The Merchant Marine

[skdiw]

...I don't think we should have another blockade evasion variable. I think we should just compare blockade with defense of the planet.

That would make it impossible to differentiate between a planet or system's defenses against orbital bombardment or ground assualt, and its ability to get shipping past a blockade. This would seem to make blockades irrelivant and unnecessary... (ie. if a defender can get past a blockade, then the blockade is pointless, but if the defender can get past the blockade, then the attacker's fleet wouldn't have been strong enough to capture the planet outright, so would have like to have blockaded, but can't...)

First of all, I seperate defense form ground troops.

How would variable changes for blockade evasion differ from defense? To me, the two is similar so we might as well use one value. You compare the fleet str to defense value, but that doesn't mean the fleet is attacking. It's just orbiting and blokading.

The defender can't get pass a blockade without initiating a battle.

Fleet strength doesn't necessary compare to defense on 1-to-1 basis. Just because a scout ship can't destory strong system defenses, doesn't mean it can't block a few freighters. I'm using defense as a reference vaule to estimate the effectiveness of the blockade.

It all works. Hope it's clear now.

Also, it doesn't take much fleet strength to make trade worthless. For example, if the profit of the trade is 30%. Given that a freight is worth 10 BC and enemy's blockade effectiviness is only at 50%, Your net is -3.5 BC!! So there is no reason why a player would take the risk sending out freighters in the first place when the cargo is worth so much.

The point of the blockade would to prevent transfer of resources from or to the planet / system and to or from the empire pool. If you can get 50% of unblockaded resource transfers through, that 50% is quite useful. If the alternative is just losing the resources because you couldn't get them out to the empire pool from a planet, then even if you only get 1% through, it's still a benefit. If the alternative is spending them elsewhere in the empire, then the player has a choice whether to try to send more, or to cancel or deprioritize the project on the blockaded planets. Analyzing the "profit of the trade" is irrelivant.

First, it's vital not to forget inter-empire trade, not just intra-empire. You don't trade with yourself--that's more like redistribution. You trade with other empires. Thus, profits is very important.

That 50% transfer is NOT always desirable because you lost remaining 50% that could be saved up for system development or in some stock until the blockade is removed or as you said, spend more on the blockade planet.

To me, your rest of arugements just said that just 50% blocade matters: it's not whatever you can ship through, in or out, is good. The lost resources is a opportunity cost to the empire, as it should.

You can have some indirect control of a the value of a meter such as the proposed defense meter. What and where you build buildings can have important effects on them. What direct-bonus technologies you research can affect them. Presumably various social-engineering or cultural choices could have an effect on them.

I agree. I figure players like to be able to boost their defense, so I thought a better way then buildings is a defense button that doubles the with each click (you pay maintainece after the first natural defense lvl).

What's wrong with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, biological and cultural factors affecting the defense meter? The button suggestion seems rather clunky, and will necessaitate micromanagement by definition.

I didn't say anything is wrong with with what you said. In fact, I did mention other factor as you did that would affect natural defense of a system. I'm saying that if the player isn't satisfy, he should be able to be boost his defense. Natrual defense cannot be so strong to prevent all attacks.

If we allow the player to easily build system defense and have them be effective against enemies' oribiting fleet, whether they are in transit or blockading, then the player only needs them at choke points dictated by starlanes.

Planet defense wouldn't destroy enemy fleets, it would just defend the planet from attacks by the fleet, meaning that the fleet can only blockade the planet, rather than destroying it.

that's right.

It's not just Fleet_Strength-Growth-Defenses <=> Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Rather, it's various combinations of Fleet Strength, Growth, Planet Defenses, Ground Troop Strength, Culture, Espionage, Biological Warfare, Psionics, Stealth Technology, Galactic Weather Control, Space Monster Control, etc.

Getting rid of a blockading fleet could be done several ways, and overcoming planet defenses could be done several ways. The defender could have a defending fleet, use cultural or trade-based means to make the attacker's planets unhappy about the blockade action and/or make maintaining the blockade too expensive, or could research better blockade evasion technology to bypass the blockade without destroying the ships doing the blockading.

Similarly, the attacker could also bring enough ground troops to take the planet outright, or research specalized bombardment technology that can overcome planet defenses, or use cultural or espionage means to take the planet or damage its production capacity after achiving space superiority, or use biological warfare, etc.

Yes, and you could add the diplomacy and the kitchen sink. All those factors sums to a macro-strategy of growth, defense, and offense. The combinations makes your strategy lean toward one macro-strategy, which can be beaten by another.

All I'm saying are 1. not to make defending too powerful and 2. not to have so many insignificant variables like blocade evasion tech even if they are free from another tech.

[Geoff the Medio]

How would variable changes for blockade evasion differ from defense?

Things that improve planet defense against orbital bombardment or troop landings (getting the troops down, not the actual ground fight once they land) include planetary shielding, reinforced buildings / better construction techniques, anything that intercepts incoming missiles, asteroids, or troopships (in atmosphere only).

Things that improve blockade evasion include stealth / cloaking, better engines, social and cultural inclination towards and aptitude at piloting freighters through blockades.

To me, the two is similar so we might as well use one value.

That, and my two above pragraphs are really realism arguments though. I want separate ratings for planet defense and for blockade evasion so that the two ratings can be improved or neglected independently, specifically so they are separate strategic options (see below).

The defender can't get pass a blockade without initiating a battle.

Sure they can... if they've got faster engines or stealth technology, or sufficient numbers that not all can be stopped simultaneously.

First, it's vital not to forget inter-empire trade, not just intra-empire. You don't trade with yourself--that's more like redistribution.

Stopping "redistribution" is the main point of the blockade.

You trade with other empires. Thus, profits is very important.

That 50% transfer is NOT always desirable because you lost remaining 50% that could be saved up for system development or in some stock until the blockade is removed or as you said, spend more on the blockade planet.

For industry exports, you can't stockpile, so you might as well try to export if they're not being used locally, as if you don't you'll lose them anyway.

For PP imports, you can't stockpile, but you can prioritize on the production queue where the PP are spent. They'd only be spent at higher cost or lower efficiency at a blockaded world if it was higher in priority than an unblockaded worlds.

For mineral or food exports, you can stockpile, so you might want to not export during the blockade so as to avoid blockade losses in the hopes of more effective exports later. Then again, you might need those resources elsewhere ASAP, and so willingly lose some to the blockade to get them out to the empire.

For food imports, you can stockpile or use the resource elsewhere, so you might want to not import any during the blockade so as to avoid blockade losses. Then again, you need food at planets every turn, so it might be worth losing some to the blockade to keep the population fed (alive).

Note that accordingly, cutting of a planet from food imports would be a useful strategy for a fleet that's strong enough to blockade but not strong enough to effectively bombard a non-farming planet.

For these latter two stockpilable cases, giving the player choice seems to be appropriate. They'd be able to toggle whether to import / export stockpilables to or from that planet.

What's wrong with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, biological and cultural factors affecting the defense meter?

I didn't say anything is wrong with with what you said. In fact, I did mention other factor as you did that would affect natural defense of a system. I'm saying that if the player isn't satisfy, he should be able to be boost his defense.

And I'm saying s/he can do that with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, and bological or cultural factors, not with a button.

... it's various combinations of Fleet Strength, Growth, Planet Defenses, Ground Troop Strength, Culture, Espionage, Biological Warfare, Psionics, Stealth Technology, Galactic Weather Control, Space Monster Control, etc.

All those factors sums to a macro-strategy of growth, defense, and offense. The combinations makes your strategy lean toward one macro-strategy, which can be beaten by another.

The various combinations are not just three high-level strategies. For illustrative purposes, think of a system of 5 options, where each option is good against 2 of the others, and weak against 2 of the others. A strategy could consist of combination of 2 of the 5. This situation cannot be simplified to just 3 options.

All I'm saying are 1. not to make defending too powerful ...

As with the food imports example, even if a planet's defense is nearly impenitrable, that doesn't mean the blockade is pointless. If the blockade cuts off all (or most) imports / exports that make the planet useful, then the blockade is effective, even if the planet is not conquered.

[skdiw]

How would variable changes for blockade evasion differ from defense?

Things that improve planet defense against orbital bombardment or troop landings (getting the troops down, not the actual ground fight once they land) include planetary shielding, reinforced buildings / better construction techniques, anything that intercepts incoming missiles, asteroids, or troopships (in atmosphere only).

Things that improve blockade evasion include stealth / cloaking, better engines, social and cultural inclination towards and aptitude at piloting freighters through blockades.

merchants aren't going to put state-of-the-art engines and stealth on freighters. Imagine the pp spent just to build the freigts. Are you gonna spend extra 10 BC for a high-tech freight for a 10 BC cargo for a 20% improvement in evasion? You can't say you have doom-star with stellar converters as your run-in-the-mill freighters.

To me, the two is similar so we might as well use one value.

That, and my two above pragraphs are really realism arguments though. I want separate ratings for planet defense and for blockade evasion so that the two ratings can be improved or neglected independently, specifically so they are separate strategic options (see below).

I'll agree if there are strong reasons to do so, but there isn't.

The defender can't get pass a blockade without initiating a battle.

Sure they can... if they've got faster engines or stealth technology, or sufficient numbers that not all can be stopped simultaneously.

You have to imagine equal scenarios (enemy sensor tech lvl = your stealth, plus for a good design, better sensor tech is easier to acquire than stealth so it really should be > isntead of =). Your example is like saying I can do whatever I want because I'm God and you are just a rat.

First, it's vital not to forget inter-empire trade, not just intra-empire. You don't trade with yourself--that's more like redistribution.

Stopping "redistribution" is the main point of the blockade.

Blocade is very effective against trade and for redistribution for non-food focus planets. Typically, trade value about 50% of economy. You have to make the step that we gonna make trade weak for FO, then you can make the arguement that blocade is mainly for stopping redistribution. A econ powerhouse system may represent 20% of your economy. Half being trade, then blocading some other planets that only contributes only 5% is no where as powerful if you blocade to stop trade.

You trade with other empires. Thus, profits is very important.

That 50% transfer is NOT always desirable because you lost remaining 50% that could be saved up for system development or in some stock until the blockade is removed or as you said, spend more on the blockade planet.

For industry exports, you can't stockpile, so you might as well try to export if they're not being used locally, as if you don't you'll lose them anyway.

Why not just use them all locally?

For mineral or food exports, you can stockpile, so you might want to not export during the blockade so as to avoid blockade losses in the hopes of more effective exports later. Then again, you might need those resources elsewhere ASAP, and so willingly lose some to the blockade to get them out to the empire.

For food imports, you can stockpile or use the resource elsewhere, so you might want to not import any during the blockade so as to avoid blockade losses. Then again, you need food at planets every turn, so it might be worth losing some to the blockade to keep the population fed (alive).

Note that accordingly, cutting of a planet from food imports would be a useful strategy for a fleet that's strong enough to blockade but not strong enough to effectively bombard a non-farming planet.

For these latter two stockpilable cases, giving the player choice seems to be appropriate. They'd be able to toggle whether to import / export stockpilables to or from that planet.

so you do agree with me that it doesn't take much for blockade to make trade or redistribution ineffective. It's not a straight-foward choice to always sent freighters out.

What's wrong with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, biological and cultural factors affecting the defense meter?

I didn't say anything is wrong with with what you said. In fact, I did mention other factor as you did that would affect natural defense of a system. I'm saying that if the player isn't satisfy, he should be able to be boost his defense.

And I'm saying s/he can do that with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, and bological or cultural factors, not with a button.

And I'm saying if that's not enough, s/he can boost it further! I like defense infrastructure and not defense buildings. If there gonna be defense buildings, I think it's easier with a button. Other factors besides tech and infrastructure are minor factors. The game won't work if you can have sufficient defense to support a self-sustaining economy without building any ships or defense structures when enemy got 10 stellar converters pointing at you.

... it's various combinations of Fleet Strength, Growth, Planet Defenses, Ground Troop Strength, Culture, Espionage, Biological Warfare, Psionics, Stealth Technology, Galactic Weather Control, Space Monster Control, etc.

All those factors sums to a macro-strategy of growth, defense, and offense. The combinations makes your strategy lean toward one macro-strategy, which can be beaten by another.

The various combinations are not just three high-level strategies. For illustrative purposes, think of a system of 5 options, where each option is good against 2 of the others, and weak against 2 of the others. A strategy could consist of combination of 2 of the 5. This situation cannot be simplified to just 3 options.

you are missing the point. the point is that one strategy, be it 1 of 3, 2 of 5, or combos of 5 of a million, is too strong. And that combination is anything with defense.

All I'm saying are 1. not to make defending too powerful ...

As with the food imports example, even if a planet's defense is nearly impenitrable, that doesn't mean the blockade is pointless. If the blockade cuts off all (or most) imports / exports that make the planet useful, then the blockade is effective, even if the planet is not conquered.

We all know this. However, that doesn't mean we should overdesign this aspect of the game. Offense (and if you like, the combination thereof) should beat growth (econ and comination thereof) strategy. If the player wants to biuld bunch of defense, he should be able to take care of blockades.

[utilae]

merchants aren't going to put state-of-the-art engines and stealth on freighters. Imagine the pp spent just to build the freigts. Are you gonna spend extra 10 BC for a high-tech freight for a 10 BC cargo for a 20% improvement in evasion?

Merchants will be able to have what they want. There purpose is to make money, beef up their ship, make more money, etc. If the technology can be bought, then they'll do it. All we are doing in the game is setting an average level of tech that freighters will be fitted with. Some freighters will have laser cannons, some will have fast engines that rival a millitary ship, some will have handy stealth tactics. This is all what makes scifi so great.

You can even see this situation in today's cars. Compare a supercar vs an ordinary car. A supercar can be bought for 100,000s of dollars. It is super fast, etc. At the same time, a family car can be suped, to generate 1000hp and made just as fast.

So all we are doing is improving the empires average freighter tech. A freighter does not have to be a doomstar to get the cargo through. It may need to be fast. It may need to be stealthy. It may need to hide behind a moon. But the freighter will get through.

As the empire, we can help our freighters by determining what technology the average person/freighter captian has access to on the consumer market.

[Geoff the Medio]

merchants aren't going to put state-of-the-art engines and stealth on freighters.

If merchants needed stealth and good engines to operate, they'll have it. Otherwise they couldn't operate. Merchants generally want to operate, so will get the necessary equipment to do so.

That civilians won't typically have access to advanced military equipment would be a reason for the game to have specialized freighter-enhancement technologies. You'd research freighter-engines, freighter-cloaks, freighter organizational, and various other freighter-improving techs separately from military ship components.

Also, running mineral/food freight perhaps isn't the job of a "merchant" anyway. This would probably be done by imperial freighters, just like supply runs for far-off fleets. Merchants would be relevant to trade only. ("Trade" is not the movement of minerals/food/PP/science to and from the empire pool; trade is itself a resource, not directly connected to the others.)

That said, for simplicity it's reasonable to assume actual trading merchants have access to the same freighter technology as imperial bulk cargo haulers.

That said, not all trade involves travelling merchants. There's electronic / virtual commerece, culture-based trade, and so forth. Blockades would have no affect on these, unless there were electronic / cultural blockades as well, which might actually make sense...

That said, blockades wouldn't necessarily (or likely) affect trade the same way as cargo shipment. Trade is produced locally, and could be said to not need to be "shipped" somewhere to be used. However, the actual production of trade would be affected by a blockade at a system. This affect could work differently from the losses to cargo shipments due to a blockade.

(Aside: The above mentioned freighter techs would give bonuses to freighter performance in general, or specifically in blockade avoidance situations. Likely the subtree of techs from which you can derive freighter-applications would be the same as the similar military-ship-applications; within that subtree there would be both military component techs and freighter bonus techs. You'd only be able to research (or use) the military components if you had appropriate military ship techs as prerequisites. Similarly, you'd only be able to research the freighter applications if you had the necessary freighter reserach prereqs. So if you're strategy focuses on having good freighters, you'd have the necessary prereqs and be able to research freighter improvements, whereas if you're focusing on military ships, you'd be able to research ship components, but wouldn't necessary get any freighter-benefits )

I want separate ratings for planet defense and for blockade evasion so that the two ratings can be improved or neglected independently, specifically so they are separate strategic options (see below).

I'll agree if there are strong reasons to do so, but there isn't.

Making them separate strategic options is the reason.

The defender can't get pass a blockade without initiating a battle.

Sure they can... if they've got faster engines or stealth technology, or sufficient numbers that not all can be stopped simultaneously.

You have to imagine equal scenarios (enemy sensor tech lvl = your stealth, plus for a good design, better sensor tech is easier to acquire than stealth so it really should be > isntead of =).

Equal or unequal situations are covered already. If tech levels are equal, then the bonuses cancel out, so neither side gets a net bonus, so the % effectiveness of the blockade is determined by number of blockading ships (and other tech factors).

Your example is like saying I can do whatever I want because I'm God and you are just a rat.

??? It's not matter of all or nothing / god vs. rat. The blockade stops some % of exports / imports. The % increases if the blockader has better techs, and decreases if the evader has better techs.

You have to make the step that we gonna make trade weak for FO, then you can make the arguement that blocade is mainly for stopping redistribution. A econ powerhouse system may represent 20% of your economy. Half being trade, then blocading some other planets that only contributes only 5% is no where as powerful if you blocade to stop trade.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here...

For industry exports, you can't stockpile, so you might as well try to export if they're not being used locally, as if you don't you'll lose them anyway.

Why not just use them all locally?

Because you've got something more important being produced elsewhere, or there's nothing worth building at the planet itself. Buildings are supposed to be rare, remember. Not every planet will have something worth building for itself during a blockade. Also, planets are supposed to be specialized. A planet that produces a lot of industry won't have very many minerals to use with the industry to make PP, so actually won't be able to use the industry points locally.

so you do agree with me that it doesn't take much for blockade to make trade or redistribution ineffective. It's not a straight-foward choice to always sent freighters out.

In cases where the resource will be lost if you don't send freighters, it's a non-choice: send and hope, whatever gets through helps. In cases where the resource could be stockpiled, the player could have a choice. The choice could be immediate and direct, as in for each blockaded system, the player can toggle off exports/imports of stockpilable resources as desired. The "choice" could also be indirect... perhaps some cultural or governmental option decides what planets/systems throughout the empire will do in case of a blockade. The latter might be more interesting strategically.

I'm saying that if the player isn't satisfy, he should be able to be boost his defense.

And I'm saying s/he can do that with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, and bological or cultural factors, not with a button.

And I'm saying if that's not enough, s/he can boost it further!

Why is it necessary to add a seperate planet-specific (micro-intensive) button? Why aren't the above methods sufficient?

I like defense infrastructure and not defense buildings.

"buildings" in the above referred to standard FO wonder-like buildings, which would be few in number and significant in effect. Several to many planets' defense meters would receive bonuses from a given buildings.

If there gonna be defense buildings, I think it's easier with a button.

You'll have to explain your meaning... there's probably numerous assumptions behind this that made it meaningful.

Other factors besides tech and infrastructure are minor factors.

Perhaps. Though don't completely discount social and cultural factors. A particularly defense-crazy population would likely have a better-maintained planetary defense system. If every citizen has own and know how to use a guided anti-aircraft rocket launcher, then troop landings will likely be more difficult.

The game won't work if you can have sufficient defense to support a self-sustaining economy without building any ships or defense structures when enemy got 10 stellar converters pointing at you.

A self-sustaining colony (in food) would likely only be producing food, and not much else. So, if you parked your fleet over it, you'd be depriving the rest of the empire of that food. You don't need to actually destroy the colony to neutralize it. Alternatively, even if you can't get past it's defenses to destroy it with stellar converters, you could land ground troops, bioengineer a plague, or use culture or espionage to gain control or damage or destroy it.

you are missing the point. the point is that one strategy, be it 1 of 3, 2 of 5, or combos of 5 of a million, is too strong. And that combination is anything with defense.

Declaring this to be true at this time is silly. Things will be balanced so that no one strategy is dominant. I've also listed numerous possible ways to overcome or neutralize planet defenses that don't necessarily involve having sufficient fleet strength to overcome the defenses.

As with the food imports example, even if a planet's defense is nearly impenitrable, that doesn't mean the blockade is pointless. If the blockade cuts off all (or most) imports / exports that make the planet useful, then the blockade is effective, even if the planet is not conquered.

We all know this. However, that doesn't mean we should overdesign this aspect of the game.

"overdesign this aspect of the game" ??? What does that mean?

[skdiw]

merchants aren't going to put state-of-the-art engines and stealth on freighters.

If merchants needed stealth and good engines to operate, they'll have it. Otherwise they couldn't operate. Merchants generally want to operate, so will get the necessary equipment to do so.

Good thing you guys are game designers, because as businessmen you will certainly fail horribly. It's not a hard concept to understand. No merchant will operate a business if there is no incentives or if the cost is greater than the gain. They will not get necessary equipment if the cost is too much. I'll give you one last example before I give up (albeit inflated for clarity, but try very hard to understand the concept). If a freigther engine tech costs 10k and boosts your evasion by 5% of your 10k trade/distribution network, would you get the necessary equipments? 10k investment for a 500 BC gain? How many 1k HP semi-truck loaded with rocket lunchers, SAM, camoflauged armor do you see in Iraq or in any war? The overhead makes the business prohibitive. Merchants are motivated by profit, not by whim.

That civilians won't typically have access to advanced military equipment would be a reason for the game to have specialized freighter-enhancement technologies. You'd research freighter-engines, freighter-cloaks, freighter organizational, and various other freighter-improving techs separately from military ship components.

Civilians do. It's just the COST of it makes them don't want it. Whatever cost to get your super stasis armor for your starship should apply to the production of a freighter. Are you going to really spend that much? Buy 100 BC insurance to cover a 5BC cargo? As I said, military equipment are very expensive--prohibitively. You can also look into the black market. Are we gonna have a blackmarket mini-game too? many specific freighter techs are getting way out of line here. whatever happen to KISS?

("Trade" is not the movement of minerals/food/PP/science to and from the empire pool

As I pointed out, you don't trade with yourself. At first you said it was. I'm glad we understood some basic vocabulary. That is, until when you mention this: "trade is itself a resource, not directly connected to the others." I recommend you look up a dictionary. money is an actual passed resource, and might make it point there. However, even so, let me remind you that money is an abstraction; that is, there is no value in money itself (just a paper). Its value is being able to redeem something of value like food and mineral, which is physical and has to be hulled. Ultimately, something is being hulled and that's what the topic is talking about.

That said, for simplicity it's reasonable to assume actual trading merchants have access to the same freighter technology as imperial bulk cargo haulers.

I would make it simple and say trade and redistribution frieghters are the same, as in uses same techs and whatever variables.

(Aside: The above mentioned freighter techs would give bonuses to freighter performance in general, or specifically in blockade avoidance situations. Likely the subtree of techs from which you can derive freighter-applications would be the same as the similar military-ship-applications; within that subtree there would be both military component techs and freighter bonus techs. You'd only be able to research (or use) the military components if you had appropriate military ship techs as prerequisites. Similarly, you'd only be able to research the freighter applications if you had the necessary freighter reserach prereqs. So if you're strategy focuses on having good freighters, you'd have the necessary prereqs and be able to research freighter improvements, whereas if you're focusing on military ships, you'd be able to research ship components, but wouldn't necessary get any freighter-benefits )

this is way out of line. I highly doubt Aq would approve of this. Maybe some simple social/econ techs (forgot tech branches names) should be enough, and that's a maybe. I don't think we need to get too specific because frieghter mini-mini-game is too small.

You have to make the step that we gonna make trade weak for FO, then you can make the arguement that blocade is mainly for stopping redistribution. A econ powerhouse system may represent 20% of your economy. Half being trade, then blocading some other planets that only contributes only 5% is no where as powerful if you blocade to stop trade.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here...

trade is just as important as redistribution.

And I'm saying s/he can do that with buildings, technologies, social-engineering, and bological or cultural factors, not with a button.

And I'm saying if that's not enough, s/he can boost it further!

Why is it necessary to add a seperate planet-specific (micro-intensive) button? Why aren't the above methods sufficient?

Okay, how many games have you played that not building any military units even for defense allows you to win the game? And how many games do you have to directly build defenders?

If there gonna be defense buildings, I think it's easier with a button.

You'll have to explain your meaning... there's probably numerous assumptions behind this that made it meaningful.

Probably we are using different assumption. Lets first establish the point above about not building defenses is sufficient.

I do see a balancing problem. If you think it's too early to think about it, that might be true. I don't want to let a problem grow, then try to patch things up with band-aid in awkward places. Let's aim for a seamless design in the first place. Also, our decision here may impact our design in other places. If you think that you can't buy more missile bases locally to protect a system, that's a perfectly fine design that I will support, then it might be time to think about defensive ships like maybe system ships. If people think it's awkward that you can't build more missile bases so there should be a way to do so, then we don't need system ships.

Other factors besides tech and infrastructure are minor factors.

Perhaps. Though don't completely discount social and cultural factors. A particularly defense-crazy population would likely have a better-maintained planetary defense system. If every citizen has own and know how to use a guided anti-aircraft rocket launcher, then troop landings will likely be more difficult.

That's fine. I didn't discounted completely. People disfavor cultural victory so the culture game is going to be weak so I wouldn't weigh much on it.

[Dreamer]

It's not a hard concept to understand. No merchant will operate a business if there is no incentives or if the cost is greater than the gain.

While the concept is true. I do see state-of-the-art thech applied on big corporations.

Also, there are some other factors... for example, if space piracy is common the probably freithers will be well equiped. Spanish military galeons where used to transport cargo all the time.

Another economic fact: when trade is interrupted (prohibited or in this case, blockaded) smugglers tend to appear. And smuggler ships are usually fast or well equiped. Also, a blockade is usually not about disabling the planet's production of cd players but to cut access to food, medical supplies, reinforcements, etc. (appart form upseting the balance of trade routes). And in those circumstances people take risks, even desperate ones.

[Geoff the Medio]

No merchant will operate a business if there is no incentives or if the cost is greater than the gain.

Yes, however not all trade has the same gain for a given cost. As you add more blockading ships, the cost to get past them increases, so trade falls gradually as traders stop trading due to the increasing cost / risk for the same reward.

As I pointed out, you don't trade with yourself.

Not all "trade" is between separate countries on Earth, and not all trade in FO will be between different empires. The population of a planet is typically more than 1, so there is trade on an isolated planet with no external contact, and there is trade between planets in a system, systems in an empire, as well as between empires in a galaxy.

That is, until when you mention this: "trade is itself a resource, not directly connected to the others." I recommend you look up a dictionary.

I reccomend you read the design document. "trade" is a resource, separate from the others.

oney is an actual passed resource, and might make it point there. However, even so, let me remind you that money is an abstraction; that is, there is no value in money itself (just a paper). Its value is being able to redeem something of value like food and mineral, which is physical and has to be hulled. Ultimately, something is being hulled and that's what the topic is talking about.

The resource "trade" is an abstracted value covering all economic activity, not just a direct measure of how much paper is being exchanged for food or minerals. There are plenty of other physical objects that can be exhanged, or ideas or information exchanged, or services performed that fall under "trade".

... Maybe some simple social/econ techs (forgot tech branches names) should be enough, and that's a maybe. I don't think we need to get too specific because frieghter mini-mini-game is too small.

If it's decided to use a very simplified on/off blockade model, then sure, there's no point to having a semi-complicated tech tree for blockade avoidance or improvement. If degrees of blockading are possible, then numerous techs in some interesting strategic arrangment are necessary.

Okay, how many games have you played that not building any military units even for defense allows you to win the game?

What's the relevance of the question? Having a high planetary defense meter means you've built a lot of planetary defense. It's not represented as distinct "units", but it's still there. Additionally, you'd have to build ground troops in order for them to exist to be used on defense.

If you think that you can't buy more missile bases locally to protect a system, that's a perfectly fine design that I will support, then it might be time to think about defensive ships like maybe system ships. If people think it's awkward that you can't build more missile bases so there should be a way to do so, then we don't need system ships.

If researching defense techs and building AOE defense wonders is insufficient, a likely way to make it possible to build more defense on a particular planet would be to add a "Planetary Defense" focus, like the "Farming", "Mining", "Trade", "Research" and "Industry" focus. Thus in order to have a well-staffed and effective planetary defense system set up, you'd have to sacrifice some resource production.

That's fine. I didn't discounted completely. People disfavor cultural victory so the culture game is going to be weak so I wouldn't weigh much on it.

I'm not talking about "cultural victory"... I'm talking about the fact that a particular war-liking culture (eg. Klingons, Mongol Hordes) makes a society more likely to have good defenses than a less war-liking culture (eg. Post-WWII Japan, Tibet).

[skdiw]

As I pointed out, you don't trade with yourself.

Not all "trade" is between separate countries on Earth, and not all trade in FO will be between different empires. The population of a planet is typically more than 1, so there is trade on an isolated planet with no external contact, and there is trade between planets in a system, systems in an empire, as well as between empires in a galaxy.

I hope you realized you just made a full circle to arrive at my initial reasonings. I won't bother reasoning with you if you keep changing yourself.

That is, until when you mention this: "trade is itself a resource, not directly connected to the others." I recommend you look up a dictionary.

I reccomend you read the design document. "trade" is a resource, separate from the others.

I remember food, mineral, industry, research, and money are passed. I may have missed trade as another passed resource during my break. Mind if you pointed the link to me.

If you think that you can't buy more missile bases locally to protect a system, that's a perfectly fine design that I will support, then it might be time to think about defensive ships like maybe system ships. If people think it's awkward that you can't build more missile bases so there should be a way to do so, then we don't need system ships.

If researching defense techs and building AOE defense wonders is insufficient, a likely way to make it possible to build more defense on a particular planet would be to add a "Planetary Defense" focus, like the "Farming", "Mining", "Trade", "Research" and "Industry" focus. Thus in order to have a well-staffed and effective planetary defense system set up, you'd have to sacrifice some resource production.

I wouldn't include buildings as primary control over defense. Needing wonders to protect your planets is ridiculus. Planetary Defense is not a focus I remember. Even if you can persuade everyone else to include it, the focus is split to primary and secondary. You really want just 3 direct levels of defense? Don't you think a focus is too strong?

[Geoff the Medio]

...there is trade on an isolated planet with no external contact, and there is trade between planets in a system, systems in an empire...

I hope you realized you just made a full circle to arrive at my initial reasonings.

You seem to say the exact opposite just a few post ago:

As I pointed out, you don't trade with yourself.

A bit before that, you said the same thing:

You don't trade with yourself--that's more like redistribution. You trade with other empires.

I'm not sure how far back your "initial reasonings" are, but you seem to have been saying that trade is only between empires, not within an empire, whereas I said trade was also within an empire. Maybe you misunderstood what I was talking about earlier in the confusion about what the distinction is between "redistribution" and "trade"?

I won't bother reasoning with you if you keep changing yourself.

Uh... so essentially you won't have an argument / discussion unless someone won't listen to anything you say?

I remember food, mineral, industry, research, and money are passed. I may have missed trade as another passed resource during my break. Mind if you pointed the link to me.

http://freeorion.org/index.php/V.3_Requirements#Trade

I don't put too much weight into the description of trade given there; "money extracted from a world" is kind of a weird phrasing... but there is a resource called "trade".

I wouldn't include buildings as primary control over defense. Needing wonders to protect your planets is ridiculus.

These wouldn't be limit-1-per-galaxy wonders... more like "regional defense hq" or somesuch, that you can have multiple copies of (though not one per world).

Planetary Defense is not a focus I remember.

Not yet, but it could conceivably be added.

Even if you can persuade everyone else to include it, the focus is split to primary and secondary. You really want just 3 direct levels of defense? Don't you think a focus is too strong?

There would be quite a few levels, actually:
1)neither focus on defense
2)secondary focus on balanced (including some defense), primary focused on something else
3)secondary focus on defense, primary on something else
4)primary focus balanced (including some defense), secondary something else
5)primary focus balanced, secondary focus balanced (both including some defense)
6)primary focus balanced (including some defense), secondary focus defense
7)primary focus defense, secondary focus something else
8)primary focus defense, secondary focus balanced (including some defense)
9)both focus on defense (fortress planet)

I actually think that would work quite well. The slow buildup of defense and necessity of maintaining it at the cost of resource production is a good mechanism. You could focus newly captured / border worlds on defense to make a hard shell border... and leave inner systems less defended. You'd have to make the choice between defense and resource production long-term, due to the buildup delay. If there was a contested planet with a particularly good bonus, you'd need to keep focus off defense to reap the benefit of the bonus, making the world harder to defend...

[Sapphire Wyvern]

Planetary Defense is not a focus I remember.

Not yet, but it could conceivably be added.

Even if you can persuade everyone else to include it, the focus is split to primary and secondary. You really want just 3 direct levels of defense? Don't you think a focus is too strong?

There would be quite a few levels, actually:
1)neither focus on defense
2)secondary focus on balanced (including some defense), primary focused on something else
3)secondary focus on defense, primary on something else
4)primary focus balanced (including some defense), secondary something else
5)primary focus balanced, secondary focus balanced (both including some defense)
6)primary focus balanced (including some defense), secondary focus defense
7)primary focus defense, secondary focus something else
8)primary focus defense, secondary focus balanced (including some defense)
9)both focus on defense (fortress planet)

I actually think that would work quite well. The slow buildup of defense and necessity of maintaining it at the cost of resource production is a good mechanism. You could focus newly captured / border worlds on defense to make a hard shell border... and leave inner systems less defended. You'd have to make the choice between defense and resource production long-term, due to the buildup delay. If there was a contested planet with a particularly good bonus, you'd need to keep focus off defense to reap the benefit of the bonus, making the world harder to defend...

Looks good to me. Tallies well with the rest of the game mechanics. Don't I remember a "Military" focus? That would seem to be the same thing as "Defense", or nearly so. It also would make defensive structures (the aforementioned Regional HQ, etc) work in the same way as other buildings, which is nice.

I, personally, would still like to see ground-based defenses with limited projective capability. I liked the way that planets and starbases participated in combat directly in MoO II, and wouldn't be at all upset for that to be a feature in FO. At the moment, I'm leaning towards system-scope combat resolution rather than planet-scope resolution. If we don't have projective defenses on planets, I can't see any reason why we would use planet-scope combat.

[skdiw]

Okay, I'm gonna forget about "trade," because you have multiple definition and a awkward sense of the word. In any case, according to the design doc, trade is just like taxation (in from of money), which is again, different usage of the word in our arguements.

I don't like defense focus idea, because that also makes you balance the development of a mineral rich world, which players would want just mineral focuses and defense to protect it. I think defense focus is the worst idea. I much rather have planetary buildings (with multiple levels/types that can be built on each planet). If that's too much micro, then I guess we settle with ships and special type buildings (like system buildings).

How are ground troops trained? maybe we just incorporate defense into troops menu.

[Geoff the Medio]

I don't like defense focus idea, because that also makes you balance the development of a mineral rich world, which players would want just mineral focuses and defense to protect it.

You don't have to use defense... you could also put some ships there to protect it. Or you could control the neighbouring systems, so you don't have to fight any battles in the mineral rich world's system, and can focus it on mining, and use the surrounding worlds on defense as a buffer zone.

I think defense focus is the worst idea. I much rather have planetary buildings (with multiple levels/types that can be built on each planet).

So basically you don't like having to make a difficult choice between two important but mutually exclusive things (defense and resource production in this case) ? Isn't giving the player difficult choices like that a good design goal?

That said, you could set the planet to Primary Mining and Secondary Defense, giving some defense while maintaining the majority of mineral production. This probably wouldn't be enough to stop a well-planned attack though... which is probably a good thing, as if you want to save resources by not building ships to defend your planets, you'd have to pay for it strategically by needing most worlds to be set to an even more defense-boosting focus than just Secondary Defense Focused (instead of fully focused on their ideal resource production). Seems like a good tradeoff to me... Then tie this in with blockading of resource transfers by the attackers, and blockade evasion by the defenders, and a fleet supply system for the blockaders to keep ships blockading and it makes for some interesting strategy... (hopefully)

How are ground troops trained?

As yet undetermined. Ground combat is scheduled for 0.6

[skdiw]

While digging through old design notes, I found out that defense will not be a focus.

Another question: did we decide that building going to be limited by slots? or another method like cost/maintence? It makes sense to have multiple copies for a large galaxy map. There are pros and cons to each design, but I guess it's not fully decided?

[Geoff the Medio]

Is the no defense focus decision anywhere in the forums?

I believe it was decided not to use slots.