Bioterror description is wrong

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Post Reply
Message
Author
wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Bioterror description is wrong

#1 Post by wobbly »

"Gives the planet on which it is built the Bioterror focus, which decreases Population on enemy planets within 4 starlane jumps at a rate of 2 per turn, provided the enemy empire does not contain a Genome Bank."

What it actually does is reduce max pop by 4.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#2 Post by Vezzra »

Please open a bug report issue on Github.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#3 Post by BlueAward »

Still present. I briefly considered some bioterror shenanigans against wobbly in MP23 because removing 2 pop a turn sounds nice, but checked in reality it lowers max pop by 4 which is bit underwhelming I think. Suppose 2 pop a turn kill would be too strong?

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

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#4 Post by Oberlus »

That building is irrelevant.

If it gets fixed, everybody will always build a genome bank in preparation for enemy bioterrors, it's cheap and easy to have. It is content that only gets attention once in life: first time someone does it to you and you realize genome banks are a must.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#5 Post by BlueAward »

Well I thought it is easy to ignore as long as someone had not researched bioterror and even then getting moon to build the projection base is sketchy. But late game I thought I can make a surprise for teh lulz by forward building transformer and then researching bioterror and voila you can project right away without much of notice or a moon. Transformer doesn't need a moon to project bioterror. But I guess if that worked that hard to drop 2 pop a turn everyone would have the counter indeed

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

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#6 Post by LienRag »

What's this moon discussion about ?
I have never used bioterror but I don't remember anything about a moon in it...

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#7 Post by BlueAward »

LienRag wrote: Sun May 14, 2023 9:45 pm What's this moon discussion about ?
I have never used bioterror but I don't remember anything about a moon in it...
Tbh I haven't checked but I believe the description says you need a moon to build bioterror base otherwise the populace would not accept it

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#8 Post by wobbly »

It requires the resonant moon special. It's rare to have it in the right place without building an artificial moon.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#9 Post by BlueAward »

wobbly wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 8:24 am It requires the resonant moon special. It's rare to have it in the right place without building an artificial moon.
Yeah thank you for confirming. But transformer does not require it so I was planning on surprising you for the lulz

wobbly
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1874
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#10 Post by wobbly »

Maybe the way to solve both problems is to boost the effect (-6 or-8?) and make the counter halve the effect instead of immunity? I'd keep the resonant moon req to make it situational.

Even better would be a full mechanical rework. I'm just floating a quick fix to make it interesting until someone wishes to give biowar some love.

Edit: alternative to flat number is planet size penalty e.g. -6 replaced with 3 growth specials equivalent.

BlueAward
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2022 3:15 am

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#11 Post by BlueAward »

wobbly wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 9:01 am Maybe the way to solve both problems is to boost the effect (-6 or-8?) and make the counter halve the effect instead of immunity? I'd keep the resonant moon req to make it situational.

Even better would be a full mechanical rework. I'm just floating a quick fix to make it interesting until someone wishes to give biowar some love.

Edit: alternative to flat number is planet size penalty e.g. -6 replaced with 3 growth specials equivalent.
Oh I like the 3 growth specials equivalent though would like the pop to reach that/fall sooner than naturally because it takes a while and not that useful in the window it takes to build genome bank. Still don't envision much use of it until organic structures and surprise transformer (rather than artificial moon build) but exactly because of that I would expect people to continue ignoring genome bank (though AI certainly does not ignore it) so maaaaybe just maybe it would have some use. Of course more can be said about it like maybe projecting stability hit but hey

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

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#12 Post by LienRag »

wobbly wrote: Mon May 15, 2023 9:01 am Even better would be a full mechanical rework.
Yeah.
Like Oberlus wrote, there's no real way to make it interesting as of now. And halving the malus would just make it impossible to defend against.

I also believe that there's no way to have it balanced before we have the Atrocities concept implemented.

Moriturus
Space Floater
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:03 pm

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#13 Post by Moriturus »

I have used bioterror very successfully against an AI opponent.

I had a system with 6 planets and another system close to it with four planets (liberal use of terraforming does wonders for population density and makes multi-planet systems that are hard for an enemy to invade). I looked at the layout and got an evil idea then built transformers on all of ten of them. Then I put together an invasion fleet, built a Starlane nexus, and turned all of them to the "bioterror projection" focus.

Because the six-planet system was on the edge of its galactic arm, this connected starlanes to six systems across the space between, suddenly putting about 12 enemy systems (those and six more behind them) within 2 jumps of this unholy mess. At the same time it connected to the other system I had prepared, with the additional four bioterror projection bases - meaning that the six enemy systems I'd connected to directly with the starlane nexus were now within two jumps of TEN bioterror projections, meaning minus forty to their max population.

While the Starlane nexus was building I had assembled an invasion fleet. The very first attack I made with it was on a system which was on the only route from the rest of the afflicted area back to the Capitol (and the genome bank) of the enemy empire. By having ships parked on that system (even before I was actually able to take the planets there) the entire afflicted area was "out of supply" to the genome bank and suddenly had -24 or -40 max pop.

Actual population fell quickly. Several entirely depopulated without a shot fired.

It was a coincidental opportunity - one that won't come up in every game. But AI opponents never build more than one genome bank, so it is a highly effective attack when the opportunity does arise.

It could easily be nerfed by limiting how many bioterror effects can stack, but I was pretty chuffed at my own cleverness at the time.

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

Re: Bioterror description is wrong

#14 Post by LienRag »

Moriturus wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 10:26 pm I was pretty chuffed at my own cleverness at the time.
You should ! It was indeed clever.
Nice feedback, BTW.

Post Reply