AI War II: Design Document Updates Round 2: Space Platforms

[PokerChen]

Two quick reactions to platforms:

1) the available platform support points should just be called , say, "Orbital capacity". Sins called it Logistics Slots, but you already have platform module slots.

2) I advise using autobuild over blueprints. Specify a target size and role(s), and allow an unoptimised algorithm to fill out the platform for players to modify later. As a comparison, as ridiculously shit Stellaris sector AI was, people like me choose to use it because we have more than 5 planets to manage.* This is precisely because Sim city stops being fun the moment one has to decide what modules some backwater station #7 will build. The obvious answer to an average person would be "We don't care, just fill it with economy and a bit of hull", so it doesn't make sense to force them to play Farmville.

Edit: 5 is one of Stellaris's wise decisions on max number of systems players are allowed to OCD over.

[Tridus]

Oh, and swapping engines onto a platform temporarily to reposition it and then swapping back to an all-offensive loadout sounds like a recipe for annoying micro.  Platforms should be able to move to allow repositioning, but moving should disable their attacks; an engine module might make them able to move and shoot (roll your own Sentinel Guard Post).

Excellent point. That's *EXACTLY* what is going to happen. If you can only put the stations in certain predefined spots, but engines can move them, the logical thing to do is to build it, slap on engines, move it to where you want, then remove the engines in favor of guns.

Letting it move (with its effects disabled) for free, but having engines let it move and be active at the same time makes a lot more sense. Also: just let us build it wherever we want in the first place, since if we can move it, we're probably going to.

[x4000]

Okay!  I'm going to lock this topic simply to move discussion into this other thread: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,19042.0.html

This idea is being discarded for now, for the reasons noted in that other thread.  And rather than that fact getting buried in a larger discussion here, I think that this discussion is better-served by resuming in that other thread.  Definitely not trying to censor anyone, but I am trying to create a "before and after" the cut break in the discussion that is obvious and thus helpful to all concerned.

Thank you to everyone for weighing in -- your feedback on this was really helpful in making this decision.