FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:02 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
(Edit: Original title of this thread: "Allow outposting of enemy outposts if undefended")

I think it could be good for the game to allow that an outpost (or colony) ship can outpost (or colonise) an enemy outposted planet if it has zero defenses (has been attacked and flatened previouys turn) and there are no enemy armed ships in the system.

This would allow for no-offensive-troops species to invade bombarded-to-death (ergo reverted to outpost state) planets. Related to this species suggestion and this comments on them.

Edit:
Summary of the thread:


No, it's a bad idea to allow outpost ships to outpost over enemy outposts. Instead (globally accepted):
Geoff the Medio wrote:
add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts, after which the now-empty planet could be re-outposted like normal
It's in the TO-DO list of The Silent One.


Last edited by Oberlus on Fri May 25, 2018 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 10:10 pm 
Offline
AI Lead, Programmer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 4646
Oberlus wrote:
This would allow for no-offensive-troops species to invade bombarded-to-death (ergo reverted to outpost state) planets.[/url].
Sounds like this is mostly just a convoluted way to partially get around a no-offensive-troops limitation, with perhaps some added element of enabling possibly-cheaper outpost invasions against empires who have strong defensive troop techs.

I think the much better answer is "Don't make a playable species with no-offensive-troops unless you are willing to let them wait for Exobots before doing any invasion."

_________________
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 11:17 pm 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
Dilvish wrote:
Oberlus wrote:
This would allow for no-offensive-troops species to invade bombarded-to-death (ergo reverted to outpost state) planets.[/url].
Sounds like this is mostly just a convoluted way to partially get around a no-offensive-troops limitation, with perhaps some added element of enabling possibly-cheaper outpost invasions against empires who have strong defensive troop techs.

I think the much better answer is "Don't make a playable species with no-offensive-troops unless you are willing to let them wait for Exobots before doing any invasion."
I disagree:
Regular way of invasion requires building armed ships to wipe out defenses and building troop ships to finish the invasion.
What I suggest here can not be cheaper, it requires building the same armed ships plus ships equiped with bomb weapons to wipe out the planetary forces plus the outpost ship. It's true that the bomber ships can be reused while the troopers cannot, but the player using troopers can also use bombers to ease up the planetary troops. Also, this apparent cheapness you see here comes paired with the innability to get already populated planets.

I think your "much better answer" is actually one of the worst. Adding new mechanics to the game that do not present any balance or implementation problem and allow for new strategies should always be welcome (a different story is to be implemented).

Bottom line is: so you don't like the Nereda idea, do you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline
AI Lead, Programmer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 4646
Oberlus wrote:
I think it could be good for the game to allow that an outpost (or colony) ship can outpost (or colonise) an enemy outposted planet if it has zero defenses (has been attacked and flatened previouys turn) and there are no enemy armed ships in the system.


Oberlus wrote:
What I suggest here can not be cheaper, it requires building the same armed ships plus ships equiped with bomb weapons to wipe out the planetary forces plus the outpost ship.
I don't see anything in your description above that creates some requirement of bombardment.

Quote:
but the player using troopers can also use bombers to ease up the planetary troops.
Perhaps you are thinking of some other game, like MOO. I just double checked and I don't see any current bombardment options in FO for killing troopers (edit: just to note that killing pop can reduce troopers, but not totally eliminate them).

Quote:
Also, this apparent cheapness you see here comes paired with the innability to get already populated planets.
Although you mentioned a particular species as the motivation for the new mechanism, your proposal did not include any restriction that this be a special species-power.

Quote:
I think your "much better answer" is actually one of the worst. Adding new mechanics to the game that do not present any balance or implementation problem and allow for new strategies should always be welcome (a different story is to be implemented).
Lol wow. "One of the worst" huh? You're really that offended that I used the word "convoluted" or something? I can only guess I would fan your ire even more if I question the assertion that the idea presents no balance or implementation problems, so I'll just, ah, I guess I'll just have to deal with that.

Quote:
Bottom line is: so you don't like the Nereda idea, do you?
I hadn't looked at them enough to have a real opinion about them. I had the strong impression that their author liked them just fine even though they need to wait on Exobots or xeno-species to do invasions. Are you seeing this idea as a gift to the Nerada, and if I oppose the gift then you think I must dislike the Nerada? And you bring it up because you want to make their author think that I dislike his idea? Why do that to him?

_________________
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
Dilvish wrote:
I don't see anything in your description above that creates some requirement of bombardment.
I said "undefended", maybe ambiguous but not incorrect. However, now that I've made it more explicit, I assume you already catch what I meant.

Dilvish wrote:
Quote:
but the player using troopers can also use bombers to ease up the planetary troops.
Perhaps you are thinking of some other game, like MOO. I just double checked and I don't see any current bombardment options in FO for killing troopers (edit: just to note that killing pop can reduce troopers, but not totally eliminate them).
Perhaps, but you're wrong. I was referring to that exact mechanic you mentioned in the parenthesis.

Dilvish wrote:
Although you mentioned a particular species as the motivation for the new mechanism, your proposal did not include any restriction that this be a special species-power.
I see no reason to restrict the suggested mechanic to a particular (set of) species. If one can take over undefended outposts with no troop ships, I see no reason to forbid the others to do the same. So have no clue why are you commenting this particular bit.

So far I haven't identified any problem with the suggestion. Is any of your objections still unanswered?


Dilvish wrote:
Quote:
I think your "much better answer" is actually one of the worst. Adding new mechanics to the game that do not present any balance or implementation problem and allow for new strategies should always be welcome (a different story is to be implemented).
Lol wow. "One of the worst" huh? You're really that offended that I used the word "convoluted" or something?
I got offended for the general tone of your answer, but I'm already used to that. I'm well aware that neither you nor I have good social skills and that for some reasons we can't get along with each other, but we have to cope with it.
This said, the motivation of my answer wasn't that perceived offense that you correctly detected (if that was the case, I would have just ignored you and waited for more sensitive and reasonable people to come to the thread, as has been the case in the past). If I'm answering this is because I not comfortable with the idea of leaving you with so many wrong misconceptions. Although the important ones are not related to your attitude but to your understanting (confussion) regardless this suggestion.


Dilvish wrote:
I can only guess I would fan your ire even more if I question the assertion that the idea presents no balance or implementation problems, so I'll just, ah, I guess I'll just have to deal with that.
Dude, you may be so ballbuster when you want... but that's not the point here. The point here was to discuss a new mechanic suggestion, not the anger you perceive in me or the antipathy I feel from you.

I will answer any reasonable objections you may have (as the ones that you have already posted and I have replied to, showing they didn't apply or were wrong), and I will acknowledge any actual problem you find in this suggestion of mine (so far none). But if the only argument you have is this last quote, I can't help wondering why do you take the time to answer? It's so lame. You are supposed to be smarter than that. You already know that leaving alone (unanswered) a suggestion you don't like is enough to make it die off. Therefore, I'm tempted to believe that the only (maybe unconscious) motivation of yours to comment in most of my suggestions, most of the time with this openly disdainful tone even when you have no sound arguments to support your animadversion, is that you don't like me, and that would explain this headlong rush of yours into an ego fight of some sort.

Since I get into the forum, I've got a handful of private messages. One was from another dev recommending me ways to learn git and be able to contribute (someday) to FO. All the rest were from you, unsolicited, all antagonist, beginning with the first one in which you let me know my English understanding was so bad that I should not participate in your discussions (remember? the details may be wrong since I already deleted that message to help me forget that side of you, in any case you were apparently mad/righteous at me because I was siding with Geoff in that silly discussion about discarding invested PPs in a batch when changing the number of units: in the end your calculations were the right ones and Geoff's reason for that unsolicited change were wrong, but your attitude towards me in the private messages that happened back then was shameful).

I mean: it's clear to me that you, at least sometimes, dislike me. So, bloody hell, will you ever just ignore me? That means not answering my posts at all (at least as long as no other dev comes in to give me the thumbsup). I'm convinced that strategy would be optimal for both of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:22 pm 
Offline
AI Lead, Programmer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm
Posts: 4646
Oberlus wrote:
Dilvish wrote:
I don't see anything in your description above that creates some requirement of bombardment.
I said "undefended", maybe ambiguous but not incorrect. However, now that I've made it more explicit, I assume you already catch what I meant.
Ah, no, I am afraid I find myself unenlightened. The best guess I can come up with is one that still doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:
So far I haven't identified any problem with the suggestion. Is any of your objections still unanswered?
'Answered' in the very broadest meaning of the word, perhaps. I think that when we consider changing/adding game mechanics, we put much more care into reviewing the pros and cons than what has been accomplished in this discussion so far. If you think I'm wrong on that and you want to hope that a dev will champion the idea based on its presentation so far, or if you just want to wait and see if the basic idea catches the imagination of someone else willing to do the more careful planning and discussion, then that's your call.

_________________
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 9:58 am 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
Ok, let's play dumb.


The suggestion is to allow for an outpost to take over an enemy outposted planet if the following conditions are met:
- The target outposted planet has no defending troops (i.e. no one to defend the planet).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary shields (the cyan-ish bubble that covers the planet until enemy ships take it down via shooting).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary defenses (the pew pew from the planet surface that kills enemy ships)
- There are no enemy armed ships in the system (they could pew pew your outpost ship, so it seems reasonable to ask for this in advance).
- There are allied armed ships in the system (presumably the ones that took down planetary defenses in previous turn).

For those that are new to FreeOrion, like Dilvish:
- Should a planet have defending troops, they can be eliminated via bombardment, currently the only way you can do that without using invading troops.


How about that, Dilvish? Can I get now a serious answer from you instead of another round of trolling? Or, instead of a serious answer, I could use some silence from your side if there is nothing valuable to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12223
Location: Munich
Oberlus wrote:
The suggestion is to allow for an outpost to take over an enemy outposted planet if the following conditions are met:
- The target outposted planet has no defending troops (i.e. no one to defend the planet).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary shields (the cyan-ish bubble that covers the planet until enemy ships take it down via shooting).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary defenses (the pew pew from the planet surface that kills enemy ships)
- There are no enemy armed ships in the system (they could pew pew your outpost ship, so it seems reasonable to ask for this in advance).
- There are allied armed ships in the system (presumably the ones that took down planetary defenses in previous turn).
So if two empires bring outpost ships to a system and nothing else, whoever creates an outpost first can have it replaced on the next turn by whoever waits?

Regardless, the concept of outposting or colonizing on top of another empire's outpost seems rather odd to me. The point of ground troops is to take over other empires' planets... Making this doable with outpost ships rather blurs their distinction, and somewhat reduces the importance of bringing troops for conquest. It would make more sense to me to add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts, after which the now-empty planet could be re-outposted like normal. Alternatively, if being able to take over outposts without troops is needed as a special ability, it could be done with a specialized bombardment ship part that is usable with certain species. Such a part would probably only be producible on planets with a species that can use it.

Regarding (plural) your apparent fued, please avoid assuming any unpleasant "tone" in a forum post. Instead, attempt to read / interpret someone else's posts as through written to be polite and helpful or interested.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 12:13 pm 
Offline
Psionic Snowflake

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Posts: 483
Oberlus wrote:
Should a planet have defending troops, they can be eliminated via bombardment, currently the only way you can do that without using invading troops.

I am aware you can bombard to kill population (so reduce them to outpost status). But a human player will probably invest 10RP to get five troops on every planet which you cant eliminate using bombardment.

So you basically suggest thats its possible to bomb natives into nirvana and then take over the empty outpost to claim the planet?

Or do you also suggest changing the bombardment mechanic?

_________________
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1414
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Oberlus wrote:
The suggestion is to allow for an outpost to take over an enemy outposted planet if the following conditions are met:
- The target outposted planet has no defending troops (i.e. no one to defend the planet).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary shields (the cyan-ish bubble that covers the planet until enemy ships take it down via shooting).
- The target outposted planet has no planetary defenses (the pew pew from the planet surface that kills enemy ships)
- There are no enemy armed ships in the system (they could pew pew your outpost ship, so it seems reasonable to ask for this in advance).
- There are allied armed ships in the system (presumably the ones that took down planetary defenses in previous turn).
So if two empires bring outpost ships to a system and nothing else, whoever creates an outpost first can have it replaced on the next turn by whoever waits?

Regardless, the concept of outposting or colonizing on top of another empire's outpost seems rather odd to me. The point of ground troops is to take over other empires' planets... Making this doable with outpost ships rather blurs their distinction, and somewhat reduces the importance of bringing troops for conquest. It would make more sense to me to add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts, after which the now-empty planet could be re-outposted like normal. Alternatively, if being able to take over outposts without troops is needed as a special ability, it could be done with a specialized bombardment ship part that is usable with certain species. Such a part would probably only be producible on planets with a species that can use it.

Regarding (plural) your apparent fued, please avoid assuming any unpleasant "tone" in a forum post. Instead, attempt to read / interpret someone else's posts as through written to be polite and helpful or interested.


Bombardment being able to remove outposts seems like the best solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
Geoff the Medio wrote:
So if two empires bring outpost ships to a system and nothing else, whoever creates an outpost first can have it replaced on the next turn by whoever waits?
Nope, because there are no allied armed troops in the system.
Agree with the rest of your comment. And mostly:
Krikkitone wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
It would make more sense to me to add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts, after which the now-empty planet could be re-outposted like normal.
Bombardment being able to remove outposts seems like the best solution
You're absolutely right. Much better than my suggestion.

Would it be sufficient to make that the standard mechanic of (any) bombardment weapong when fired over an outpost is to revert the planet to unowned?

Geoff the Medio wrote:
Regarding (plural) your apparent fued, please avoid assuming any unpleasant "tone" in a forum post. Instead, attempt to read / interpret someone else's posts as through written to be polite and helpful or interested.
I appreciate the advice, sincerely.

Ophiuchus wrote:
So you basically suggest thats its possible to bomb natives into nirvana and then take over the empty outpost to claim the planet?
Or do you also suggest changing the bombardment mechanic?
I thought (but I don't know for sure) that bombardment already has chances to reduce defending troops of the planet. And I'm thinking on any kind of planet, natives also, but mostly owned by enemy empires.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline
Graphics
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Posts: 712
Krikkitone wrote:
Bombardment being able to remove outposts seems like the best solution
Totally agree. I intend to resume work on fixing/improving the bombard mechanic at some not-too-distant point in the future, and this would be part of it.

_________________
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 2:06 pm 
Offline
Release Manager, Design
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 4561
Location: Sol III
Geoff the Medio wrote:
It would make more sense to me to add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts
This. Definitely this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:54 am
Posts: 40
Vezzra wrote:
Geoff the Medio wrote:
It would make more sense to me to add a capability for bombardment to remove outposts
This. Definitely this.

I also agree with this.

But just to be clear: Is it possible for players to bombard a planet's pop to zero? (I have seen monsters do this.) Then zero pop world reverts to outpost? Which means enabling this feature will additionally enable bombarding enemy empires out of systems?

Just want to be clear that this will enable this game play option as I understand it.
Because this opens a significant strategy option. The construction of doom stack plus bombard + 1 solar means you can just run this stack behind enemy lines and just keep bombing colonies out of existence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 5:12 pm 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 595
Gault.Drakkor wrote:
Is it possible for players to bombard a planet's pop to zero? (I have seen monsters do this.) Then zero pop world reverts to outpost? Which means enabling this feature will additionally enable bombarding enemy empires out of systems?
Yes to all three questions.

Gault.Drakkor wrote:
The construction of doom stack plus bombard + 1 solar means you can just run this stack behind enemy lines and just keep bombing colonies out of existence.
Yes. I envision you would need at least two turns to wipe out a system: one to get all pops to 0 and revert them to outposts, one to bombard(remove) the outposts.
The equivalent scorched land strategy with no outpost-removing bombard capabilities would require the same ships (doom stack with bombers and one solar), go as twice as fast but not removing outposts.
This means in 10 turns the outpost-removing version completely wipes out 5 systems and the other gets 10 reverted to outposts.
Rebuilding steps for outpost-removing version is building outposts/colonisers while for the other version it just needs to regain supply over the systems and start colony buildings (that gets you planets back to the colony state in less time).
So maybe both versions would be somehow balanced, thanks to that effect of outpost-removal requiring an additional turn. Unless... If the attacker can have two fleets (huge+tyne, the tiny one just the necessary for removing a few just-reverted outposts and going always one turn behind the huge one) and the defendant could can't harass the tiny fleet, then the outpost-removing version allows for a new, certainly more aggressive/damaging, scorched-land strategy.

However I think this won't be an issue, on the contrary, it can be good. Correct me other players with more experience or that have mess up with FO in more original ways than me, but I have the impression that bombardment weapons are seldom if ever used (and this means that scorched-land strategy is also seldom used), because conquering populated colonies is always better to achieve dominance than wiping them out (you not only reduce enemy's power but also increase yours), and this underutilisation of bombardment happens even when the fleet required for the scorched-land strategy is cheaper than, and doesn't require the logistics micromanagement of, the strategies that use troop ships to invade. So this outposting-removal capabilities could both give interest to bombardment parts and allow new strategies.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group