NO - this is the solution - Really! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Gargoil -> NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 6:30:50 PM)

I created a new thread because this is a completely new idea to solve the ground combat problems so many others have noted and tried to solve. I have the solution, and it is based in fact and in common wargame design philosophy.

Worlds need to have stacking limits. You could make it a set number, or some function of Quality, or whatever. Any method will work for the following:

The attacker may attempt to land any number of troops he wishes, but only the Stacking Limit will actually be on the ground fighting. The other troops are in reserve. So if the stacking limit was 8, and the defender has the maximum 8 troops on the planet and the attacker has 24 troops on his transports - then 8 troops would land and fight for him. The defender will most likely inflict more casualties, as there are defensive population bonuses. But each time the attacker loses a troop, it will land another. Say the defender kills 2 attackers while lossing 1 of his troops. The attacker will land another 2 troops, so he has 8 again, the defender is down to 7 plus any bonus. The attacker will take higher casualties usually and win eventually if he has enough troops. But there is no OVERKILL effect. The defender can hold out for a substantial amount of time, and if the attacker does not have deep reserves, will lose. A nice added effect is that the unlanded troops are still aboard the transports - giving the defender a chance to destroy those in space while the battle rages on the planet.

What do you think?

Edit - let me add one more thing - the defender can build more troops than the stackinig limit as well. But they will be in reserve just as the attackers are. This could lead to Epic battles for a homeworld, lasting much, much longer thant they do now. And have the chance to reinforcing and counterattacks.




Data -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 6:52:58 PM)

an interesting idea, i like it
it also voids the rushing attacks with the heavily shieleded transports that bypass orbital defenses
ya, i see only merits so far....in principle an attacker can land troops anywhere he likes so he could land milions of them, but the actual objective or objectives are in a llimited number and the defender can constrict the access thermopile style
miau miau miau



Shark7 -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 7:03:50 PM)

The only problem with stacking limits is that eventually you will end up with an impregnable fortress that you can't get enough attacking troops to ever take.

Perhaps a diminishing returns formula would be better. Say you get your optimal performance from 2:1 or 3:1 odds, any additional troops over that for the attacking side give you little or any effect. So you can still drop those 180 troops on a capital, but the first 40 or so are the only ones that figure into deciding the battle if the defender has 15-20 troops on the planet., etc



Gargoil -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 7:23:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The only problem with stacking limits is that eventually you will end up with an impregnable fortress that you can't get enough attacking troops to ever take.


I respectfully disagree. Blockading while attacking a planet, their resources to maintain the fight cannot last forever. As long as you, as the attacker, can continue to reinforce your attack, the defender must eventually dwindle and eventually lose.

I for one would like to have it that way. It would be like trying to take Stalingrad, Leningrad or Moscow in WWII. They COULD have been taken, but it was never a forgone conclusion. If the Germans were not weaken, they would be able to continue to reinforce and eventually win. That is the drama I'll love to see in DW.




Shark7 -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 7:40:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The only problem with stacking limits is that eventually you will end up with an impregnable fortress that you can't get enough attacking troops to ever take.


I respectfully disagree. Blockading while attacking a planet, their resources to maintain the fight cannot last forever. As long as you, as the attacker, can continue to reinforce your attack, the defender must eventually dwindle and eventually lose.

I for one would like to have it that way. It would be like trying to take Stalingrad, Leningrad or Moscow in WWII. They COULD have been taken, but it was never a forgone conclusion. If the Germans were not weaken, they would be able to continue to reinforce and eventually win. That is the drama I'll love to see in DW.




The problem is that there is no supply concept in the game. The planet can continue to recruit and build troops.

If that were not the case, then yes a stacking limit might work...but then, how many troops on a planet overburdens the planet and thus hits the stack limit? We're not talking a tiny atoll like Wake Island or Tawara that have finite land...we're talking a whole planet.

The difference of your East Front analogy and a 'stack limit' is that even the defender can reinforce. With a stack limit, neither side could reinforce...and as soon as you could get a few more troops in as the attacker for the defender can do the same.

I prefer this: Unlimited troops with the diminishing returns. Eventually you do hit a tipping point, though both sides can still reinforce and again turn the tide of battle....you can have battles that drag on like you want, but dependent on the AI or players actions.



Gargoil -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 8:34:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gargoil


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The only problem with stacking limits is that eventually you will end up with an impregnable fortress that you can't get enough attacking troops to ever take.


I respectfully disagree. Blockading while attacking a planet, their resources to maintain the fight cannot last forever. As long as you, as the attacker, can continue to reinforce your attack, the defender must eventually dwindle and eventually lose.

I for one would like to have it that way. It would be like trying to take Stalingrad, Leningrad or Moscow in WWII. They COULD have been taken, but it was never a forgone conclusion. If the Germans were not weaken, they would be able to continue to reinforce and eventually win. That is the drama I'll love to see in DW.




The problem is that there is no supply concept in the game. The planet can continue to recruit and build troops.

If that were not the case, then yes a stacking limit might work...but then, how many troops on a planet overburdens the planet and thus hits the stack limit? We're not talking a tiny atoll like Wake Island or Tawara that have finite land...we're talking a whole planet.

The difference of your East Front analogy and a 'stack limit' is that even the defender can reinforce. With a stack limit, neither side could reinforce...and as soon as you could get a few more troops in as the attacker for the defender can do the same.

I prefer this: Unlimited troops with the diminishing returns. Eventually you do hit a tipping point, though both sides can still reinforce and again turn the tide of battle....you can have battles that drag on like you want, but dependent on the AI or players actions.


I do understand your point. But if you make any odds, 3-1, 10-1, whatever, the tipping point, then what happens at that tipping point? Is it OVERKILL? If so, then we are back to square one.

If the tipping point is not overkill, then you have the situation you originally discribed, impenetrable fortresses.

The Civilization series suffered with "SoD" - Stacks of Doom. I think we have the same problem. The devs could test my idea and your idea - or come up with some hybred of their own. Something along the lines of what we are proposing is the right answer.

One question - do troops need any resources to be built? If not, then changing that would be part of the solution using my idea.



Data -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 8:37:21 PM)

blockade and protracted siege will lead to shortage of luxury and basic goods, increasing unhappiness all over the place and rebellion....on both sides atm
A lot of things will need to change for this, not sure how soon will we see it



gmot -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 9:27:07 PM)

With respect to the OP, have to say I'm not crazy about the idea of a limited number of invading troops being able to fight at a time. Doesn't seem realistic - if I as an invader had lots of troops available for invasion I would land them all and I'm sure they would be effective. This is a whole planet I'm invading, not a city or tile in an wargame where its conceivable limited forces could be brought to the battle.

If I wanted to stagger my invasion forces, I could do so by invading with one transport at a time. Although that only works well if the invasion takes awhile.

One thing I do like is that troops should take resources to build. Don't believe they do now, and since everything else in the game does, that would make it consistent. That would impose a limit beyond credits on troop building. However, this would work best if we had different types of troops as described in another current thread. E.g. marines take certain resources, whereas garrison would take others, militia none.




kenata -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 10:58:12 PM)

I personally think that this idea of stacking limits makes sense with respect to a confined space assault like a city. When assaulting a city, there are only so many troops one can send into the battle before they start simply backing up out of the war zone. However, when considering the larger space available when assaulting a planet, this type of limitation makes little to no sense as any size planet would have ample room for almost any size invading force, up to about 5B troops. I would say that a better idea would simply be the creation of multiple ground unit types and variable ground defense for each type, like stationary defense turrets or SSM sites. So instead of having 5 unit of troops, you would have  1 unit of infantry, 1 unit of tanks, 1 unit of artillery, and 2 units of support aircraft. This way, someone who simply bring 60 units of infantry would not survive against 2 tanks and 1 support aircraft supported by stationary defense turrets. Ultimately, the idea should not be to penalize attackers to the point that invasion becomes nigh impossible, but to reward players for good use of available resources and cunning strategy. 



Shark7 -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 11:21:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

blockade and protracted siege will lead to shortage of luxury and basic goods, increasing unhappiness all over the place and rebellion....on both sides atm
A lot of things will need to change for this, not sure how soon will we see it


Personally I would love to see a generic 'Military Supplies' that would boost troop performance. And a ground facility 'Military Factory' with an upgrade path to produce said supplies.

Imagine having to have not only a troop module, but cargo modules on ships for an invasion to succeed. Then having to maintain those ships in orbit around the planet so that ground troops could remain supplied...giving a vulnerability where the AI could counter attack with naval assets and drive off the supply ships. Imagine being able to stockpile supplies on a planet so that the defenders get a huge bonus until the supplies run out. It would completely change the dynamic of ground combat in the game.



Simulation01 -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 11:26:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

blockade and protracted siege will lead to shortage of luxury and basic goods, increasing unhappiness all over the place and rebellion....on both sides atm
A lot of things will need to change for this, not sure how soon will we see it


Personally I would love to see a generic 'Military Supplies' that would boost troop performance. And a ground facility 'Military Factory' with an upgrade path to produce said supplies.

Imagine having to have not only a troop module, but cargo modules on ships for an invasion to succeed. Then having to maintain those ships in orbit around the planet so that ground troops could remain supplied...giving a vulnerability where the AI could counter attack with naval assets and drive off the supply ships. Imagine being able to stockpile supplies on a planet so that the defenders get a huge bonus until the supplies run out. It would completely change the dynamic of ground combat in the game.



+1 to that! Talk about logistics!



Shark7 -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/21/2011 11:38:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulation01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

blockade and protracted siege will lead to shortage of luxury and basic goods, increasing unhappiness all over the place and rebellion....on both sides atm
A lot of things will need to change for this, not sure how soon will we see it


Personally I would love to see a generic 'Military Supplies' that would boost troop performance. And a ground facility 'Military Factory' with an upgrade path to produce said supplies.

Imagine having to have not only a troop module, but cargo modules on ships for an invasion to succeed. Then having to maintain those ships in orbit around the planet so that ground troops could remain supplied...giving a vulnerability where the AI could counter attack with naval assets and drive off the supply ships. Imagine being able to stockpile supplies on a planet so that the defenders get a huge bonus until the supplies run out. It would completely change the dynamic of ground combat in the game.



+1 to that! Talk about logistics!


yeah, its in WiTP-AE, and I have basically given up playing that game...too much logistics in game gets to be unfun. I would definitely want to keep it very simple with just a generic supply type, and auto-generated at the factories (or at least let the AI handle the majority of it).

Of course I do wish we had some logistical control over DW, as at the moment I never seem to have enough fuel when and where I need it. I have plenty, but it's usually on the far side of the empire from where I want to stage my attacks from. [8|]



Raap -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/22/2011 12:11:48 AM)

Frankly, I'm not sure this is worth using developer-time on, given that they can only do so much before they have to stop patching and start making another game/expansion. I think I'd personally be more in favor of having them spend time on improving the AI's space fleet/ship management, targeting priorities, ship building/design and such( and hardware acceleration?).

I pretty much always find myself wiping out basically any and all opposition in space and then just waiting for ground troops to be recruited so I can invade their planets. I.e. the only thing this would do in my case, at least, is to delay the inevitable. Whereas with better AI I might actually have other things to worry about than just invading their planets. Granted, of course, I wouldn't mind if homeworlds started with a new high-tech defense building or some such. I just wouldn't want the developers to spend all their time making planets hard to capture( also keep in mind that empires can sometimes have 100++ colonies; making all of them hard to capture or require a lot of micromanagement could become extremely tedious) while leaving the actual war in space a cake-walk.



Sabin Stargem -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/22/2011 3:55:54 AM)

I have to agree with Reaper. Making the AI smarter is a far better solution to adding game mechanics because the mechanics in this case only serve to hide the AI's deficiencies, which in the long run won't change the situation.



Data -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/22/2011 7:23:11 AM)

i also like the logistic aspects...so why not have the smarter AI and this also



Deomrve -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/22/2011 5:50:31 PM)

I think the ground battles should be altered in this manner. First, improve the AI so the planets are better defended. This could be achieved simply by having the computer build more troops on the planet and having the space defenses target the troop transports better. Second, add planetary troop reserves. These troops are based on a planets population and show up during the invasion. You do not build them and they do not show up all at once, but trickle in while the battle is raging on. Another thing, they keep showing up even after the battle for the planet appears to be over. They are no longer reserves, but guerrillas. This means that you can no longer invade, conquer and then leave, you have to leave troops to deal with them. A reserve branch would be added to the research tree that changes their strength, arrival time, amount that can arrive at one time, reserves per population and this research can not be traded. In fact this research will never show in the diplomacy screen. This means you will never know an enemies reserve capability, unless you use espionage to uncover their capabilities.

There is a percentage chance that a deployment will happen at any time with 2 minutes being 100%. That means there is a +10% chance a deployment will show up every 10 seconds. What this means is 10% at 12 sec, 20% at 24 sec, 30% at 36 sec and so on until 100% is reached. Once a deployment happens the clock starts over. Again this can be improved through research. Eventually you can get this down to 1 minute. A deployment consists of 1-5 reserves, depending on your research level. Also you will be able to research how many can show up at one time, i.e. 1-5 reserves.  You start out at 1 reserve per 500 mil and research your way to 1 reserve per 100 mill and lastly how many reserves you can have total based on population. Any population above the pop limit counts toward the next limit. 1 reserve @ 10 - 500 mil, 2 reserves @ 501 - 1000 mil and so on. Reserves start out at half strength and eventually reach full strength with research.

An example of what I mean, you are the attacker and you start with 30 troops. Recon told you that the planet has 10 troops with a population of 500 million. You assume this is a backwards empire and were to lazy, impatient or didn't have an espionage agent available to find out their reserve capabilities. You invade and after a minute and a half you take control of the planet. 10 sec later you see a guerrilla show up and kill him. You think you killed all troops and reserves so you remove all your troops and go to the next target only to find out that the enemy gets a second reserve a minute and a half later and takes back the planet. You do not have full control of the planet until all reserves are killed. Also the number of reserves are based on the population of the planet at invasion time.

One last suggestion, give planetary shields hit points and you have to use you bombarding weapons to get rid of the shields. There would be no reputation hit while bombarding the shields and even a little incidental damage right after the shields fail, but if you continue to bombard you get hit with the rep penalty.

Here is a quick synapses of my planetary invasion suggestion:
1) Must have a sufficient number of combat ships in orbit to take out all enemy bases and ships. Due to better transport ship targeting.
2) Must have some ships with the ability to bombard a planet in order to take down a planetary shield, be careful though you only bombard the planet until the shield is down.
3) Invade planet
4) After planet is captured, you must leave enough troops to handle any guerrillas that pop up.

After you complete these 4 things the planet is yours.



Gargoil -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/24/2011 7:35:42 PM)

Original OP here.

I just realized that the problem isn't how ease it is to take any given planet. The problem is there is only one planet in any given empire that matters. The Homeworld. Take or just destory it, and the rest of the empire will die on the vine.

Unless the Devs make it so other worlds become significant the the well being of each empire, we will always be able to mount a big enough assault to take one world, and take just that one world is enough to win every war.



Lord_Astraios -> RE: NO - this is the solution - Really! (1/25/2011 1:22:18 AM)

Interesting idea but it will not work,  and in reality,  its a planet,  and depending on the skill of the player or the AI,  we will see a battle that would take few days or 6 months in game time scale,  and supply can give a boost but what if the planet has a large supply that the battle could last up to 6 months,  in my game ive had battles that took me one month to complete and conquer the world since the planet managed to get troops ready to counterattack me,  and the empire is well managed.  The siege will continue, 



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.34375