Ground combat?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ground combat?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Coming Soon] >> Distant Worlds 2 >> Ground combat?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 8:46:05 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

I know that ground combat is not directly a priority in these games and I don't mind that as what really matters is dominate space, in general.

What I do miss however is the scale of ground combat, especially at large populated worlds.

Would it be possible at some point that the hit points on forces would scale up at the number of power of forces involved in ground combat grows so we can get the sense that invading a home world with huge number of troops could take years to invade while a small colony perhaps a week or two.

Realistically invasion times should take more and more time as the forces scale up in size, on either side.

It would be a relatively simple change, but could be an important one in terms of the ability to delay enemy invasions in order to send reinforcements during long invasions.

This is just a small suggestion for thought... the linear combat seem a bit odd to me in general. The end result would be the same if nothing change.

Post #: 1

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 10:42:23 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

Invasions of Homeworlds can already take months. Heck, just yesterday in DW1 I invaded a Mortalan homeworld as humans.
Or rather I jumped in when my bombardment cause a rebellion, because there was no way for me to match the sheer power of the Mortalans. Now of course the Mortalans serve in my military.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 2

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 11:39:29 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Invasions of Homeworlds can already take months. Heck, just yesterday in DW1 I invaded a Mortalan homeworld as humans.
Or rather I jumped in when my bombardment cause a rebellion, because there was no way for me to match the sheer power of the Mortalans. Now of course the Mortalans serve in my military.

It can still take time yes... but I think that months is not really enough... really large battles should take years to conclude.

It is more about a sense of scale for me.

At least it would be nice if there was a sliding scale we could use for modding how long battles take... I don't mind a small combat between a few ground units taking a week or two... but really big battles should be able to take years.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/1/2022 11:41:03 AM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 3

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 1:33:18 PM

Erik Rutins

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

In DW2 an invaded world will raise militia brigades based on its population size in addition to providing a bonus to the recovery rate of friendly troops. Both of these make highly populated worlds that the owner wants to defend and has prepared to defend quite hard to take. In the early part of the game, before you have the defense options that come with later research, worlds are somewhat easier to invade (but you also have fewer troops and invasion fleets). Later on, with layered ground and space defenses, they can become a very tough multi-stage nut to crack.

_____________________________

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 Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 4

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 5:36:38 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In DW2 an invaded world will raise militia brigades based on its population size in addition to providing a bonus to the recovery rate of friendly troops. Both of these make highly populated worlds that the owner wants to defend and has prepared to defend quite hard to take. In the early part of the game, before you have the defense options that come with later research, worlds are somewhat easier to invade (but you also have fewer troops and invasion fleets). Later on, with layered ground and space defenses, they can become a very tough multi-stage nut to crack.

That I have no doubt is the case, that they are hard to invade and take over... and it might be the case that combat will last a fair bit longer in DW2 than in Universe. But I always felt that ground combat was over too quickly in Universe. On a small colony I'm fine with it though.

The only thing I would like is for combat to feel "realistic" or epic in that they take proportionally longer as forces involved grow. Perhaps also have detrimental impact on the worlds these mighty battles take place on as well.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/1/2022 5:37:15 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 5

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 5:59:00 PM

Erik Rutins

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

In my experience, the big battles are slower than in DW1 and it is also the case in DW2 that ground combat on a world causes both population losses and quality damage to the planet.

_____________________________

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 Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 6

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 6:09:04 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In my experience, the big battles are slower than in DW1 and it is also the case in DW2 that ground combat on a world causes both population losses and quality damage to the planet.

OK... that sounds really good. Will the quality damage be something you can repair or recover later on... preferably by some investment of resources or credits?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 7

RE: Ground combat? - 2/1/2022 6:23:26 PM

Erik Rutins

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

Yes, quality damage is repairable. The rate depends on the population of the planet but on average about 1% per year. Terraforming facilities can speed this up at a high cost.

_____________________________

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 Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 8

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 7:19:48 AM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

In a nutshell, what would be the additions or differences on the subject of ground combat compared to DW1, excepted Militias you talked about?

_____________________________

AGEOD Team

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 9

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 10:11:58 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

In a nutshell, what would be the additions or differences on the subject of ground combat compared to DW1, excepted Militias you talked about?

Units now have evasion scores against other unit types.
Possibly fast HP recovery even in combat?
Embarking is as fast as Refueling, which is quick.

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 10

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 11:23:08 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

I can't say for sure but in general I still think that it is too easy to attack rather than defend... that will always lead to that there is no reason to defend but always counter attack. But I think it is too early to tell.

In general I don't like units such as Armour that somehow are better to attack than defend... an armoured unit should be really good at defending as well as attacking. General strength and deficiencies should be more about army compositions than the units you use directly. Spamming armoured units for attacking feels a bit gamy to me unless you are not really penalised for not using infantry as well for example.

I don't like rock/paper/scissor mechanics at all... they are sort of "lazy" and none immersive in my opinion.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 11

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 11:37:31 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

I can't say for sure but in general I still think that it is too easy to attack rather than defend... that will always lead to that there is no reason to defend but always counter attack. But I think it is too early to tell.

In general I don't like units such as Armour that somehow are better to attack than defend... an armoured unit should be really good at defending as well as attacking. General strength and deficiencies should be more about army compositions than the units you use directly. Spamming armoured units for attacking feels a bit gamy to me unless you are not really penalised for not using infantry as well for example.

I don't like rock/paper/scissor mechanics at all... they are sort of "lazy" and none immersive in my opinion.

All static defense is more about deterring a attck and punishing a weak attack, then actually defeating a serious offense.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 12

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 12:11:52 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jorgen_CAB

I can't say for sure but in general I still think that it is too easy to attack rather than defend... that will always lead to that there is no reason to defend but always counter attack. But I think it is too early to tell.

In general I don't like units such as Armour that somehow are better to attack than defend... an armoured unit should be really good at defending as well as attacking. General strength and deficiencies should be more about army compositions than the units you use directly. Spamming armoured units for attacking feels a bit gamy to me unless you are not really penalised for not using infantry as well for example.

I don't like rock/paper/scissor mechanics at all... they are sort of "lazy" and none immersive in my opinion.

All static defense is more about deterring a attck and punishing a weak attack, then actually defeating a serious offense.

Sure... but then it also need to actually do that and if it don't it never make any difference... ;)

That is one reason I like combat to take allot longer... the only reason to keep troops on a planet are to deter pirate raids... or so it seems to me. But I will wait and see after I played myself.

In order to make defences any meaningful it need to be about three to five times more efficient in terms or resources invested, otherwise you don't need to bother at all. You are better of investing the resources in counterattacking or simply attacking instead.'

Also... in real life there are political and humanitarian reason why you defend areas rather than not, games almost always leave that to player to role-play. I think there can be game mechanics to reflect such goals. Such as you loose allot more war weariness from loosing something than you get if you later on regain that same thing. So there is some reason to actually defend stuff. It also would reflect on both sides of a war as both sides are more likely to gain negative effects from war losses rather than positive all the time.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/2/2022 12:23:16 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 13

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 12:39:41 PM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

@Jorgen: But there is still RPS in Aurora, that's more involved but it is here. What would you propose? IRL, this is RPS too ... Sometimes with blurred lines.

_____________________________

AGEOD Team

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 14

RE: Ground combat? - 2/2/2022 12:52:59 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

@Jorgen: But there is still RPS in Aurora, that's more involved but it is here. What would you propose? IRL, this is RPS too ... Sometimes with blurred lines.

I think I already proposed allot... ;)

Make defences allot more resource efficient.

Make combat take longer so they actually feel like road bumps and you can react to them properly.

Make losses hurt more than if you gained the same, that will give incentive to defend your territory more rather than just use the counterattack tactic every time.

Another thing... the instigator of a war also should generally be more effected by losses, especially in their own territory than someone who defend themselves.

As I have yet to play it is all conjecture at the current time, but based on Universe that is what you did, or at least what was the best thing to do.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/2/2022 12:56:11 PM >

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 15

RE: Ground combat? - 2/3/2022 12:52:59 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

You mentioned some things about the Population count matering for ground combat over here. In particular:
Militia Units will spawn, with numbers based on Population. Troops on large colonies will heal (recover) faster.
My questions about this are:
1. Does the Assimilation level or Happiness of the local population on the Planet mater for that? i.e., how much will they help recent invaders?
2. What about the Assimilation ahd Happiness for that species across the empire? Would having a large, happy bases of humans help dealing with that one still unhappy human colony?
3, Does the race of the stationed troops matching the population on the planet mater?
4. What about Blockades or Robot and Clone Facilities?

< Message edited by zgrssd -- 2/3/2022 12:53:16 PM >

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 16

RE: Ground combat? - 2/8/2022 10:40:17 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

I'm not sure... but seeing a few streams it appears the AI build allot of ground troops and I'm a bit afraid they do that in detriments to their space fleet. One simple infantry is almost equal to a frigate in maintenance cost, depending on tech levels and savings of course.

It also seems that the defender is not overly stronger than the attacker from resources invested in the troops either... it seems like a trap to defend anything but your capital (if even that) or possibly another strategically located planet. You seem better of just using attack units to reclaim anything the AI take and spend your resources on more ships to prevent the AI getting to the planets in the first place. Ships can defend over a much larger area, I would rather spend maintenance on 5-10 frigates than 10 infantry units to defend a planet as those frigates can defend not only the planet but the whole system and probably outlying systems too. Will the AI realise this too?

The other problem with defending is lack of experience... as defenders will generally fail as you only attack if you are able... this means attacking forces will generally be the one with higher experience too. So it seems like a vicious cycle to me. What I'm most afraid of is that the AI spend too much on ground defences and not enough on space superiority as defensive ground troops are so expensive comparatively to how useful they are?!?

You are better having your attack force waiting in space, allow the attacker to land their forces so they fight in defensive position as Armour and a few other unit have artificially good attack values for some reasons.

The only thing worth defending against are pirate raids and you don't need that many units to do that.

You also need garrisons for unhappy planets when they rebel, that is the only reason you need troops on some planets. But on happy planet you only need pirate protection forces or police forces. But if you deal with the pirates with your ships you don't even need that.

Am I wrong?!?

I hope I am...

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/8/2022 10:48:32 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 17

RE: Ground combat? - 2/8/2022 10:55:54 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

Where did you get those Upkeep figures from?

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 18

RE: Ground combat? - 2/8/2022 11:02:42 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

The streams... an infantry start at around 200 credits a years while a frigate might be between 150-250 depending on tech level. The maintenance savings obviously can differ too... but you probably can get 5-10 frigates for 10 infantry units roughly speaking should be a good estimate.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/8/2022 11:03:25 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 19

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 4:48:59 AM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

One important factor to consider usually (in many games) are the penalties or destructions incurred by the target upon capture. If losing then retaking a planet means it gets severe penalties to production for a decent time, then you'll want to defend it even if it costs a lot. That's sure on the contrary that if there is no penalty, then you are better defend nothing and retake with a mobile force. I hope the game is set right on this aspect.

Edit & PS: Any land combat should inflict collateral damages to the population

< Message edited by Pocus -- 2/9/2022 4:49:50 AM >

_____________________________

AGEOD Team

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 20

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 8:43:19 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

One important factor to consider usually (in many games) are the penalties or destructions incurred by the target upon capture. If losing then retaking a planet means it gets severe penalties to production for a decent time, then you'll want to defend it even if it costs a lot. That's sure on the contrary that if there is no penalty, then you are better defend nothing and retake with a mobile force. I hope the game is set right on this aspect.

Edit & PS: Any land combat should inflict collateral damages to the population

In the real world there usually are some considerable political and cultural implication for loosing territory, even if you can later on retake it. Those things usually don't exist in games or are so small that you can usually just ignore them.

I would be just fine if there were some severe penalties to loosing stuff other than loosing it. I think that is usually things that games don't implement enough of that force the player to role play such issues rather than game them.

I might sound like a min/max player but I actually role play quite heavily when I play and put allot of restrictions on my behaviour to make it more fun. But should I have to do that, shouldn't the game mechanic support logical behaviour such as defending your worlds rather than wait for the attacker to land and then I attack them instead since my units are super good at attacking but awful at defending. I rather have my troops in space waiting for the enemy to land their occupation force, that is an odd behaviour in my opinion. But when you have units that are good at attacking and awful at defending you will get that behaviour. It also make no sense that a unit is worse at defending than attacking, I don't even think it is physically possible.

I can move my attack force around at my pleasure, defences have to sit at every planet so will be very expensive. If I instead invest those resources in more ships instead I can probably keep the invasion from happen in the first place. And if it does I have my own invasion force to simply remove them from the planet.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/9/2022 8:46:52 AM >

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 21

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 8:50:17 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

In the real world there usually are some considerable political and cultural implication for loosing territory, even if you can later on retake it. Those things usually don't exist in games or are so small that you can usually just ignore them.

I would be just fine if there were some severe penalties to loosing stuff other than loosing it. I think that is usually things that games don't implement enough of that force the player to role play such issues rather than game them.

There is now a warescore indicator. It has never been of much focus on Stream, but I guess it plays into how Warweary your Population is?

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 22

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 8:54:20 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

In the real world there usually are some considerable political and cultural implication for loosing territory, even if you can later on retake it. Those things usually don't exist in games or are so small that you can usually just ignore them.

I would be just fine if there were some severe penalties to loosing stuff other than loosing it. I think that is usually things that games don't implement enough of that force the player to role play such issues rather than game them.

There is now a warescore indicator. It has never been of much focus on Stream, but I guess it plays into how Warweary your Population is?

Yes... I think that could be used to reflect issues with not defending your property enough. So if you loose a colony (or mining stations) and then retake it you will never recover even close to what you lost. You probably also should loose points if your former colonies are occupied and you don't even attempt at reclaiming them until there is a peace signed.

This could mean that both sides can receive huge war weariness penalties if they both fail to defend their territories and just attacks.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 23

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 9:11:01 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

In general I think that someone that declare war should generally be more susceptible to losses on their own territory than someone who are declared war on. A defender in a war will usually be psychologically more inclined to accept temporary losses then someone that attack, especially in the home territory.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 24

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 10:39:24 AM

Pocus

Posts: 1185
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline

Incurring WW if you lose a world (even if you retake it, i.e. not a zero sum game) is a good point ...

_____________________________

AGEOD Team

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 25

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 10:41:23 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

Currently AFAIK for War Weariness the game goes by value lost.
So a small colony will have a different impact then your Capitol world.

However I could not get any actuall values from the Streams, so no idea if that might already be penalized.

(in reply to Pocus)

Post #: 26

RE: Ground combat? - 2/9/2022 10:56:56 AM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

I think this is hard to get from the streams, I agree.

So long as you keep getting War Weariness for not being able to defend stuff that you either capture or recapture.

If a world bounce between two empires many times then both sides should gain allot of War Weariness... that is the sort of attrition that will put allot of political pressure on an empire.

Obviously the importance and size of a colony counts... but it should not be on a linear scale... let's say you loose 10 points for a world with 100 million you should not loose 100 points for a world with a billion people. The small world should have a bigger impact than the larger one per population count.

< Message edited by Jorgen_CAB -- 2/9/2022 10:57:37 AM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 27

RE: Ground combat? - 2/12/2022 5:18:30 PM

U235

Posts: 103
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: Chesapeake, Virginia USA
Status: offline

Well, the Necromancers took Helion Prime in one day.

Yeah, I would expect long, hard fought battles on large population worlds, unless they are pacifist weaklings.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 28

RE: Ground combat? - 2/12/2022 6:17:13 PM

Jorgen_CAB

Posts: 336
Joined: 3/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: U235

Well, the Necromancers took Helion Prime in one day.

Yeah, I would expect long, hard fought battles on large population worlds, unless they are pacifist weaklings.

It is probably possible to mod into the game with changing attack/defence values and the number of HP that units have. I will certainly make some effort doing some investigation into this after the games release.

(in reply to U235)

Post #: 29

RE: Ground combat? - 2/12/2022 11:52:25 PM

Spidey

Posts: 411
Joined: 12/8/2013
Status: offline

A thing to consider is that space supremacy would be extremely telling on any ground force fighting against it. Massing troops would be difficult without it being visible from above in one way or another, and ships that can target other ships moving at space travel speeds can probably also target effectively stationary targets on a planet. Fighting against that would be like trying to have an infantry fight in Red Alert, except one side has tesla coil coverage and one side don't. Zap. Zap. Zaaap.

It would not really be a stand up fight. But without that space supremacy, the attackers would have a hard time. It isn't easy digging out every last entrenched defender. There's the question of using civilians as hostages for good behavior but that one is culturally sensitive. Will the attacker be willing to do such a thing? Will the defender care? And of course this doesn't work if the attackers are famously inhospitable owners, meaning all who surrender are going to become food. Or get sent to the LeQuint Dickey Mining Company.

(in reply to Jorgen_CAB)

Post #: 30