Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Sup... - 8/18/2014 9:43:38 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

So this is already triggered in ground wars so why can this same trigger not determine whether or not you can invade or not?

Ground war trigger:
Space Control: +25%
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations

It makes no sense that a band of warriors can bypass an armada and all defense bases and take a whole planet and all of its stations and ships and make a whole empire surrender to you by just bypassing all base and ship defenses and landing!

Could this at least be an option?

Space Superiority determines invasions? Yes/No

Would add so much more strategy and get rid of gaming the system! It would really help the AI because you would have to actually get through its defenses first!

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/31/2014 7:46:31 PM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 11:50:16 AM

Icemania

Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

Agreed. What you propose does sounds like a relatively simple solution to implement.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 2

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 11:54:53 AM

solops

Posts: 814
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline

I begged for this back when DW first came out. The current system makes little sense to me. Perhaps the AI is unable to handle it properly...?

_____________________________

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand

(in reply to Icemania)

Post #: 3

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 6:19:06 PM

Hikikomori

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/16/2014
Status: offline

I agree.
I was pretty dumbfounded the first time i annihilated a fleet in my orbit only to be fired upon by my (insanely powerful) station and defence bases all of the sudden.

It is counter intuitive, but more importantly too easy. And it makes stations and defence bases a liability rather then an asset in the case of a few troop ships.

At least stations shouldn't "flip". Maybe hard to implement since planet and station are sort of linked, but there are assault pods for that.

< Message edited by Hikikomori -- 8/18/2014 7:21:04 PM >

(in reply to solops)

Post #: 4

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 6:35:47 PM

Sithuk

Posts: 431
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

We have a limited window for improvements before Elliot moves on to other things. I would rather Elliot works through Icemania's modding request list in the AI Improvement thread than invest significant time coding the change requested in the OP.

I agree that it would be a welcome change to prevent gaming the system, but we as players can simply choose not to use the exploit. I'm not convinced that the AI is significantly using this exploit enough to warrant diverting Elliot from resolving bugs and adding modding features.

(in reply to Hikikomori)

Post #: 5

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 9:04:11 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Are you aware that troops that land on planets that still have orbital defenses take serious losses on the way down? We decided that it was equally unrealistic, given that any landing most likely consists of many troop landing pods, to disallow any landing at all without complete space superiority. Instead, we designed a system that would cause increasingly severe losses to any invasion forces based on the strength of each layer of defense.

If your fleet and bases truly have superiority, destroying a troop transport before it can drop its landing pods is pretty easy. Bases will prioritize troop transports over other ship types if they are getting close to a planet. However, if your defenses are overwhelmed by a massive fleet battle taking place at the same time as the attempted landings, then it's reasonable to assume that some troops could in fact get through and land. In that case, the level of remaining defense determines the condition of those forces when they reach the surface (along with any surface planetary defense units).

Space control while the ground battle is underway then gives you a substantial bonus, but the only sure way to stop an invasion is to have good defenses at each level - a system fleet, good defensive bases, good planetary defenses and a mix of defending ground troops and installations.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Sithuk)

Post #: 6

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 9:23:22 PM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

Yeah, I like the way it works now. If you have enough troop transports to overwhelm the defending fleet's ability to stop you, you deserve to take the planet. Adding some hardwired flag in the code that prevents your 20 troop ships from even attempting a landing simply because there's a single enemy escort in orbit seems way too artificial.

It would also make it way too easy for a human player to defend their planets without having to station any ground forces on them. As it is now, you need to have ground troops as a failsafe, which is a good thing, and way more realistic. I imagine that's also easier for an AI to handle. A human player could really cut corners by deciding which planets don't need troops at all, which is something an AI will have a tougher time doing.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/18/2014 11:46:19 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Are you aware that troops that land on planets that still have orbital defenses take serious losses on the way down? We decided that it was equally unrealistic, given that any landing most likely consists of many troop landing pods, to disallow any landing at all without complete space superiority. Instead, we designed a system that would cause increasingly severe losses to any invasion forces based on the strength of each layer of defense.

If your fleet and bases truly have superiority, destroying a troop transport before it can drop its landing pods is pretty easy. Bases will prioritize troop transports over other ship types if they are getting close to a planet. However, if your defenses are overwhelmed by a massive fleet battle taking place at the same time as the attempted landings, then it's reasonable to assume that some troops could in fact get through and land. In that case, the level of remaining defense determines the condition of those forces when they reach the surface (along with any surface planetary defense units).

Space control while the ground battle is underway then gives you a substantial bonus, but the only sure way to stop an invasion is to have good defenses at each level - a system fleet, good defensive bases, good planetary defenses and a mix of defending ground troops and installations.

Regards,

- Erik

Hi Erik I do understand your point and I think both sides make valid arguments and I really appreciate your and Elliots continued support of this game. I'm not suggesting that no ships or bases be in orbit for you to have to land but that you need to have overwhelming space superiority. The same ground war trigger:
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations.

This is why I suggested it be an option at the beginning of game setup so everyone is happy. It would add a completely new and different way to play the game as well for extra challenge.

I think if you watch Haree's lets play where he invades the Gizurean homeworld and runs his troopships straight through a cloud of defenses and bases and takes everything you might understand my frustration. All ships, bases, planets, empire all become his in one swoop this way. You can't say there was not enough defenses because you can barely even see the planet.

Check out the 47:00 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Fw_ruygGY&list=PLyRH3BiiqwE1JH5xOOO5SAXSlLyvt47a9&index=10

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/19/2014 1:00:16 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 8

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:04:31 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Yeah, I like the way it works now. If you have enough troop transports to overwhelm the defending fleet's ability to stop you, you deserve to take the planet. Adding some hardwired flag in the code that prevents your 20 troop ships from even attempting a landing simply because there's a single enemy escort in orbit seems way too artificial.

It would also make it way too easy for a human player to defend their planets without having to station any ground forces on them. As it is now, you need to have ground troops as a failsafe, which is a good thing, and way more realistic. I imagine that's also easier for an AI to handle. A human player could really cut corners by deciding which planets don't need troops at all, which is something an AI will have a tougher time doing.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that no ships or bases be in orbit for you to have to land but that you need to have overwhelming space superiority. The same ground war trigger:
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations.

You could say its gaming the system one way or the other really. Is it gamier to take everything from the AI by running through its defenses or having to have defenses to prevent AI landings? I would much rather have the latter and I think a lot of others would too. Thats why I am suggesting a compromise. This is why I suggested it be an option at the beginning of game setup so everyone is happy. It would add a completely new and different way to play the game as well for extra challenge.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/19/2014 1:09:33 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 9

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:09:24 AM

ASHBERY76

Posts: 2136
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

NO.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 10

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:10:25 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

NO.

Great argument and discussion! Are you the developer? Do you control the game? No what?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/19/2014 1:12:21 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ASHBERY76)

Post #: 11

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:16:00 AM

PsyKoSnake

Posts: 111
Joined: 1/25/2012
Status: offline

Are you playing on extreme? Because they will probably have more troop.

< Message edited by PsyKoSnake -- 8/19/2014 1:16:38 AM >

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 12

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:25:28 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PsyKoSnake

Are you playing on extreme? Because they will probably have more troop.

In the youtube example I cited Haree was playing on hard difficulty. Difficulty should not matter in this discussion its more about different processes.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/19/2014 1:25:54 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PsyKoSnake)

Post #: 13

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:02:03 AM

PsyKoSnake

Posts: 111
Joined: 1/25/2012
Status: offline

But if they have 3-4x the amouth of ships and 5 time the amouth of troop. And the better ship design of ai improved mod. You will have hard time to do it.

I will try in my game, if I dont get destroyed before.

< Message edited by PsyKoSnake -- 8/19/2014 2:02:58 AM >

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 14

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:16:17 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PsyKoSnake

But if they have 3-4x the amouth of ships and 5 time the amouth of troop. And the better ship design of ai improved mod. You will have hard time to do it.

I will try in my game, if I dont get destroyed before.

Like I said check out the video you could not even see the planet!

_____________________________

(in reply to PsyKoSnake)

Post #: 15

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:48:31 AM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 16

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:49:57 AM

Cauldyth

Posts: 752
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline

As an additional tweak, the percentages could scale with the amount of military forces causing the Space Superiority.

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 17

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:56:05 AM

PsyKoSnake

Posts: 111
Joined: 1/25/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

That would be nice

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 18

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 2:39:23 AM

Resok

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/19/2014
Status: offline

I'll chime in and say that I like the way it is now. Troop pods going to the planet surface while under heavy fire from the orbital defenses take significant damage. This makes them arrive often times fighting at very low effective health so if the planet has a significant defense force then combined with the space superiority of the defender things aren't looking too good.

As it stands now this opens up different strategies as opposed to being limited as the only strategy being to destroy defensive bases and then land. It also opens up the idea of taking over existing defensive installations.

There are already significant counters in the game to stop mass troop invasions by giving you more time to destroy the incoming ships - IE: Gravity Well Projectors

(in reply to PsyKoSnake)

Post #: 19

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 4:47:55 AM

Jethro420

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2014
Status: offline

I'm a new player. But, if it is truly how Erik says it is, then I think the current model is the right model.

You should be able to land some forces on a planet, even in the face of strong defenses. That's realistic (if any of this is, anyway).

Mind you, those landing forces and their troop carriers should get pretty shredded in the process. If they don't, then there's a problem.

(in reply to Resok)

Post #: 20

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 10:57:25 AM

Icemania

Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

That is a really good compromise Cauldyth, it keeps the design intent as described by Erik, while appearing readily implementable. Supported!

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 21

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 12:07:13 PM

Flinkebeinchen

Posts: 109
Joined: 6/18/2013
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

Good idea! Imagine how the Attacker or Defender gets help from the orbit with orbital strikes. You don't need to have missiles, just a rock thrown from orbit will do.

_____________________________

My Steam Profile
Diablo 3

(in reply to Cauldyth)

Post #: 22

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:24:10 PM

Vardis

Posts: 77
Joined: 6/20/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

That is a really good compromise Cauldyth, it keeps the design intent as described by Erik, while appearing readily implementable. Supported!

But what does that solve? Those changes only affect difficulty. Is that really a problem that needs solving?

(in reply to Icemania)

Post #: 23

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 1:41:13 PM

Icemania

Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

It remains far too easy to invade homeworlds without firing a shot, even with previous changes we've requested such as increasing homeworld troop strength, and even on Extreme. This helps close an exploit because the AI never uses the "sneaky fast troop transport" strategy. It also makes sense, if you had space superiority, just like air superiority, that should have a significant effect on ground battles.

I'm not a fan of having a list of things that I choose not to do in-game because an exploit hasn't been closed. The other major exploit that needs attention is the diplomacy system as the funds that can be farmed from the AI are ridiculous. I don't just mean technology trading (turning off a feature is not a fix), it's also selling stations/bases and sanctions/war.

If you are asking whether I would prioritise AI improvements over closing exploits, the answer is yes, I agree with Sithuk. But both should be addressed before the patching cycle winds up.

(in reply to Vardis)

Post #: 24

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 2:11:06 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Let me just put it this way:

How many amphibious landings in human history took place on beaches that the attacking force already controlled? This is the same thing.

Sure you don't have to take out the defending stations, but you have to brave the defensive fire. In DW, by landing prior to taking out all the space defenses, you suffer more losses than if you send in a fleet to eliminate the defensive bases and starport first.

It works well as far as I am concerned.

You don't have to take down every wall to breech the castle, though it does make it much easier.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Icemania)

Post #: 25

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 2:19:58 PM

Icemania

Posts: 1847
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline

We've moved on a bit Shark7. The idea Cauldyth had was essentially to increase the defensive fire and the role of space superiority for the defender.

< Message edited by Icemania -- 8/19/2014 3:20:36 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 26

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 2:25:45 PM

Kizucha

Posts: 107
Joined: 6/3/2013
Status: offline

For me the mechanik are ok as it is now, the only thing i think what it change to a better side is to give the space control a much higher ratio like 50% or more. Like the suggestion Cauldyth did but i think if the attacker get 50% if they have space control, the defender also must have the 50% if they have space control.

And with Haree's lets play i think its not about using an exploit... he have 1 million more soldiers than the enemy and for that the enemy killed a lot of haree's soldiers.^^ Also he have troops with boni, he renderd their space control boni useless, in fakt he have at the end an +50% boni. In that way he deserved the win.

< Message edited by Kizucha -- 8/19/2014 3:26:26 PM >

(in reply to Icemania)

Post #: 27

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 4:21:43 PM

Keston

Posts: 300
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline

Planets are big and can be approached from any direction. The current concept is best. Take landing losses if you dare.

(in reply to Kizucha)

Post #: 28

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 8:56:35 PM

Sithuk

Posts: 431
Joined: 12/17/2010
Status: offline

Do the landing losses happen to forces executing a sneak attack?

(in reply to Keston)

Post #: 29

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/19/2014 11:40:24 PM

corwin90

Posts: 48
Joined: 7/14/2014
Status: offline

I think it would be great if certain numbers such as the space control bonus were user configurable. In addition, I would like to see it divided into two numbers, offensive and defensive as described above. Then, players could adjust the numbers as they see fit and in accordance with their play style. In a previous post, someone said there is a substantial bonus for space control. Then, someone mentions that bonus is 25%. Undoubtedly, some players might want that space control bonus raised to 50% or even 75% or higher. As for me, I was thinking 1000% might be nice.

(in reply to Sithuk)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>