General Category > AI War II
AI War II: Design Document Updates 6: Fuel and Solar Systems v2 (no Orbits)
x4000:
2.d. Power for Stationary, Fuel for Mobile (version 2 -- simplified!): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#heading=h.2jx9ewlef8wg
2.e. Solar Systems (simplified, and not orbits): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#heading=h.sd2h6gyftkvl
I'll be very interested to hear what folks think of the new version, which avoids the more drastic changes.
There was lots of great feedback in the prior thread, but I want to start fresh to be clear where the break in the discussion is.
My changes here were based on a lot of the commentary in the old thread (both positive and negative had an impact), and based on thoughts from Keith. Specifically some notes:
First Draft Power/Fuel Model (Why it's in the graveyard)
This was an interesting idea, and you can read it in the document of discards above. However, it was too complex and so we quickly decided to simplify it. At least for now! Keith basically came up with the revised model, and I really like it better.
I also corrected the factual inaccuracies about how power worked in AI War Classic based on his notes, since that changed a lot since last I played (it's been THAT LONG).
Solar Systems and Planetary Orbits V1 (why that's in the graveyard and the new model exists)
Keith put it well:
The overall idea of the arrangement of planets and new territory-control rules and such seem ok, but having the non-wormhole method of travel is concerning from a user-experience standpoint.
Seems like it will require a whole new set of interface, usability, etc improvements to make reasonable and even that may really complicate decisions that used to be very simple (in a way that's more frustrating than fun).
And I responded:
Yeah, I have some serious concerns here as well, after having written it down. Visually the idea super excites me, and the idea of the AI taking territory excites me, and the idea of more realistic planet arrangements really excites me... but I dunno on the other parts.
Maybe just going for a simplified version with no orbits would be better. I'm going to write that up as an alternative. It would solve most of our problems, I think.
Pumpkin:
This, I love!
Random comments.
Metal converter: 0 or 1 per planet (no more allowed), with infinite converting power (basically on/off for "this planet is allowed to brownout" and "this planet consume metal instead of going down").
Orbital motion "frozen", lore justification: space ships are able to move pretty fast between planets and systems; the action is displayed in real time and the game actually take several hours, during which the planets don't move significantly.
What about nomad planets?!? (Well, I guess we'll see that in "ideas for maybe later".)
New solar system design:
So it's basically AI War 1. Planets just have a specific organization in small groups. So every galaxy will become a microcosm-cluster-something. Yay! But with the ability to choose what kind of microcosms we want to be randomly blended. Ultra-yay!
Macro-snake/micro-random would do something like spoke. Macro-grid/micro-everything sounds like fun (among many others). Macro-concentric/micro-ring will be hilarious! Macro-snake/micro-snake wouldn't exactly be like one long snake, because there is no way (at least now, in the design document) for defining relations between macro-links and micro-links. (For creating a pure snake map, it would require to precise that only a planet with one intra-wormhole can have an extra-wormhole). Hm.
Solar map styles:
Being the graph-happy guy I am, how couldn't I love this idea? Here are some suggestions. (I love the ring and the snake!)
* Solar Tree: only N planets connect to the sun; the rest is organized as a tree.
* Sectors: N groups of adjacent planets are connected together; hoping from group to group is only possible by "crossing the sun".
Solar system ownership: doesn't seem to matter a lot, now. Why not just caring about who owns what planet, just like in AIW1?
x4000:
Glad you like it!
Metal converter: I think Keith and others can better respond to that, but as I understand it it's a bad idea. I'm not current enough to comment on it intelligently, though.
Nomad planets: Not present for now, probably.
Solar system design: yes, basically AI War 1, but the solar system ownership makes a bigger difference than you might think. Notable strategic changes:
1. There are neutral "safe zones" (suns) in these areas.
2. You have the option of partially or completely taking an AI stronghold (previously a planet, now more of a solar system), unlike before.
3. The AI will fight to regain control of solar systems, unlike before with planets. Aka, AIs recapturing planets.
4. The AIP ramifications of the AI taking a whole solar system back is a big deal, whereas anything south of that is interesting skirmish. Both are cool.
5. Background factions and so on will be solar-system based.
6. Individual planetary wells will be smaller, and AIP gains from taking planets will be smaller, leading to more granular possible actions.
Solar map styles: those are programmatically challenging ones that you suggested, because the position of the planets is placed first, then the connections are made. I don't think those specific variants would work.
kasnavada:
:o
Remarks:
1) "tilted 3d map"... sigh. I missed that in the first draft. Could we have a "flatten option" ? Pretty please ?
2) If I'm reading that well, you're basically setting up to create an AI war game with neutral territories and 480 to 640 systems, each of which could be as defended as any of the previous systems in AI war 1 ? Are every planet the tactical equivalent a what guard posts were, but unable to defend each other, except by sending ships to one another ?
I get that the systems might not be "fully" defended.
I understand that an augmentation in the "preferred" systems number is sensible, to allow factions and "empty" planets.
I'd understand if you wanted to move toward grand strategy - AI war is kind of very small compared to stellaris.
But, my concern comes because I pretty much have a good idea of what size a 640 planets game actually is - it ranges from annoying to mind-boggingly boring. Star Ruler 2 enables you to do that, so, like an idiot, I tried, and in order for the game to work at all, they simplified it most of the gameplay heavily (game is based on possessing 15 system of 4 planets per player). Stellaris has those numbers too, and introduced sectors to counter it. I don't think Ai war will work well with either of the mechanics present in this game.
However, if the "territory capture", on the main map, of system are meant to have the significance of system captures in AI war 1, this modification increases game grind by... a lot. Because it would be difficult to actually reduce the number of systems taken, which was already pushed to the limit by players due to AI progress. Therefore my concern. Is there significant other modifications that will reduce micromanagemenet on the game ?
I'm not against the idea on principle, and it's not "a lot" of work on your side, but I'm cautious on the risk on fun factor here.
Pumpkin:
--- Quote from: x4000 on September 08, 2016, 11:22:21 am ---Solar system design: yes, basically AI War 1, but the solar system ownership makes a bigger difference than you might think. Notable strategic changes:
1. There are neutral "safe zones" (suns) in these areas.
2. You have the option of partially or completely taking an AI stronghold (previously a planet, now more of a solar system), unlike before.
3. The AI will fight to regain control of solar systems, unlike before with planets. Aka, AIs recapturing planets.
4. The AIP ramifications of the AI taking a whole solar system back is a big deal, whereas anything south of that is interesting skirmish. Both are cool.
5. Background factions and so on will be solar-system based.
6. Individual planetary wells will be smaller, and AIP gains from taking planets will be smaller, leading to more granular possible actions.
--- End quote ---
Awesome! I can't wait to see that in action!
Side questions.
* You speak about AI stronghold at solar size (which sounds exciting). Will planetary mark will be the same for all the AI planets of a same system? I imagine a homeworld and its load of core worlds would be a MkIV system with one MkV planet with no extra-system-wormholes.
* Also, there will be three different kinds of wormholes: between planets of a same system (let's call them intra-wormholes), between planets of different systems (let's call them extra-wormholes) and the two old exo-wormholes. Color code and UI will need to convey that.
* Will supply work on suns? Will we be able to put turrets around them? Or would it be like a nuked planet (no knowledge, no energy, no metal and no supply)?
--- Quote from: x4000 on September 08, 2016, 11:22:21 am ---Solar map styles: those are programmatically challenging ones that you suggested, because the position of the planets is placed first, then the connections are made. I don't think those specific variants would work.
--- End quote ---
Okay. I didn't realized. Bear in mind that some people out there (*wink*) will want to mod the map styles, at some point. Eh, I would be okay with "just" the galactic level moddable (if feasible at all, of course).
OMG I already imagine the reworked Dyson Sphere! It is the sun and its mood depends on the balance in its system. *.*
And nebulae: sunless systems! Yay!
I really love the possibilities this offers, now that I really understand it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version