Infrastructure based planet capacity

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
jinlanid
Space Squid
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:26 am

Infrastructure based planet capacity

#1 Post by jinlanid »

Say, if infrastructure is low, your planet can not be fully functional.
If a planet is invaded, its infrastructure is greatly destroyed, and need to slowly recover. So, its supply range, detection, stealth, etc, all reduced based on infrastructure.
Supply range need a value of x%.
detection, stealth need a fixed value.
Infrastructure growth has a base value and a population based value.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, infrastructure is something similar to population, but only affect supply range, detection, stealth, those things.
You can bomb infrastructure with direct weapon and heavy bomber. Infrastructure don't move, and you can see it in space.
You can only bomb it with pressing "bomb" button, so you don't waste fire power in space combat.
"Defense increasing tech" gives extra infrastructure.
Defense focus increase infrastructure regrowth.
Last edited by jinlanid on Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:36 am, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Transport capacity

#2 Post by swaq »

This really seems like overcomplication. Also it would make new colonies gain supply too slow (0.1/turn) and outposts not gain at all.

jinlanid
Space Squid
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:26 am

Re: Transport capacity

#3 Post by jinlanid »

swaq wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:56 am This really seems like overcomplication. Also it would make new colonies gain supply too slow (0.1/turn) and outposts not gain at all.
Edited.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure based planet capacity

#4 Post by Oberlus »

Currently, infrastructure influences defense growth: more infrastructure -> faster defense & shield meter growth towards target values.
This would get complicated if defense also influences infrastructure.

Reducing stealth if infrastructure is damaged makes little sense: if planet was detected (targettable), reducing stealth afterwards is pointless; if planet was undetected (and hence not damaged), its stealth won't be reduced.

As swaq pointed out, relating supply and infrastructure seems rather complicated for balance purposes. Infrastructure can be pretty high or pretty low, how do we account for that? 100% of low infrastructure gives you 100% of supply or only a fraction
If the latter, all current supply values get scrambled and everything must be rethought to find a new balance.
If the former, what sense does it make to have a colony with infrastructure of 35 downed to 25 giving less supply than an outpost with infrastructure of 5 untouched.


In the end, none of the above is quite important if someone comes up with simple and easy to understand mechanics. The main problem here answering the following question:
What do we achieve in terms of gameplay with this stuff?
I say we get nothing but complications, no new strategies, no new tactics, no fun.

jinlanid
Space Squid
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:26 am

Re: Infrastructure based planet capacity

#5 Post by jinlanid »

Yes, maybe infrastructure shouldn't affect stealth. And maybe infrastructure requirement should just be a fixed number.
Say, you need 20 infrastructure to make supply system and detection system to be functional.
So if it's 10, only supply system is functional, if it's 20 both are functional.
Defense tech gives extra infrastructure.
Last edited by jinlanid on Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure based planet capacity

#6 Post by Oberlus »

jinlanid wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:44 am Yes, maybe infrastructure shouldn't affect stealth.
I edited my above post while you were writing this one.
Please note the last question I added.
If you can come up with a satisfactory answer, then maybe infrastructure should affect supply, otherwise I don't see the point.

jinlanid
Space Squid
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:26 am

Re: Infrastructure based planet capacity

#7 Post by jinlanid »

Prevent player to be able to too easily feed war with war.
You need to wait for infrastructure to recover after you have conquered a new planet.
You can be easier to cut other's supply line.

Maybe we should stop current supply range regrowth system. Make it an "On or Off" system.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Infrastructure based planet capacity

#8 Post by Oberlus »

jinlanid wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:54 am Prevent player to be able to too easily feed war with war.
You need to wait for infrastructure to recover after you have conquered a new planet.
The recently added mechanic of not allowing RP/PP growth until happiness reaches 5 is already a nice way to delay growth-by-war. It can be made more difficult by increasing the minimum happiness requirement (and adjusting the starting happiness of colonized worlds).
This mechanics could be widened to include no supply growth with low happiness.
You can be easier to cut other's supply line.
I like how it is currently tackled: parking armed ships. In multiplayer games it can be a real PITA to avoid enemies to cut your supply lines. I don't think it is necessary to make it supply-line cutting easier.

User avatar
swaq
Space Dragon
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:56 pm

Re: Transport capacity

#9 Post by swaq »

jinlanid wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:21 am
swaq wrote: Thu Apr 23, 2020 12:56 am This really seems like overcomplication. Also it would make new colonies gain supply too slow (0.1/turn) and outposts not gain at all.
Edited.
That wasn't an edit it's a completely new post! So I said it was overcomplicated and you made it more complicated? This adds nothing to the game.

Post Reply