New GCO!!!!!!!!!!!

Moderators: Darth1o9, Calavan, Dilber

User avatar
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Denmark

Post by CurseUppl » Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:35 am

Well Darth, since we removed REFs (yes you heard me right) and trade (yep also) so only planets give vps and mining gives vp, I say each faction should either build 1 world devastator for mining or they all have to find the plans or steal them from the GE (I vouch for stealing or finidng them)
A WD could work like a planet, you can have an armarda of miners following it, so they can drop resources off in it instead of heading back. Could even make a support range within the WD so that all players have to is set the miner ontop of teh 'roid and resources will auto transfer meaning the miner will give in cash each turn without moving.
That would definetly motivate me enough to waste all my cash on one.

*edit* Ohhh yeah, this time the Eclipse will be worth it, i mean the SSD alone can MEGAPWN several ISDs *drrols* the Eclipse could do worse!! :eek:

[size="1"][ 13. January 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: CurseUppl ][/size]

Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England

Post by Darth1o9 » Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:44 am

maybe curse, we will just have to see wont we.

Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:35 pm

Just wondering: generating missions for HW2 isn't a problem, but what about retrieving the exact outcome of a battle ? Has someone made a script in order to at least get detailed log files like in HW1 (or, even better, record a game...) ?

I've stayed out of all this for quite a long time, and have no idea how far research on HW2 modding has advanced.

Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:33 pm

Some feedback about the ideas:

- World Devastators: I'm against it, mostly because I have never been much into EU's "superweapons for superbadasses" thing.

Otherwise, I may get a look at it, but prolly won't have time to play.

- trade

OK, I know I might be of the rare ones who liked trade. IMHO, it was a good way of simulating the gain you could have when staying at peace and keeping your space safe from intruders - income often drops down when you're at war, unless you enforce exceptional laws to keep people working for not that high a pay.

Yes, I also think some parts of the current implementation are flawed (very hard to intercept, and doubling the income with it is too much - something like 25% would have been OK).

- refineries

Why remove them ? Basically, it would mean that apart from shipyards, there is nothing representing a planet's industrial buildings anymore (i.e. you can't level its income to the ground, since no refineries would basically mean fixed rates).

On that part, too, I would have preferred "complexifying" the model a little bit.

For example: say a refie produces 1 vp a turn (current was 10 vps), and a planet can have 10*level of refies (thus, 120 refies on a lvl 12). In terms of economics it's similar... but here's the proposal: each time you bombard with capships, you have a percentage called to assess possible destruction of ground structures (collateral damage). You could have two bombing options (massive, and precision), with radically different risks of leveling the planet down. Also, the defender would have an option of puting his defenders inside buildings & co, making them harder to defeat and enforcing buildings destruction (unless you only send ground troops).

This could add more strategy, instead of simplifying and reducing the depth.

My 0,02€

Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England

Post by Darth1o9 » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:38 am

World devastators - prolly not as i dont think they will add anything to the game.

Trade - Yes well can have you feeling safe and personaly i think stops a large % of the battles from ever taking place. We will try it wothout and see how it goes

Refineries - you also dont have things representing the different ores used, different types of troops. They just wont be needed in the this beta. This campaign wont be so much about the empire building but more the empire expanding.

Final thought, Turg, you need a girlfriend or something, you have way to much time on your hands

User avatar
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Denmark

Post by CurseUppl » Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:09 am

I say we add in a new thing. When players attack a planet, they always make sure it has a decent level right?

Defence Rating

A DR that goes from 1 to 10 and is displayed next to the planet level.
The higher the DR is, the better the odds are for the defenders. The lower the DR the better it is for the attackers.
So a planet with a DR of 10, the defenders would have 1 defender to 5 attacker odds. So a 1000 man defender army on a DR 10 planet could whoop 5000 attacking enemies. Bombardment would be also be reduced by 50%
A DR 6 planet would have 1 to 1 odds. The bombardment would be reduced by 10%
A DR 5 would also have 1 to 1 odds, but there would be no bombardment reduced effects.
A DR 1 planet would be 1 to 5 odds in favor of the attackers.

DR 1 = 1 to 5 odds, attackers favor
DR 2 = 1 to 4 odds, attackers favor
DR 3 = 1 to 3 odds, attackers favor
DR 4 = 1 to 2 odds, attackers favor
DR 5 = 1 to 1 odds
DR 6 = 1 to 1 odds,
DR 7 = 1 to 2 odds, defenders favor
DR 8 = 1 to 3 odds, defenders favor
DR 9 = 1 to 4 odds, defenders favor
DR 10 = 1 to 5 odds, defenders favor

Also from DR 6 to DR 10
DR 6 = 10% reduced bombardment
DR 7 = 20% reduced bombardment
DR 8 = 30% reduced bombardment
DR 9 = 40% reduced bombardment
DR 10 = 50% reduced bombardment

So a fleet with 5000 bombardment rating attacking a DR 10 planet would have the bombardment reduced by 50% so it would be 2500 bombardment.

Get it?

[size="1"][ 23. January 2005, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: CurseUppl ][/size]

Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 1:00 am
Location: France

Post by Turgidson » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:54 pm

Here's my answers (note: I do not have that much time, I'm even under heavy schedule - it's just that I'm somewhat an addict)

1°) Trade and battles

OK for a "let's see" proposal (that's what tests and betas are for).

However, I still think that the "lack" of battles is merely part of a general attitude, that just something induced by trade. I'd describe this attitude as "Honvik's roadmap to victory" (I know it's a frequent gaming strat and that Hon didn't invent it from scratch, but he's the one who's had the highest success with it ;) ), which has been immitated a lot but not mastered.

Basically: turtle, pick an easy target that won't be able to retaliate nor will be able to drag mighty neighbours against youm turtle again, turtle again, pick another small guy... I cannot blame anyone for that method, since it derives directly from any strat book that does include politics.

Also: usually, hot war (i.e. battles) will always have an hindering impact on the economy. In case no short term victory is achievable, staying out and going on the "eco and arms race" (i.e., cold war) will be more profitable.

It's a fact, especially in a multipower (i.e. non dual) setting: the guys who stay out often win more than the ones who fight. Cf WWI, for example: the USA stayed out for a while, and they were the big winners at the end.

And, alas, our choice might be to either have something somewhat realistic, which will induce this turtling/stay out attitude (unless dual/polarized - that's why I've often been pushing for 2 superfactions), or something purely unrealistic, where two guys who washed themselves out in a bitter conflict could still come on top of guys who stayed out and turtled their economy.

Back to trade:

I do admit that by doubling the income, trade does worsen the effect - hence my proposal of 25%, not the current 100%.

2°) Refies, and planet enhancements

I do admit that the different ores are not simulated, and I must say I would love to see some of these in: "raw materials" as bottleneck for unit building, "energy" as bottleneck for factory sizes as well as resupply operations... and "population" as parameter for planet size, troop recruiting, factory workers, etc... Of course, "cash" would still be there.

Small ( :D ) digression: the idea is to have "local bottlenecks" as well. Cash is, by nature, "unlimitedly transferable to any planet". Such instantaneous, costless transfer abilities lead to supercaps and superfleets. If, at the contrary, some resources are forced to be kept local, then the fleets/units will be much more spread.

Current shipyards do represent such a "local limit", but they're somewhat too big thus unlimiting.

Example in C3: as Crusader's Command boss, I had a superb war machine behind me that would overpower any C4 faction. However, C3 NPCs were not allowed to transfer money to each other - resulting in money resources that were kept strictly local. Thus, a world that wanted to build a supercap would have to do it on his own, resulting in slower production rates (need to accumulate the money alone, then produce it on own yard).

Conclusion: despite a huge war economy, I had less supercaps than a standard C4 faction, but many, many "destroyer-sized" ships (ISDs, MC80xs, Daunts...). More than the faction sizes and the super-economies, what induced C4 "supercrap" is the combination of manoey that was allowed, with money as sole resource.

As for empire expanding vs empire building: I do admit that things like population growth or world colonization are not needed (and even needed not to be in IMHO), however the "economic war machine" is IMHO definitely a most important point. After all, the Allies won WW2 mostly because their war machine economy was stronger.

I do admit, though, that very interesting games can be produced that do not have such modeling (Risk, Diplomacy...) - but they're closer to abstract chess than war sim

3°) Planet defense rating

I do agree that the defense model could be made better (it is somewhat both quite hard to defend oneself, and yet quite easy), especially on the ground assault section - however I just do not like artificial cost-free bonuses.

I disagree on your current version, because it would just make important worlds very easy to defend from scratch - at least, it is perceived that way.

My current way of thinking is this one: if a planet is very important, then you have to spend a lot on its defense, and not let the game defend it for you with bonuses. Same goes for bombardment.

In fact, we may not be that far, the question merely being "in how shape you retrieve the world". With exactly the same troops as defenders, it shall not be harder to conquer Okinawa than Berlin, the question being how valuable is the stuff you destroy with collateral damage.

Ideas from my part: have a revamp on planetary shields, maybe with top limitation on planet level (if we have energy as resource: planetary shields limited by energy output). Also have to option to dig troops into "buildings", efficiency being relative to the number of buildings there.

And last: have different bombardment/ground assault options. As basic: mass bombing and troop assaults would destroy structures thus lower the "level" of a planet (level that would not necessarily be an integer as of now, but perhaps a kind of "planet value rating"), precision strikes and toe-to-toe blaster squads would reduce said destruction.

This would make conquest of a valuable planet "quite easy" as long as you can afford partial desctruction, and quite harder if you wish to keep it intact (because these troops can dig deep inside... remember streetfighting nightmares). Same outcome as your idea as far as the level is kept, but with an additional option to (partly) BDZ it and land a single trooper. ;)

Also, with the convenient bonuses/maluses to galactic opinion, this could be very interesting.

[size="1"][ 24. January 2005, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Turgidson ][/size]

Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England

Post by Darth1o9 » Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:35 pm

1) well it was more designed to have one rather large faction controled by the GM, the empire, these being to powerful for a faction to take by themselfs and if the turtle efefct comes into play, the GM can even the score.

2) possible, however the next campaign will be with the hw2 mod but the old app. As of current the removal of extra income from trade is more due to the limited ap for this camp. Shipyards wont be so great this campaign, ISD's will cost alot more, think of the prices in evilles mod as our prices will be based on them but with the current planet system. (should be interesting as this may very well put people off building larger ships due to the time it will create them.

3) I cant say i really like curse's idea, i havent said yes or no.

Junior Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:00 am

Post by Mikail » Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:51 am

Originally posted by Turgidson:
[QB]Has someone made a script in order to at least get detailed log files like in HW1 (or, even better, record a game...) ?
Check out my Deathmatch Plus Gametype. It does some of the stuff you're asking for.

[size="1"][ 04. March 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Mikail ][/size]

Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Ipswich, England

Post by Darth1o9 » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:30 pm

ok i will take a look into it but i think the mod include new win conditions anyways.

Post Reply

Return to “Galactic Conquest Discussion”