Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4971
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#46 Post by Vezzra » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:15 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:59 pm
It does not alleviate the situation where you build them to defend your older systems (instead of just recently conquered/colonised). And that is the most comon situation.
That is only possible because basic shipyards are way too cheap currently, and can be spammed everywhere. Which is an issue that needs fixing anyway. Once you can reasonably maintain only a limited amount of shipyards in selected key systems, I think discarding the base hull would help a lot. Of course, that would only alleviate the issue, not properly fix it.

Anyway, there has been no answer to my question above: is there any compelling reason to keep the base hull? I'd really like to get rid of it...

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#47 Post by o01eg » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:21 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:15 pm
Anyway, there has been no answer to my question above: is there any compelling reason to keep the base hull? I'd really like to get rid of it...
I use it to produce Base Outposts just after colony in the same system was established.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-8.3, boost-1.65.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2019-07-30.587d1c0.
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4971
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#48 Post by Vezzra » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:06 am

o01eg wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:21 pm
I use it to produce Base Outposts just after colony in the same system was established.
As do I, but I actually only do that because producing outpost ships at my main shipyards would be less effective/optimal, not because it's more convenient or less micromanagement - on the contrary. So, personally I wouldn't miss the base hull very much, if at all, hence my question to all the others: would you? Is there something that would become significantly more micromanagy or outright broken if we remove the base hull?

Jaumito
Space Kraken
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Location: Catalonia, France, Europe, Earth, Sol, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Cluster

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#49 Post by Jaumito » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:16 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:15 pm
Anyway, there has been no answer to my question above: is there any compelling reason to keep the base hull? I'd really like to get rid of it...
So would I. I'd take the lack of answers as a 'no' to your question :wink:

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead, Programmer
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#50 Post by Dilvish » Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm

I guess I don't see any real problems with removing the base hull, although I am doubtful that doing so would really do much to resolve the issues that we've been discussing here, particularly taking into account that the thus-far increase in cost to the base hull was just planned as an experimental first step which was to be further increased if it proved to be insufficient, and we've talked about increasing the build time for it also. It might also just lead to the spammed construction of basic shipyards everywhere.

The only real problems I saw anyone talk about were all about using the base hull for decoys in combat. The current cost was 3 per base, we talked about increasing that to 4 or 5; the latter is the same cost that small hulls can be built for. Once a shipyard is built (only takes 4 turns & 10 pp) the small hulls can be built in just two turns compared to the currently 3 turns (could be upped to 4 turns) for base hulls. Furthermore, since the small hulls can be moved they are flexibly deployable. I rather suspect that any player who made notable reliance on base hulls for decoys will just shift over to small hull decoys.

And unless/until we give colonies a way to specify that their defenses should attack unarmed enemies in system, the AI will probably need to replace the base-hull-comsats by deploying singleton small-hull pseudo-comsats to activate defenses against the various unarmed monsters which it is not so great at hunting down otherwise, but which shouldn't just be left free to grow and develop.

I'd rate the AI as still just mediocre at managing base-hull troops and whatnot, so I don't think that removing the base hull would really hurt the AI overall, it will just be a nuisance to have to code up the small-hull-pseudo-comsat handling, and I am rather doubtful that the removal of the base hull will help anything in combat.

So: concerns, but no significant objections to experimenting with removing the base hulls.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 426
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#51 Post by o01eg » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:50 pm

Dilvish wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm
The only real problems I saw anyone talk about were all about using the base hull for decoys in combat. The current cost was 3 per base, we talked about increasing that to 4 or 5; the latter is the same cost that small hulls can be built for. Once a shipyard is built (only takes 4 turns & 10 pp) the small hulls can be built in just two turns compared to the currently 3 turns (could be upped to 4 turns) for base hulls. Furthermore, since the small hulls can be moved they are flexibly deployable. I rather suspect that any player who made notable reliance on base hulls for decoys will just shift over to small hull decoys.
If the spamming by empty base hulls is an issue what if prohibit building empty hulls?
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-8.3, boost-1.65.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2019-07-30.587d1c0.
Donates are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

Morlic
AI Contributor
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:54 am

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#52 Post by Morlic » Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:14 pm

Then you would add a single fuel tank which has a negligible base cost of 1 PP...
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#53 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:10 pm

Jaumito wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:16 pm
Vezzra wrote:
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:15 pm
Anyway, there has been no answer to my question above: is there any compelling reason to keep the base hull? I'd really like to get rid of it...
So would I. I'd take the lack of answers as a 'no' to your question :wink:
In the past people were very strongly against removing the inner-system transport system for valid reasons: trigger combat (e.g. see dilvish comment), in-system troop/outpost/colony ships. If those roles are not filled otherwise I rather suggest upping the base hull cost close to cheapest decoy hull (probably small hull ; edit: it is actually the small asteroid hull with 6PP).

IMHO you should not be forced to choose between building another in-system shipyard (taking four turns plus two for a hull) or move ships (fresh build+move at least taking three turns) in from somewhere else to be able to outpost another planet in the same system. Also this leads to the idea that the base hull should not take longer and be cheaper to build than the cheapest hull with internal slots.

But actually I am not sure that is even necessary. Combat preferences will generally decrease decoy usefullness.

And i think we should explore the maintenance cost idea for paused production items, also because that is hull type independent.
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4971
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#54 Post by Vezzra » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:12 am

Dilvish wrote:
Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:47 pm
I guess I don't see any real problems with removing the base hull, although I am doubtful that doing so would really do much to resolve the issues that we've been discussing here, particularly taking into account that the thus-far increase in cost to the base hull was just planned as an experimental first step which was to be further increased if it proved to be insufficient, and we've talked about increasing the build time for it also. It might also just lead to the spammed construction of basic shipyards everywhere.

The only real problems I saw anyone talk about were all about using the base hull for decoys in combat. The current cost was 3 per base, we talked about increasing that to 4 or 5; the latter is the same cost that small hulls can be built for. Once a shipyard is built (only takes 4 turns & 10 pp) the small hulls can be built in just two turns compared to the currently 3 turns (could be upped to 4 turns) for base hulls. Furthermore, since the small hulls can be moved they are flexibly deployable. I rather suspect that any player who made notable reliance on base hulls for decoys will just shift over to small hull decoys.
This essentially boils down to as long as we do not also fix the shipyard mess, the only thing removing the base hull would actually achive is make the decoy strategy more micromanagy, which is certainly not desirable.
And unless/until we give colonies a way to specify that their defenses should attack unarmed enemies in system, the AI will probably need to replace the base-hull-comsats by deploying singleton small-hull pseudo-comsats to activate defenses against the various unarmed monsters which it is not so great at hunting down otherwise, but which shouldn't just be left free to grow and develop.
Which means, the base hull is currently used as a "hackaround" for a missing essential feature, so removing that without providing said missing feature is probably also not desirable.

These are of course valid objections. Meaning, as long as those issues (shipyard mess and no other way to activate planetary defenses against armed enemy forces in system) are properly addressed, the base hull needs to stay.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4971
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#55 Post by Vezzra » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:40 am

Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:10 pm
In the past people were very strongly against removing the inner-system transport system for valid reasons: trigger combat (e.g. see dilvish comment), in-system troop/outpost/colony ships. If those roles are not filled otherwise I rather suggest upping the base hull cost close to cheapest decoy hull (probably small hull).

IMHO you should not be forced to choose between building another in-system shipyard (taking four turns plus two for a hull) or move ships (fresh build+move at least taking three turns) in from somewhere else to be able to outpost another planet in the same system.
Why? I'll give you the trigger combat thing (see my reply to Dilvish' post above), but I don't see the need to retain the in-system troop/outpost/colony ships. As I said in my post above, although I use them, I only do so because not doing it would mean to play a less optimal game, but actually using them is more micromanagement than building the required "normal" troop/outpost/colony ships at my shipyards and sending them where I need them.

What I do now, when I e.g. want to colonize a new system (with more than one planet I can use): build outpost/colony ship, send it to the system, outpost/colonize a planet, in case of outpost ship build colony as next step, once I have the colony build outpost bases to outpost the other planets I want to colonize, once they are finished outpost the rest of the planets.

What I'd prefer to do: build the required number of outpost/colony ships in one batch, send them to the system, outpost/colonize all the planets. IMO a lot less headache, because I have less keeping track of things to do. Which isn't so much of an issue in early game, but once you expand and start doing colonization on a larger scale, this becomes very annoying. To the point where I wish the base hull wouldn't exist each time I reach that stage.

To me the existence of a hull that can be built without the need of a shipyard is basically some kind of cheat. Of course, as has been correctly pointed out, with shipyards being as cheap as they are now, removing that hull won't make much difference, if anything, it would only make things more micromanagy. But once the shipyard mess gets fixed (meaning, building up shipyard sites becomes expensive and spamming shipyards everywhere impossible), IMO there should be no hulls that you can build without a shipyard.

But we're getting off-topic here... if we want to continue this discussion, I should probably split off the relevant posts to a separate topic.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#56 Post by Ophiuchus » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:24 am

edit: double post
Last edited by Ophiuchus on Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#57 Post by Ophiuchus » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:47 am

Vezzra wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:40 am
What I'd prefer to do: build the required number of outpost/colony ships in one batch, send them to the system, outpost/colonize all the planets. IMO a lot less headache, because I have less keeping track of things to do. Which isn't so much of an issue in early game, but once you expand and start doing colonization on a larger scale, this becomes very annoying. To the point where I wish the base hull wouldn't exist each time I reach that stage.
Ok now i get your problem. The reason you do not build the way you want is because you want to save ~15PP per outpost. Actually your micromanaging problem does not go away with base hull. If you really care about the outposting PP you will then have to produce small asteroid hulls, nothing else.

I play a lot more incremental, so usually I am not outposting all planets in a system at once because i have better things to spend PP on. And that workflow gets more complicated if you have to decide between building a shipyard or finding the next best shipyard. Note that if intend to outpost/colonise more, i usually do the batch thing because i rather care about the speedup of parallel build vs the extra PP cost.

What i would rather have is the outpost-a-planet-in-supply-without-any-hull feature (build an outpost/colony building directly on an unowned planet), then both our issues would go away and it simplify the whole enchilada.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
em3
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:51 pm

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#58 Post by em3 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:06 am

Ophiuchus wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:47 am
What i would rather have is the outpost-a-planet-in-supply-without-any-hull feature (build an outpost/colony building directly on an unowned planet), then both our issues would go away and it simplify the whole enchilada.
Or maybe just a feature to outpost or invade a planet in the same system. This could be a targetable one-shot building, for example (like terraforming). Or a building, which allows invading planets in the same system with the building's planet supply of troops (a garrison-like building). Or a (targetable?) planetary focus (enabled by technology?).

This would not necessarily require additional UI work. Just unlock the current invasion UI when a planet in the same system can provide the invading troops.

Those buildings/focuses would be enabled regardless of stealth/blockade, but their usage would be guarded by the same mechanics that fleet invasion/outposting is.

Outposting buildings and invasion buildings could be made mutually exclusive with basic shipyard (because of problems with high orbital traffic).
[...] for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane. - Randall Munroe, title text to xkcd #556

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Comsat/planetary defenses re-design

#59 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:09 pm

em3 wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:06 am
Ophiuchus wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:47 am
What i would rather have is the outpost-a-planet-in-supply-without-any-hull feature (build an outpost/colony building directly on an unowned planet), then both our issues would go away and it simplify the whole enchilada.
Or maybe just a feature to outpost or invade a planet in the same system. This could be a targetable one-shot building, for example (like terraforming).
Else you need to come up with another targetting mechanism.
The best thing we could come up would be probably something outside of the normal scripting . inside scripting i think the best we could come up would be adding about ten buildings like "outpost (innermost) planet", "outpost (second innermost) planet", "outpost (third innermost) planet"... You should be only able to build the building if the targetted planet is visible, isnt occupied and if you own the supply in the system. Although i must say i already hate the colony buildings because of cluttering up the unavailable building list.
em3 wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:06 am
Or a building, which allows invading planets in the same system with the building's planet supply of troops (a garrison-like building). Or a (targetable?) planetary focus (enabled by technology?).

This would not necessarily require additional UI work. Just unlock the current invasion UI when a planet in the same system can provide the invading troops.
intriguing ideas
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Post Reply