Planetary defense redesign

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

Moderator: Oberlus

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#16 Post by jinlanid »

What about make fighter based defense system require space elevator?
One more reason to build it.
And make space elevator a "defense building" rather than a "normal building", that is, can be destroyed by enemy attack, and can be auto-rebuilt.
So it's a one-time pay to build it, unlock fighter based defense system, can be destroyed, auto-rebuilt, and only when fully healthy, fighter based defense system is re-activated.

Fighter based defense can be very powerful. Make it require space elevator can significantly nerf it.

A planet has unlimited fighters, maybe 999 fighters, but has only one space elevator. So it can launch only limited number of fighters per round. Once shield is reduced to 0. Space elevator is destroyed, and can on longer launch fighter.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#17 Post by The Silent One »

jinlanid wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:27 pm What about make fighter based defense system require space elevator?
One more reason to build it.
This is a kind of micromanagement that is in conflict with freeorion's central design principles.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#18 Post by Oberlus »

jinlanid wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:27 pmA planet has unlimited fighters, maybe 999 fighters, but has only one space elevator. So it can launch only limited number of fighters per round. Once shield is reduced to 0. Space elevator is destroyed, and can on longer launch fighter.
Simpler and not involving building spam or unbalanced defence strenght: give planets a reasonable number of available fighters that can be launched unrestricted on first combat bout.
That's the current suggestion.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#19 Post by jinlanid »

Fighter is mean to be much more smaller than scout hull. Very hard to resist planet gravity. Fighter based defense system should be based on something similar to space elevator, and we already have it in the game.

Fighter is more powerful, make it more expensive can balance that.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#20 Post by Oberlus »

Just imagine planetary fighters have their own dedicated launchers or hangars stations in low orbit.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#21 Post by LienRag »

The Silent One wrote: Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:09 pm
jinlanid wrote: Tue Feb 11, 2020 8:27 pm What about make fighter based defense system require space elevator?
One more reason to build it.
This is a kind of micromanagement that is in conflict with freeorion's central design principles.
Indeed it is, but I really like the idea though.
Any idea on how to not make it too micromanagy ?

Would a concept of "Infrastructure Upkeep" be compatible with FreeOrion's central design principles ?
It would certainly solve a lot of the problems with spamalot while allowing to have a geographically diversified Empire...

Locally built defense bases, drydocks (or whatever building repair ships), speed-enhancing buildings (what Lighthouses do know), Detection devices, etc. make a lot of sense and having each of them consume a (fixed number of Infrastructure + a variable number being tied to the number of the same buildings already existing) would prevent spamming them everywhere.

We don't want "build everywhere" buildings that's certain, but having to place strategically some "build in a few location" buildings doesn't seem to me as contradicting FreeOrion's design goals while providing a diversified gameplay, which is certainly in accordance with said design goals.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#22 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 3:45 pm Any idea on how to not make it too micromanagy ?
Not requiring the space elevator (or any other building that must be built on every planet).

Defenses have already the drawback that they can't move. If you can build them only in certain places to avoid lose of income, that's a micromanagement mess and rather underpowered, since enemies can just choose to attack somewhere else or you can take advantage of it only on chokepoints and only as long as you don't push in that direction (once the defenses get behind you, they are useless so you want to scrap them and rebuild them elsewhere).
We have defense focus to simulate that kind of rebuild/scrap without having to do many mouse clicks and sweeps.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#23 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 3:55 pm
LienRag wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 3:45 pm Any idea on how to not make it too micromanagy ?
Not requiring the space elevator (or any other building that must be built on every planet).
Obviously... The idea is not to build them on every planet but to have some planets with better defense (hence the "geographically differentiated Empire").
Also, you have a very keen eye for mathematical analysis but I am under the impression that you don't make the same effort about immersion or other less rational aspects that produce the quality and distinct feel of a game.
I understand that we can't sacrifice neither playability nor core design principles to a cool
idea but that shouldn't lead to rebuking a very cool idea without even giving it a chance to find a way to be compatible with core design principles (and yes I acknowledge that "coolness" is subjective).
So maybe it won't be possible to use the Space Elevator as a fighter launcher but I agree with jinlanid that it would be very good for immersion so we should still keep it under our hat for now.
At least make the scientific unlocking of the Space Elevator (Architectural Microfilaments, is it?) as a requisite maybe ? So every planet will have (automatically, without any action needed from the player) a small Space Elevator dedicated to planetary defense fighters as soon as Architectural Microfilaments are researched, and it can be improved for civilian use (giving the supply bonus) with a specific building?
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 3:55 pm Defenses have already the drawback that they can't move. If you can build them only in certain places to avoid lose of income, that's a micromanagement mess and rather underpowered, since enemies can just choose to attack somewhere else or you can take advantage of it only on chokepoints and only as long as you don't push in that direction (once the defenses get behind you, they are useless so you want to scrap them and rebuild them elsewhere).
I'm certainly not advocating to have defenses only where one builds specific buildings, but to have the ability to place more effective defenses (and/or more varied defenses) in a few specific areas. Right now the Galaxy is quite "flat", the only topology aspects militarily relevant being starlane-induced chokepoints, number of planets in a system, some location-specific stealth enhancers, and (marginally, for Solarweb only) Star Type.
I propose to change that (enemies choosing to attack somewhere else being exactly the point) and I really think that it would make for much more interesting warfare.
Balancing carefully so that it doesn't allow for overpowered chokepoints would be a requirement, though: a chokepoint is interesting gameplay-wise if it temporarily protects parts of the Empire, not if it renders attack entirely impossible.
Planetary Starlane Drive would need to be accounted for too, of course.

The fact that defenses can't move are a constant of military history and is part of the difficult equilibrium every military leader has to make between fortification (by definition static) and troop building, I don't see why FreeOrion should be different. It adds strategic deepness, it doesn't reduce it.
It would also create other strategic hard decisions : build Hadrian Wall defenses (let's call them that for now) early in the game where they will be mostly useless later in the game (at least until Planetary Starlane Drive is researched) or try to survive without them in order to keep the capacity to build them later in a more strategic place ?

Note also that future versions of the game are supposed to be much less of a planet-grabbing frenzy that it is now, so some defense rings may keep their utility for a much longer time if the strategy has been planned correctly.
Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 3:55 pm We have defense focus to simulate that kind of rebuild/scrap without having to do many mouse clicks and sweeps.
Indeed, and I always forget to take that into account, thank you for pointing it. But any planet can be put on Defense Focus so it doesn't make for a real military topology, thus lessening the strategic aspects of the game.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#24 Post by Oberlus »

Changing focus to defense implies a sacrifice: no pop-based PP/RP production. And you pay it for as long as it is set.
Also, it is just that planet the one that benefits for the increases defense, and (obviously) a planet has topological implications: it is just where it is.
Any planet can be put to defense, the same that any planet can build defense buildings.
I mean, everything you say above applies to both buildings and focus. And I understand the discusion is about focus or buildings. So focus it shall be.
If you are talking about something else, it is not clear from your post.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#25 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 14, 2020 10:02 pm Any planet can be put to defense, the same that any planet can build defense buildings.
Not with Infrastructure Upkeep mechanism, that's the whole point of it.
To be clear, obviously any planet (with the exception of those who would need to host other infrastructure-consuming buildings, and that's already a difference) can build defense buildings, but that's not a choice to be made light-heartedly² as only a small subset of planets will be able to do it - that's a big difference with Defense focus where there is indeed a price to pay as you aptly pointed but it is still possible to put all the planets in a sector to Defense.

I don't really understand how you fail to see this ?
As you seem to miss that defenses on one planet helps the whole strategy³, not only the planet it is on ?

As I said on another topic, I'm certainly less experienced a player than most of you. But still it seems clear to me that Defense focus is on the line of "big stacks of ship against big stacks of ships (+planet defenses)" while non-spamalot defense buildings is actually inciting to strategic thinking.

To be certain that we are on the same page, let me make clear that in my idea, we should conceive the Infrastructure Upkeep formula so that about one-tenth of the Empire planets only would be able to build defense buildings, and even less heavy-duty ones.
That would make for a really polarized space imho, what the game certainly needs.

Note also that different defense buildings (only a few of them being constructible on the same planet) would make for different defense compositions, which Defense focus cannot achieve.

Oh, and as a side note I realized that calling these defenses Hadrian Wall is misleading, they're more like bastions, so let's call them that.

¹ To be honest I forgot that to be efficient, setting a planet on Defense focus needs to be done many turns before the planet will be engaged in a fight, meaning good planning is needed ahead. So that's a point for you, indeed.
² I mean as long as scraping/rebuilding is heavily penalized, as we discussed on another topic. Actually I think that scraping a building should remove 90% of its upkeep cost, not all of it - so scraping and rebuilding can only get one so far.
³ At least the whole local strategy

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#26 Post by LienRag »

Note also that we can give quite efficient - but heavily infrastructure-consuming - defenses early in the technology tree, allowing an Empire to defend part of its territory while being still vulnerable everywhere else.
That seems to me a boon comparing to the situation we have now, where early game Protection focus is nearly useless and thus Empires are uniformly either too weak or quite powerful, leaving few room for maneuver.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#27 Post by Oberlus »

You can set all the planets of a sector to defense, if you want. But then you lose a big chunk of your production.
If you build defenses in every planet of a sector something similar happens with the infrastructure: you make a sacrifice.

The differences between both are that one needs constructing buildings and the other needs setting planetary focus.

If you can do it without local-effect buildings, that's better.
What's so hard to understand?

If you are talking about buildings that enhance the defenses of more than one planet (contrary to defense focus that only increases the defenses of that planet), could you be so kind to tell it clearly? Because you haven't said so, so far.
And if you are talking about buildings that enhace the defense of only the planet in which they are build, this conversation is finished.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#28 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 12:35 am You can set all the planets of a sector to defense, if you want. But then you lose a big chunk of your production.
If you build defenses in every planet of a sector something similar happens with the infrastructure: you make a sacrifice.
With the proposed Infrastructure Upkeep mechanism, there would be absolutely no way to build bastion defenses in every planet of a sector, so that's not actually similar, no.
I am in favor of an Upkeep formula for Infrastructure that is highly exponential for buildings of the same type, in order to actually prevent spamalot.
Oberlus wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 12:35 am If you are talking about buildings that enhance the defenses of more than one planet (contrary to defense focus that only increases the defenses of that planet), could you be so kind to tell it clearly? Because you haven't said so, so far.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about buildings that enhance the defense of one planet or system¹, which has rippling effects (strategic effects, not game mechanisms) for the systems around it (the most basic being that one can put a fleet of high-speed ships on it, protected by the planetary defenses and menacing all the systems close to it).

I don't understand how you don't get that special defense buildings polarize the galaxy in a way Defense focus (or raising defense through tech empire-wide) cannot, and that it's something we most definitely want ?
In addition to Defense focus of course, not removing it.


¹ Though the conversation made me think that buildings that do have light defensive effects in a radius around them (a bit like lighthouses affect ship speed) would be interesting indeed. Especially if Morale is introduced some day, Bastions lessening morale of ships fighting in nearby systems would definitely help enriching the possible strategies.

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

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#29 Post by Oberlus »

Assuming that losing infrastructure in a planet has some detrimental effect to the planets production, such as
  1. a penalization to flat bonuses,
  2. a deceleration of meter growth, or
  3. not being able to build something that boost production,
then we get the following:
  1. Defense boosting buildings that can be "built everywhere"*
    boost the defense of the planet they are built on,
    with the trade-off that you lose production on that planet
    due to infrastructure penalty.
    * (as long as you meet any extra requirement such as having enough infrastructure)
  2. Defense planetary focus
    boost the defense of the planet it is set on,
    with the trade-off that you lose production on that planet
    due to the absence of industry/research focus.
I see a clear similarity/resemblance/likeness there.
If you still can't, LienRag, I hope my text formatting makes it clearer for you.

Topologically, both are identical: they cause a localized effect, instead of empire-wide.

Now the differences:

With version 1 you get a mild production penalization in that planet (as per the assumption at the start of this post).

With version 2 you get a strong penalization (no PP or RP focus-bound production, which is most of it) in that planet for all the time the defense focus is set.


Pros of version 2 (focus) over version 1 (buildings):
  • Enhancing defenses requires less actions (select planet + set focus <<< select planet + search for buildings in list + queue buildings + micromanage queue)
  • Removing defenses requires less actions (select planet + set focus << select planet + scrap each of the buildings)
  • The effect is rather consistent with other FreeOrion trade-offs: you can set a single focus per planet.
  • The penalization is stronger and much clear.
  • From the above, it is simpler to understand when first reading about it and much simpler to manage during game.
  • It doesn't introduce several new buildings that can be built in several places, while we are trying to get rid of other buildings like that to make FreeOrion easier and faster to play.
Pros of version 1 (buildings) over version 2 (focus):
  • LienRag likes it, and adopting it could help him stop saying that "I don't understand how you don't get it", which pisses me off and makes a fool of himself.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Planetary defense redesign

#30 Post by LienRag »

To help me better understand your position, can you tell me in a real game how long a planet needs to be on Defense focus for it to be efficient ?

I don't use it very often, so maybe it's my lack of experience talking.

Also, another factor for the obvious mutual incomprehension¹ is probably that I am subjectively influenced by other games and by usual understanding of what is a building, namely something that once build, stays build.
Apparently you're used to "build, scrap, rebuild elsewhere" gameplay, and on that premise you are right, if defenses can be scrapped and rebuild at low cost, then your proposition of having only Defense focus instead of both focus and special buildings is better.

Is the fact that building should be easily scrapped and rebuild elsewhere for no additional cost set in stone in FreeOrion's core design principles ?
If so you are right to say that this conversation is finished, as it renders my proposition an invitation to micro-management, and of course I don't want that either.

Your list of "pros" for your proposition vs mine is something I can mostly agree with², but your list of "pros" for mine vs yours is not very constructive since you (voluntarily?) omitted the one I explained earlier, that it made for more varied defenses, which was one of the OP's objectives if I understand it correctly.
Not counting the (very important imho) part about adding geography to the game (which is desperately in need of it) that you seem to either not understand or not consider important.
I don't see how it can be constructive to make a incomplete or biased comparison this way.


Also your forgot (or maybe overlooked? that could explain your absolute opposition to my proposition, since it's an important part of making it not spamalot) in the "trade-offs" for putting bastion defenses on a planet that it would not only bring production/research/influence reduction through consumption of infrastructure, but also prevent these bastion defenses from being built elsewhere (highlighting Sun Zu's maxim "to strengthen a location, you have to weaken another").
That is the main difference between bastion defenses and Defense focus, and the reason I think we should have both.

Also, could you point me where in the core design principles it is written that "we try to get rid of buildings that can be build in several places" ? I was under the impression that both the design principles and the general consensus were that we are trying to get rid of spamalot and no brainers (which I approve), but since the Infrastructure Upkeep mechanism that is central to making these Bastion defenses work prevents spamalot and no-brainers, we can (and I think we should) have buildings that can be build in several places as building them will require hard strategic planning, which is something we want.

Maybe I should make a different topic to present clearly this Infrastructure Upkeep mechanism, that would help understand why I think having different levels of building effects (supply-wide, area-wide, system-wide, planet-only) is now possible and enriching rather than problematic ?


¹Sorry to be pissing you off, that was not my intent, but there seems to be something that one or both of us are not understanding in the other's reasoning and I wanted to try to pinpoint what it is - in our conversation about GGG it was both that I didn't know that Outposts don't raise upkeep and that we usually play on different Galaxy settings and thus have different game experiences.
Besides, IIRC you used first the phrase "what's hard to understand?" so I felt that you would not take it as an insult, which it wasn't.

²With the exception that you make it "focus vs buildings" rather than "focus only vs both buildings and focus"

Post Reply