Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

Creation, discussion, and balancing of game content such as techs, buildings, ship parts.

Moderators: Oberlus, Committer

Message
Author
Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS (+discussion of continuous scanning)

#1 Post by Ophiuchus »

Any ideas/input for changing policy checkpoints?

The good: its an alternative to scanning policy using a different slot and a different tradeoff

The bad: combining with scanning is two levels of stealth, which i think is too much

The ugly: adopting both policies makes detection grow by +2 per turn (cant decide if good or not)

my first idea was to make it more flufflike: switch it to decreasing stealth (-20) and only apply it inside own supply (so it works only as a defense).

my second idea was to give only a small detection boost (+5) and decrease stealth of ships (-15), but not planets

i actually kind of like the current supply tradeoff, for a traditional empire it can be quite crippling (as it is not so cheap to get extra supply). for a distributed one it is quite possible to use. and it is fitting the fluff (the checkpoints hinder commerce).

i would rather get rid of the influence malus (or only apply it if there is zero supply on the planet)

decreasing stealth in supply has the usual +1 turn warts

i think decreasing supply plus only applying inside of supply is way too much. maybe keep the -1 supply and apply the stealth decrease slightly outside of supply (e.g. two hops for ships, also on starlanes between those).

to prevent adoption of both policies, we could simply forbid that or use the maximum of both (so e.g. one could switch from one to the other without downtime)

edit: for 0.5 a poll was used to flesh out the details.
the implementation for that is in PR-4230
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Wed Oct 12, 2022 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#2 Post by LienRag »

The Supply penalty being brutal, I haven't even tried this Policy in any game that I played since Influence began.
But yes, together with Continuuous Scanning it's way too powerful, basically interdicting to play Stealth.

But I'd say that banning the combination of the two is quite lame, it's not good game design to rely on arbitrary forbidding things (especially there since the fluff is perfectly compatible for the two Policies) in order to cover difficulties in balancing game parts.

I'd say the best solution would be to keep Checkpoints as is and reform Continuous Scanning, which is broken anyway.
Nothing in the fluff says that Continuous Scanning should be unlocked that early, actually.

So, since Checkpoints are not that easy to unlock, making Continuous Scanning unlocked later in the game would have only advantages imho, allowing early stealth with Flux or Symbiots (or even Asteroid in some cases), and making the combination of CS and Checkpoints less a problem.
Especially if we follow my suggestion to have more Detection techs that 4, in order to go up to 300 Detection value : then Checkpoints and CS could be an alternative to the higher-costs Detection techs, without making the stealth strategy moot.

Also, later in the game there are more interesting military Policies so going for CS would not be the no-brainer that it is now when one doesn't want to himself go stealthy.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#3 Post by Oberlus »

Continuous Scanning:
Effects: +5 detection range and -10 stealth to your ships, +20 empire detection (+1 per turn).
Fluff: the empire radars work with extra intensity, both making others and themselves harder to pass unnoticed.

I would also add a planet stealth malus of -10. Planets are also emitting stronger radar signals.


Checkpoints:
Effects: -0.5 IP and -1 supply to owned populated planets, +20 empire detection.
Fluff: The empire sets up border checkpoints in the space to control everything that flies inside and outside of its space, getting more knowledge, but that costs some effort (influence).
Yes, thanks to the "checkpoints" (whatever they really are, I guess they are not cops in astronaut suits with light signs floating at different orbits on every owned system) 10 jumps away from where your scout is, your scout has +20 detection.
The whole policy gives me the chills. Just the concept of checkpoint in open, vast space is so hard to swallow that I would remove the whole policy and forget about it.
But, Checkpoints could be about less supply, less stockpiling, more stability and more influence from a better control of the empire's trade and information exchange. And maybe make it also incompatible with Liberty and/or Diversity.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#4 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:26 pm The whole policy gives me the chills. Just the concept of checkpoint in open, vast space is so hard to swallow that I would remove the whole policy and forget about it.
Yep, fluff-wise it certainly is bad. But it's not the only one and I quite like the trade-off between supply and detection (which itself isn't that bad for immersion, it's mostly the name and the icon that breaks it).

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#5 Post by Oberlus »

Isolation already gives stealth for supply.

Daybreak
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#6 Post by Daybreak »

LienRag wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:58 pm
Oberlus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 2:26 pm The whole policy gives me the chills. Just the concept of checkpoint in open, vast space is so hard to swallow that I would remove the whole policy and forget about it.
Yep, fluff-wise it certainly is bad. But it's not the only one and I quite like the trade-off between supply and detection (which itself isn't that bad for immersion, it's mostly the name and the icon that breaks it).
Although ships have to use a starlane, so its not that far out there, that the end of starlane can be monitored. I wonder if there can be a malus for checkpoints if a system has many starlanes.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5714
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#7 Post by Oberlus »

Hmmm... If starlanes are like the wormholes of Vorkosigan's saga universe, that makes sense. Checkpoints are then observation stations near the spots of arrival/departure of ships.
The starlane count thing sounds interesting.

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#8 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 5:51 pm The starlane count thing sounds interesting.
Indeed.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#9 Post by wobbly »

LienRag wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:36 pm Also, later in the game there are more interesting military Policies so going for CS would not be the no-brainer that it is now when one doesn't want to himself go stealthy.
Seems to me that this policy is a fairly rare game choice for something that is supposedly a "no brainer". There's plenty of competition for the military slot.

I disagree with continuous scanning being broken. On the contrary I think poor research races have a very hard time dealing with the base symbiot hull without this policy existing.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#10 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 1:54 pm
LienRag wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:36 pm Also, later in the game there are more interesting military Policies so going for CS would not be the no-brainer that it is now when one doesn't want to himself go stealthy.
Seems to me that this policy is a fairly rare game choice for something that is supposedly a "no brainer". There's plenty of competition for the military slot.
from my experience yet: choose it only if researching detection is just not enough

design simplicity is always welcome for military and colony ships

if you are at a border you want probably at least one of the weapon boosts

if you are far from the border first slot is exploration, if you have another it is usually not pressing to have detection. a bit different in an fixed alliance game, one could provide detection-as-a-service.

also if you want to hide your ships you cant really use the policy

it is kind of a no-brainer if you need detection fast, have the IP and the other options (detection tech/checkpoints policy) are worse. but that is not a bad thing. so "no-brainer" is probably the wrong way to spin it

so one question I think LienRag raises is if there is a good balance between continuous scanning and checkpoints policy. i also guess is that checkpoints is 80% less usable than continuous scanning for a supply connected empire.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#11 Post by wobbly »

The fluff is even worse when you consider that you have "border checkpoints" inside the heart of your enemies space.

I think its worth weighing up the balance between "detection" policies and "stealth" policies. Currently detection takes less policies and gives a bigger bonus. Detection policies work for ships and planets. Stealth policies just work for planets. The supply malus on "no-supply" policy is of course greater then "checkpoints" policy, a smaller bonus and only works for planets.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#12 Post by Ophiuchus »

wobbly wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 5:27 am The fluff is even worse when you consider that you have "border checkpoints" inside the heart of your enemies space.
this is one of the reasons why i suggested to apply instead a malus inside (and slightly outside) supply
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#13 Post by Ophiuchus »

LienRag wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:36 pm But I'd say that banning the combination of the two is quite lame, it's not good game design to rely on arbitrary forbidding things (especially there since the fluff is perfectly compatible for the two Policies) in order to cover difficulties in balancing game parts.
1a)
yeah exclusion is not great. but balancing is balancing and more important. if nobody comes up with better ideas it is currently my fallback.

1b)
instead of hard exclusion, we could change the mali of those policies so the combination is extra bad. but not an idea how.

2a)
so exploring the idea of delaying the scanning policy (probably by having to build a "Interstellar Information Agency" building?)

2b)
probably wobbly is right for defense against symbionts without stealth parts? maybe those should come at stealth 10? i think active radar is ok counter against stealth parts also for bad research species.

2c)
another idea would be the incremental unstealthiness. so e.g. if normal stationary scanning would add +1 unstealthiness per turn, up to unstealthiness 7. and symbionts get e.g. 12 stealth, they would be discovered after 2 turns in scanning range, so if one places the basic scouts in the right place one would get at least a warning that the enemy is approaching

3)
btw the environment boni/mali are from geoff i think. and i like them. what i dont like much is that the starlanes are excluded, so passing by does not influence stealth. This is mitigated though by another thing i dont like - one can force hidden enemies to take a stop. I guess passing by a system should change the stealth value; the one turn delay here is probably fine.

4)
Any objections that there is consensus that checkpoints policy (as compared to scanning policy) is underpowered (i.e. that scanning policy compared to checkpoints policy is overpowered)?
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#14 Post by LienRag »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 1a)
yeah exclusion is not great. but balancing is balancing and more important. if nobody comes up with better ideas it is currently my fallback.
It is indeed a possible fallback, but a fallback should only be temporary.


Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 1b)
instead of hard exclusion, we could change the mali of those policies so the combination is extra bad. but not an idea how.
Why not, but no idea how either.



Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 2b)
probably wobbly is right for defense against symbionts without stealth parts? maybe those should come at stealth 10? i think active radar is ok counter against stealth parts also for bad research species.
No. That's the point of Symbionts, they allow for early stealth strategy, it's an improvement to the game.
And since they don't have much fuel, they're usually not usable for deep penetration into enemy territory.
So not unbalanced at all, it's Continuous Scanning that removed this ability and as such is unbalanced.

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 2c)
another idea would be the incremental unstealthiness. so e.g. if normal stationary scanning would add +1 unstealthiness per turn, up to unstealthiness 7. and symbionts get e.g. 12 stealth, they would be discovered after 2 turns in scanning range, so if one places the basic scouts in the right place one would get at least a warning that the enemy is approaching
Changing Continuous Scanning to work this way looks interesting indeed. But it shouldn't be the default behavior of scouts imho.
Needs testing though, to check that it doesn't lead to boring micromanagement of scouts.


Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 3)
btw the environment boni/mali are from geoff i think. and i like them. what i dont like much is that the starlanes are excluded, so passing by does not influence stealth. This is mitigated though by another thing i dont like - one can force hidden enemies to take a stop. I guess passing by a system should change the stealth value; the one turn delay here is probably fine.
Oh, I thought it was you. Anyway it's a good addition to the game.
But yes, starlanes are excluded. It's coherent with the fluff for Star brightness but way less so for Fleet Unstealthiness indeed.
Not sure that the solution is modifying by "passing by a system" but just to compute the number of ships at the same position on the starlane ? IIRC when splitting fleet on a starlane you pointed that it was possible to make this sort of calculations.



Ophiuchus wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 8:32 am 4)
Any objections that there is consensus that checkpoints policy (as compared to scanning policy) is underpowered (i.e. that scanning policy compared to checkpoints policy is overpowered)?
No, your statement is correct.

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Changing PLC_CHECKPOINTS

#15 Post by wobbly »

LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:51 am No. That's the point of Symbionts, they allow for early stealth strategy, it's an improvement to the game.
And since they don't have much fuel, they're usually not usable for deep penetration into enemy territory.
So not unbalanced at all, it's Continuous Scanning that removed this ability and as such is unbalanced.
This is not actually true. Symbiot carriers don't have much fuel. Symbiots themselves have 4 with a double fuel tank and 6 with deuterium fuel.

Post Reply