Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Control to Invade a Planet and take everything?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Control to Invade a Planet and take everything? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/31/2014 2:12:11 AM   
adecoy95


Posts: 420
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline
i think removing the ability to land troops on star-base defended planets removes a level of strategy to the game

(in reply to Aeson)
Post #: 61
RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/31/2014 3:14:48 AM   
Jethro420

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2014
Status: offline
The consensus here is that fleets and stations should be more able to defend planets. I'm new to this game. But, it does seem rather obvious that if troop carrying ships are the biggest threat to a world, and clearly they are, then defending forces should target them with extreme prejudice. If defending forces focused their fire on the biggest threat, this issue would be resolved.

Am I mistaken?

(in reply to Aeson)
Post #: 62
RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/31/2014 5:40:40 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 2995
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jethro420

The consensus here is that fleets and stations should be more able to defend planets. I'm new to this game. But, it does seem rather obvious that if troop carrying ships are the biggest threat to a world, and clearly they are, then defending forces should target them with extreme prejudice. If defending forces focused their fire on the biggest threat, this issue would be resolved.

Am I mistaken?


Agreed the definite consensus is that fleets and stations should be more able to defend planets (some sort of space superiority). The other consensus is that ship and base defenses should not magically be turned over to the other side. They should either have to be boarded or destroyed. Or they can become pirates.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/261470/discussions/0/35222218617163211/#p1

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 8/31/2014 6:52:45 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jethro420)
Post #: 63
RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space... - 8/31/2014 10:40:49 AM   
Hikikomori

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/16/2014
Status: offline
I think the thread title is misleading, almost no one actually argues for planets to be invincible as long as stations are there or the orbit is not completely cleared.

What i meant when i agreed with OP in my first post without further elaborating at that time, was a.) the status quo is bad, and b.) i would prefer space control over the system present at that time(without the rather elegant - but insufficient imho - attempt with the tractor beams).

Ideal is neither of the two extremes, space control would just be less bad.
But i think there is a middle ground here, by allowing invasions without space control, but destroying or even better letting the original owner keep the stations/fleets. Stations would block the use of the planet for the invader, the troops would do the same for the original owner and i believe should also hamper the station in some way.
Enemy fleets of a vanquished empire could maybe rally somewhere and make an all out attempt at the enemy homeworld. Or they could become a new pirate faction with an intense hatred for you.


That is what i would like to see. Now let's look at what is.
With the tractor beams prioritising troop transports winning with such cheesy a tactic as "just breaking through with your handful of troop transports, who needs a fleet anyway" could become, if the AI includes enough of them, much much harder. That is good, it emphasises the importance of actual armed vessels and their battles.

Just handing over the station reduces the value of assault pods and makes attempting to take one not just a useless exercise, but actual harmful for the player.
Troops take planets, assault pods conquer ships and structures. But it is just not viable with the design at the moment, which is sad since it would add to the mix the decision to attempt to take it intact and not have to build one with the risk/cost of loosing a few more ships/equipping a few otherwise rather useless pods and reduce your strength.

This would even be a issue worth consideration if the station would just self destruct once the planet is captured.

At the moment, the winner of a land battle gets the planet, and on top of that the station intact.
If he manages to attack simultaneously all planets, which you could do even without declaring war just before the last command to the troop ships to fly to their targets from their rally points just outside his territory, he even gets the whole enemy fleet.
The war takes a month and gives the enemy almost no time to react.




So a already relatively powerful player gets a bunch of valuable planets, complete with stations, and an entire fleet that has not seen any combat worth mentioning.
That is a power comes to power just because of power situation, where the stronger side gets just too much gain for being already quite powerful in the first place.
Which makes it even more powerful.

The player/AI starts steamrolling, the game becomes boring.

This counteracts improvements in AI, from the developers and from AI-Mod, as it makes stations and fleets that you get handed on a silver platter even more valuable, since the AI actually has designs that are good.
It also nullifies to some extent the game concepts in place to support small empires and hinder big, already powerful ones.
Like the corruption mechanic, the research cap, the speed of hyperdrives designed so slow/fast as to emphasize the difficulty that comes with an increase in space to defend.


We are also actually discussing two issues. The first, flipping stations is to some extend already dealt with, although the verdict is still out as to how well.

The second is connected, but also separate, the effects of eliminating an empire.
That is already a quite rewarding event, getting bonuses from the race, income, a front less to worry and so on.
It is made even more profitable as need be with the victor getting handed over the enemy fleet.

This is unaddressed, and, i would argue, even more harmful for gameplay. It is bugging me more at any rate.
While the tractor beams now maybe make a suicide run of troop transports just not worth it in almost all cases, nothing short of denying the victor the fleet will make the latter problem go away. It is just too good a gain not to be worth almost any effort in sneaking in and not fighting the enemy armada as not to reduce your gain after the conquest.

Of course the player can just scrap the stations and fleets himself, but the need for houserule after houserule is a sad thing for any strategy game. And i would really like to have them still as enemies rather than just gone.



(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 64
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Control to Invade a Planet and take everything? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109