Tridus]

A sort of dynamic "preemption", maybe? Like the AI slowly releasing defense units into threat when they are "overflowing"? If the player inflicted great looses to the AI at the expense of its own fleet, both teams will spend some time rebuilding themselves. But if the player just crashed on an MkXVIII AI wall, the AI has barely no reinforcement to do and start releasing the threat.

I was thnking it'd be faster, but that's the general idea. More "player crashed on an AI Wall, AI responds with 'release 500 ships RIGHT NOW and counterattack, I can rebuild them later'."

Also, as noted several times before, a smarter, or at least more aggressive threat might be the perfect solution. "Don't let the Humans get back on their feet."

I think so. It keeps the player on their toes, lets you test your defenses, discourages full fleet wipes (retreat is good for multiple reasons now), and doesn't require any fundamental rework of basic mechanics like pilots or limited metal deposits would. It also doesn't require the reprisal mechanic, because the AI already has the ships in this case on various worlds and can simply release them into the threatfleet, which can then try and attack something.

[kasnavada]

(smarter & more aggressive AI)
How do you plan to make the AI more aggressive and smarter ?
Aggressive could be done via giving it more stuff, like releasing more threat as discussed here. (Or, preventing AIP to be reduced, so it has more stuff). But smarter ?

If the player set-ups multiple choke points, the smarter idea is to siege you out, which the AI already does. That's just asking for being nuked, though. Also sieging the player kinds of fails because you don't actually need anything from the outside.

Actually, I kind of remember than in those case, one of the AI plot got some kind of teleporter thingy capable of targetting something beyond your defenses. I don't have the game at the moment, can't check. While, possibly not the right idea...

Shouldn't the game require the player to go out more ?

[Mánagarmr]

(smarter & more aggressive AI)

Can't resist.

[Toranth]

I don't see why people think a fleetwipe is a bad thing.  To me, my fleetships aren't really units so much as expendable munitions.  For 75% or more of each game, when I leave my homeworld with my fleet, I don't expect any fleetships to make it back.  I'll protect my starships and other really expensive things, but fighters?  Who cares about 100 fighters?

The main reason for this is that, barring some very unbalanced fights, you can always get something for your units.  Those 100 fighters?  Toss them at those special forces.  Sure, they'll only take out 2% of the AI fleet before they die, but that's 2% you won't need to take out when you come back.

Actually, I kind of remember than in those case, one of the AI plot got some kind of teleporter thingy capable of targetting something beyond your defenses. I don't have the game at the moment, can't check. While, possibly not the right idea...

Shouldn't the game require the player to go out more?

This, I like.  If you want to make a fleetwipe a bad thing, make it an opportunity cost.  Fleetwipe means you miss out on raiding an AI supply train.  Fleetwipe means you have nothing available to attack and destroy the AI Grape Launcher before it sends a counterwave into your backyard.  Fleetwipe means you can't send reinforcements to your allies when they come under attack.
Something like that.

[Vinco]

I think Toranth is on to something.  AI War is about choices.  Choosing to send your fleet to their doom should be viable, but should carry an opportunity cost.

[Cyborg]

Throw my hat into the ring on this.

I think what AI war needs is something interesting to do while you are rebuilding. For example, being able to manually control some turrets arcade style, or manipulate defenses manually while you are being counterattacked, or some other kind of meta-game.

Or even more basic, just a better, faster fast-forward button.

[Wingflier]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#

If you go to an AI planet, lose your fleet, but complete an important objective that results in a lot of husks of large AI objectives, then hooray you scored yourself a metal bonus to make the refleeting faster.  That in turn makes for some more nuanced decisions of what you target first on AI planets: the little guys shooting you, or the big things that will score you metal if you get them.  Depends on if you’re taking multiple runs at the planet, kinda.

Seems that Chris has updated the design document with some new information regarding the refleeting mechanic. I posted in the other thread about this, but I'd like to discuss it here too.

Essentially, I like this change because it rewards the player for progressing through the game by taking important objectives, even while losing their fleet in the process. This is the way it should be.

However, I don't believe this change on its own is a full solution, because should the player fail to take a major objective, and still lose their entire fleet, it is nonsensical that the AI would not take this massive opportunity to retaliate while the player was at their weakest. Since we're being rewarded for taking a major objective, even after losing our entire force, I would hope there would be a punishment for losing your entire fleet without accomplishing anything productive for two reasons:

1. In a game about an ultra-intelligent AI, the AI would seem pretty stupid for passing up this opportunity to retaliate. At that point, the major appeal of the game kind of loses its muster.

2. Creating game mechanics where the most logical thing to do is spend an hour twiddling your thumbs while everything rebuilds doesn't seem like great design.

[Tridus]

Agreed. What's been proposed there is a good idea. I think it could play into this somewhat.

I assume he'll get to this thread when he has some time. He's pretty busy.

[chemical_art]

Throw my hat into the ring on this.

I think what AI war needs is something interesting to do while you are rebuilding. For example, being able to manually control some turrets arcade style, or manipulate defenses manually while you are being counterattacked, or some other kind of meta-game.

Or even more basic, just a better, faster fast-forward button.

This. I also think reprisal is the best base idea. The AI creates a counter attack based on the metal a player lost. It would assume the more the human commits the more potential to be vulnerable the human is. It doesn't cheapen defenses, rather give more of a buffer the more defenses a player has. It doesn't hurt players who waste fleetships if they save more expensive craft. If is a very straightforward way to explain things.

[Wingflier]

Throw my hat into the ring on this.

I think what AI war needs is something interesting to do while you are rebuilding. For example, being able to manually control some turrets arcade style, or manipulate defenses manually while you are being counterattacked, or some other kind of meta-game.

Or even more basic, just a better, faster fast-forward button.

This. I also think reprisal is the best base idea. The AI creates a counter attack based on the metal a player lost. It would assume the more the human commits the more potential to be vulnerable the human is. It doesn't cheapen defenses, rather give more of a buffer the more defenses a player has. It doesn't hurt players who waste fleetships if they save more expensive craft. If is a very straightforward way to explain things.

True, reprisals based on what the human has lost is a pretty good design choice I think.

This also increases the value of investing in defenses, as a player who spends some of his research on offense and some on defense will naturally not have as much metal to lose in a battle, and will have stronger defenses to protect against reprisals.