DESIGN: Buildings / Build Queues / Infrastructure

[drek]

You have to have a variety though. If we threw out the defense structures that 'just shot lasers' because they are too normal, then that is not good at all. I would expect the kill-o-zap buildings to be just as useful as ships. And I don't see a reason to phase them out because 'ships are better'.

Ships are, um, better.

You can see which systems have ships from the galaxy screen. And they already do the job of kill-o-zapping, kind of redundant to introduce another element that performs the same function.

If you move into a system with no ships, there probably shouldn't be a battle. If you move a rook into an empty sqaure, there isn't an auto-battle with the square's "native defenders".

[noelte]

If you move into a system with no ships, there probably shouldn't be a battle.

I disagree on this point. I don't want to mess around with ships at every system (too lower unrest,battle piracy). There should be powerful defence systems like star bases, missle bases und beam bases. This way i don't even need ships to get rid of your weak forces

But serious, i think we should have all defence lines ships - planet defences - groud defences.

[Ragnar]

I also think we should have planetary, system and ground troops as well as ships for defense. If we limit the shipyards to 1 per 10-20 systems, we will have a very hard time defending the other systems with our ships only. I think the game will be more fun with multiple levels of defense, like all three MOOs have had. I personnally want to see an improvement of the MOO series, not space chess.

[guiguibaah]

One thing that has to be avoided is what many Moo3 players met up with. The "Oh, I build a bunch of ships, I move them around... I click turn a couple of times.. I research this item... Build more ships, move them around.. attack a system.. build more ships, etc.."

IMHO, you should have a lot more 'planet focus' when the game is in it's early stages - when you have perhaps at a maximum 9-10 systems. Once you start expanding above that point, the game would then switch to a broader 'system' based view.

Also, in terms of defence, because starlanes are being used, you don't have to focus much on the defence of your homeworlds.

[drek]

Remember late game moo2, moo3? There's that period of mop up, when you are just pushing ships around, pumping dozens out a turn, with no real opposition from the enemy.

No, I don't think there should be a battle in every system. If fleet arrives at a colony with little or no defense, it ought to surrender without a fight.

If ground based defenses can hold off an armada of starships, it will only promote turtling and make the end game mop up that much more painful. If ground based defenses *can't* hold off an armada of starhsips, then what's the point of building 'em in the first place?

[Hexxium]

I think it's very important to make attacking/conquering planets way more difficult than defending/keeping them. It's not much fun if colonies are conquered or destroyed all the time, on both sides.

Imagine a war where both opposing empires each just send a huge fleet into enemy territory to destroy or conquer everything. The only way to end this is to withdraw your own task force and defend your planets, which is difficult since you have to catch your enemies' fleet first. Even if you succeed, your enemy will probably have destroyed most of your empire by that time.

There should be strong system defenses that can do lots of damage to an attacking fleet before they are destroyed. For example very long range beam/missile bases which can take out a few ships before they are in weapon range. This way, it will be very difficult to conquer many colonies in a row.

Edit:

If ground based defenses can hold off an armada of starships, it will only promote turtling and make the end game that much more painful.

But you want some solid defense in early game, so miltary/industrial races can't just overrun the others empires.
I don't want ground defenses to be able to hold off a huge enemy fleet. I just want them to cause considerable losses to the attacker, so destroying/conquering a planet comes at a price.

[drek]

There should be strong system defenses that can do lots of damage to an attacking fleet before they are destroyed. For example very long range beam/missile bases which can take out a few ships before they are in weapon range. This way, it will be very difficult to conquer many colonies in a row.

Could mount this sort of thing on spacestations--ships that can't move.

Or there could be a supply system.

[Sandlapper]

I would suggest allowing a fleet to pass through a system from a starlane entrance to another starlane exit ( these would be fixed, and visible within the system view(effectively stargate-ish or wormhole)).

One could defend the planets within, from attack, with planetary defenses.

If a fleet wanted to avoid attacking a planet, it merely skirts along the edge of system to another starlane.

If you want control of the system's starlanes, you must build fleets and starbases to create a chokepoint around a starlane.

To keep chokepoints from being overly oppressive, I would have starlanes make some kind deadzone at the receiving end of a starlane in use (think stargate in SG1, when it's turned on, it's that area where you do NOT want to be). A deadzone like this would keep someone from crowding a starlane too close. This would allow an arriving fleet a brief moment to organize for an attack, or to instantly retreat if it needs to.

This scenario allows for planetary defenses to stave off an attack if your fleet isn't available, which allows you to free up your fleet to be mobile around your empire to attend to critical chokepoints.

[Ragnar]

I totally agree, Sandlapper.

[Rapunzel]

PLanetary defense shouldn't be buildings, IF Buildings are very special and not micromanaged.

[krum]

Here's what. We can make this a three-layered system. Ships without engines - sattelites and bases. Ships with system dirves, not capable of travelling through starlanes and finally interstellar ships. If the cost of a system drive and an interstellar drive are well-balanced, the player would have to consider for which planets defending the planet itself is only importnat, in which systems he needs to place system fleets for intercepting invading enemy fleets and finally how big an interstellar-capable fleet he needs.

As for defensive buildings, the "city walls" analogy seems the way to go.

[Rapunzel]

The thing is, why shouldn't I build a spacestation at the enterance/exit point of a starlane. Simply to protect it. I would do it if i could. Still I like the three layer-system.

[krum]

The thing is, why shouldn't I build a spacestation at the enterance/exit point of a starlane. Simply to protect it. I would do it if i could. Still I like the three layer-system.

Because the invading fleet could simly bypass it at top speed, although of course at least some damage would be inflicted. A system fleet OTOH would supposedly be capable of pursuing it to the next wormhole, dealing a lot more damage.

Also, because we say so

[Rapunzel]

A starbase an the starlaneenterance or exit point could assist the systemfleet and if I put fighters and or missles on such a base I could defenetly influct much damage, espacially in the early game were ships are slow and fleets small.
The "I say so" is no argument in my opinion

[Daveybaby]

Personally, I can live without planetary bases as long as starbases/orbitals are in there. To be honest system ships are probably optional as well.

w.r.t. placing starbases at starlane exit points, this could have advantages as it allows you to concentrate your firepower at one location (that you know any incoming enemy has to encounter) instead of, say, spreading it across a number of planets.

Alternatively there could be advantages to a defender having their orbitals placed far away outside of an incoming enemies initial sensor range (but within the defenders own sensor range, thanks to conveniently placed 'scout' starbases), so that they can bombard safely from a distance in the early stages of combat.

All of these sorts of details depend on how space combat gets implemented - what is the area of combat (the entire system, or planet by planet?) - what are the limits of sensor ranges compared to missile ranges? - what kind of attacker/defender advantages/disadvantages are required to produce the right balance between defensibility of systems and ability to attack and conquer.

It strikes me more and more that there are a number of interrelated issues here (which have been cropping up in threads lately) which cannot be resolved independently :
(1) Planetary and System defence implementation - i.e. how does the player build and maintain them - and how does the UI work?
(2) Types of system/planetary defences - i.e. do we have planetary bases, starbases, mines, system ships?
(3) To what degree should planetary defences be sufficient on their own - i.e. how do we ensure the player can have some chance to defend their borders but at the same time not let them become invulnerable to attack?
(4) Scope of space combat arena - system level or planetary level?

Obviously some of these things are going to be implemented in later releases of FO than others, but this is probably something which needs some overall decisions made about it soon, or decisions made now on one issue may end up forcing suboptimal design decisions later on for the others.

Maybe a separate thread needs opening somewhere to deal with this?