[Discussion] Scouting

[crazyroosterman]

I just had a spur of the moment regarding balancing having extra how making it so that the farther out your attacking beyond(or even at it if preferred) the less attack power the building has example my barracks attacks 1 out side its default range and gets a reduction of 500 attack damage not saying that's how I would actually want it to be its just well an example.

[kasnavada]

@cinth
Sorry, but yes. You are underestimating the difference that a single point of additional range makes... and Ptarth's idea included all buildings, and "possibly" a limit of 12, from the 1-6 bonus range.

I could fill pages with examples of this, and argument it fully, but... I don't think it's useful here. I think M.A.X. as the first game that drilled me into this thinking. Bionic Dues is the one that has the most "focus" on range in Arcen's library, but there is also a focus on one-shotting which reinforces the range mechanic further.


Also I agree that with the current number, it would not matter much if barracks had a range boost, IMO it's because it would be nice if it had a boost to balance it properly. I don't think that making it dependant on another building to be balance would make me want to build one. Why would I build 2 buildings when the next one does the job alone ? Anyway, it's a balance issue, it'll be worked out eventually.

I honestly can't think of a way to give scouts a civilian bonus that would fit them thematically, hence the military idea.

I'd suggest using or refitting high-level military-grade surveillance equipment to track criminals, strange terrain anomalies, obtuse heat signature, pollution emission ?

Also, it would be nice to think of players doing a diplomatic victory and pacific run.

[Cinth]

@cinth
Sorry, but yes. You are underestimating the difference that a single point of additional range makes... and Ptarth's idea included all buildings, and "possibly" a limit of 12, from the 1-6 bonus range.
 

I could fill pages with examples of this, and argument it fully, but... I don't think it's useful here. I think M.A.X. as the first game that drilled me into this thinking. Bionic Dues is the one that has the most "focus" on range in Arcen's library, but there is also a focus on one-shotting which reinforces the range mechanic further.


Also I agree that with the current number, it would not matter much if barracks had a range boost, IMO it's because it would be nice if it had a boost to balance it properly. I don't think that making it dependant on another building to be balance would make me want to build one. Why would I build 2 buildings when the next one does the job alone ? Anyway, it's a balance issue, it'll be worked out eventually.

I took his suggestion and built mine from it.  Please take that into consideration.  I'm not for a random + to all military buildings.  It's kind of bland as a bonus, but giving a small boost to a handful of barracks with the limitation that you can't build more scouts to boost more barracks in that area, sounds like a decent bonus.  Like I mentioned, the bonus should be useful but not something we would want to spam.

I honestly can't think of a way to give scouts a civilian bonus that would fit them thematically, hence the military idea.

I'd suggest using or refitting high-level military-grade surveillance equipment to track criminals, strange terrain anomalies, obtuse heat signature, pollution emission ?

Sure, but it is going to take up space in the district and one of the specialized buildings would probably work better in its place.  It's like the resources that boost police range.  They may as well be good but I'm using 3 buildings to convey what I could otherwise do better with less.

[kasnavada]

I took his suggestion and built mine from it.  Please take that into consideration.  I'm not for a random + to all military buildings.  It's kind of bland as a bonus, but giving a small boost to a handful of barracks with the limitation that you can't build more scouts to boost more barracks in that area, sounds like a decent bonus.  Like I mentioned, the bonus should be useful but not something we would want to spam.

Hum ok, missed that part. Sorry. Tired. Late.

I don't have anything about a small bonus - actually proposing a damage bonus in what I wrote earlier. Just not range. Range ain't small.

Sure, but it is going to take up space in the district and one of the specialized buildings would probably work better in its place.  It's like the resources that boost police range.  They may as well be good but I'm using 3 buildings to convey what I could otherwise do better with less.

Yes, as said in one of my previous posts, I acknowledge that it's a bad idea to implement this with adjacency. Hence I proposed targetting. Scout stays out of district and gives a bonus to some buildings.


PS: maybe scouts could "distribute" a resource somewhere else. What do you think ?


PS : I still this of the idea I'd adapted from OTC as better than a derivation of ptarth's. But with "those" heavy limitations I think it may be workable.

[ptarth]

I would actually suggest that the balance to military buildings incorporate other buildings (e.g., scouting stations).

Consider the Boarines. Their racial bonus is to Barracks, which while the damage is good, is still dwarfed in range by Missiles and Helipads (even with maximum bonuses). Their helipads are not very good at all. So if the scouting station's bonus did increase range (with some maximum range), then they might build military outposts consisting of 1 cargo bay/helipad, 3 barracks and 3 scouting stations. This would give them the range and firepower to deal damage effectively. In contrast the Skylaxians wouldn't need scouting stations like that, so their basic military outpost would be just helipads. Or depending on if you are basing it of the military outpost, the mixture changes, but the fundamental idea is still there.

[kasnavada]

I would actually suggest that the balance to military buildings incorporate other buildings (e.g., scouting stations).

I've seen where that train of thought leads.

Hypothesis: military buildings give adjacency bonus is case 1, and military buildings NOT giving adjacency bonus is case 2 (does not matter what). Both sides are evenly matched at start (again, assuming balance which probably won't exist, but for the thought experiment only). Which loses the most from a building destruction ? Case 1. It also forces the player / AI to pack his buildings, heavily increasing the power of area weaponry (not currently in the game as far as I've seen, but not everything is there).

Also, in your example, it would mean that where you've got scouting stations, you're "balanced" (or supposed to), and where you don't have it, you're "weak", basically making the scout feel mandatory.

Having "independant" military sounds like the best idea to me.

I'm all for giving a bonus to people taking the initiative but it's already a bonus in itself, due to the turn based nature of the game. I've seen adjacency bonus work in games where your defense are not supposed to be rebuilt (tower defense mostly). In 4X I'd expect some losses.

[Cinth]

Your already weak if you aren't packing a dozen missile silos and a Cobalt Bomb Launcher (grab my save off mantis if you wanna see one in action).

http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=17113

[wwwhhattt]

Here's a completely unrelated idea: make it possible to move scouting buildings for a smaller price than it cost to build them. Thematically (?) it's likely that scout buildings would be temporary for the reasons that render them eventually useless, and that once one area is scouted the building would be abandoned so an new area could be scouted. On those lines it could be possible to have the building range of the new scout base dictated by the position of the old base, rather than the crash site & teleporters, but that sounds like it might play silly buggers with balance somehow.

Or: have the option to change the building into another type with more permanent uses. I'm not sure how you could make it clear enough beforehand that this could be done though.

Nothing as interesting as the other ideas, but it's an idea anyway.

[kasnavada]

I think that the scout "range" is actually limited to a number of tiles around "districts".

Moving it still sounds nice though, because your scout might just be placed "at the edge at first", and then you'll find out it blocks where you want to build something else, that you couldn't see because you did not scout yet.

[ptarth]

I've seen where that train of thought leads.

Hypothesis: military buildings give adjacency bonus is case 1, and military buildings NOT giving adjacency bonus is case 2 (does not matter what). Both sides are evenly matched at start (again, assuming balance which probably won't exist, but for the thought experiment only). Which loses the most from a building destruction ? Case 1. It also forces the player / AI to pack his buildings, heavily increasing the power of area weaponry (not currently in the game as far as I've seen, but not everything is there).

Also, in your example, it would mean that where you've got scouting stations, you're "balanced" (or supposed to), and where you don't have it, you're "weak", basically making the scout feel mandatory....

The AI doesn't play by the same rules that the player does, nor is it competitive multiplayer game. It is a pure single player balance issue, which means you can do things without worrying about balance in the same way as you would in a symmetrical competitive game.

As for this case, it depends on how much military power you need and for what. If you need to pick off stragglers, then choose your strongest military attack with enough range. In contrast if you are going to assault a city, then you'll need more firepower (i.e., the scouting complex).

[kasnavada]

What you say is true. The issue is lessened because the AI does not play by the same rules. However, "lessened" does not mean "low". You can "lessen" taxes from 90 to 80%, it both cases they're very high. The games I've played before show me that it creates more problems than solutions even in the case of asymetrical AI (like Bionic dues).

What do you think of a range bonus impact on game balancing ? Or more accurately, why do you seem to think that it would impact the game little ?

PS :
Could you also explain to me how it contradict that adjacency bonus for military buildings gives even more bonus to the person with initiative (which for me is a bad idea), and why it would be a good idea ?

PS2 : in current SBR, is there a situation where you would not take a range bonus if available ?

[kasnavada]

About the initial question, how about :
- removing the scout building.
- give scout action to the lander (somewhat high energy costs).
- give scout action to coordinate military command.

[ptarth]

What do you think of a range bonus impact on game balancing ? Or more accurately, why do you seem to think that it would impact the game little ?

I don't think it will have little impact. I think it will provide a legitimate way to encourage people to build barracks. Right now, there isn't a good reason to do so. Unless you have to in order to destroy specific buildings. This is especially true with Races that have weak helipads and missiles. They have to choose between weak helipads with range (or missiles) or strong barracks with no range. This would allow them to overcome that, with a small cost.

When I proposed the idea I mentioned that it would need a cap, so it won't make the long range buildings longer range, it will make the short range buildings have longer ranges. I believe you are focusing on the idea of increasing the long range buildings, which is not what I'm saying.
 

Could you also explain to me how it contradict that adjacency bonus for military buildings gives even more bonus to the person with initiative (which for me is a bad idea), and why it would be a good idea ?

Because it is a single player game. If this makes the game fun, then great. SBR is a puzzle game of sorts. Adding more range is just another tool to solve that puzzle. It shouldn't make it too easy, but it should make it interesting. Right now, the only person with initiative is the player. The AI either drops Saucers on you with N turns of warning, or has a city which you are assaulting. Plus, I mention this again, want to make the game fun for the player. I'm okay if the AI doesn't have fun.

in current SBR, is there a situation where you would not take a range bonus if available ?

Right now, I don't bother with wonders that provide range bonuses, it is unlikely I'll need them where they are.
I try to focus on the preferred Racial Military preference, sometimes that is barracks.
In the Social Trees, I get some of the important things first, but then otherwise go for the range boosts for the weapons I've chosen.
I ignore all the ocean stuff.
Really though, I mostly build missiles which don't get many range boosts.

So the answer is somewhat? The military balance isn't done yet, for either the AI or the player. I don't see the problem in being able to be strong in all military aspects, but  having to pay a little more to get your non-specialized one up and running.

[kasnavada]

@Ptarth.
Ok. That makes it clearer.

I don't find building military buildings in a pattern to maximize their bonus fun - it already requires fitting to the opponents, it requires fitting to your inner base layout for defenses, it requires adapting to terrain, and requires adapting to being shot at. So, no, adding adjacency bonus to it sounds like it's reducing my possibilites even further and sounds less fun than before. Also, I hate the very idea of always having the initiative, and I find that outranging your opponents to be utterly boring.

Therefore I'm basing the idea of adjacency bonus in a world where the enemy has initiative, where outranging your opponent ain't easy to do, and with my (usual) heavy focus on eliminating unnecessary micro-management (personal preference).

For me, if the barracks requires more love, then boost the barrack itself.

Being able to use the barrack does sound like more fun, but the way you're proposing to do that sounds less fun to me than what's currently there - because I'm hoping for the above mentionned combat system which ain't here yet. Then again, I'll not be the one implementing this nor choosing it.


Basically, I think the root of why I thing it's a bad idea is that you're trying to use the opportunity of reworking the scout building to balance the current combat system. I think the current combat system, to quote Chris'notes to tester, "requires more love". More honestly (sorry if I'm hurting Chris feelings by stating so), I think balancing, in its current state would not be enough - reworking the good parts and redesigning the worst ones is needed.

[ptarth]

...opportunity of reworking the scout building to balance the current combat system...

So all of this is about the idea that you don't want the scouting station to fit into the balancing system of the military?