Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Gaming the system: Shouldn't you have to have Space Superiority to invade a Planet and take it all?

Post by Tanaka »

So this is already triggered in ground wars so why can this same trigger not determine whether or not you can invade or not?

Ground war trigger:
Space Control: +25%
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations

It makes no sense that a band of warriors can bypass an armada and all defense bases and take a whole planet and all of its stations and ships and make a whole empire surrender to you by just bypassing all base and ship defenses and landing!

Could this at least be an option?

Space Superiority determines invasions? Yes/No

Would add so much more strategy and get rid of gaming the system! It would really help the AI because you would have to actually get through its defenses first!
Image
User avatar
Icemania
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:14 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by Icemania »

Agreed. What you propose does sounds like a relatively simple solution to implement.
solops
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Central Texas

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

Post by solops »

I begged for this back when DW first came out. The current system makes little sense to me. Perhaps the AI is unable to handle it properly...?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
Hikikomori
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 8:27 am

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

Post by Hikikomori »

I agree.
I was pretty dumbfounded the first time i annihilated a fleet in my orbit only to be fired upon by my (insanely powerful) station and defence bases all of the sudden.

It is counter intuitive, but more importantly too easy. And it makes stations and defence bases a liability rather then an asset in the case of a few troop ships.

At least stations shouldn't "flip". Maybe hard to implement since planet and station are sort of linked, but there are assault pods for that.

Sithuk
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:18 pm

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

Post by Sithuk »

We have a limited window for improvements before Elliot moves on to other things. I would rather Elliot works through Icemania's modding request list in the AI Improvement thread than invest significant time coding the change requested in the OP.

I agree that it would be a welcome change to prevent gaming the system, but we as players can simply choose not to use the exploit. I'm not convinced that the AI is significantly using this exploit enough to warrant diverting Elliot from resolving bugs and adding modding features.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39640
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Erik Rutins »

Are you aware that troops that land on planets that still have orbital defenses take serious losses on the way down? We decided that it was equally unrealistic, given that any landing most likely consists of many troop landing pods, to disallow any landing at all without complete space superiority. Instead, we designed a system that would cause increasingly severe losses to any invasion forces based on the strength of each layer of defense.

If your fleet and bases truly have superiority, destroying a troop transport before it can drop its landing pods is pretty easy. Bases will prioritize troop transports over other ship types if they are getting close to a planet. However, if your defenses are overwhelmed by a massive fleet battle taking place at the same time as the attempted landings, then it's reasonable to assume that some troops could in fact get through and land. In that case, the level of remaining defense determines the condition of those forces when they reach the surface (along with any surface planetary defense units).

Space control while the ground battle is underway then gives you a substantial bonus, but the only sure way to stop an invasion is to have good defenses at each level - a system fleet, good defensive bases, good planetary defenses and a mix of defending ground troops and installations.

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
Cauldyth
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:24 am

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

Post by Cauldyth »

Yeah, I like the way it works now. If you have enough troop transports to overwhelm the defending fleet's ability to stop you, you deserve to take the planet. Adding some hardwired flag in the code that prevents your 20 troop ships from even attempting a landing simply because there's a single enemy escort in orbit seems way too artificial.

It would also make it way too easy for a human player to defend their planets without having to station any ground forces on them. As it is now, you need to have ground troops as a failsafe, which is a good thing, and way more realistic. I imagine that's also easier for an AI to handle. A human player could really cut corners by deciding which planets don't need troops at all, which is something an AI will have a tougher time doing.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Are you aware that troops that land on planets that still have orbital defenses take serious losses on the way down? We decided that it was equally unrealistic, given that any landing most likely consists of many troop landing pods, to disallow any landing at all without complete space superiority. Instead, we designed a system that would cause increasingly severe losses to any invasion forces based on the strength of each layer of defense.

If your fleet and bases truly have superiority, destroying a troop transport before it can drop its landing pods is pretty easy. Bases will prioritize troop transports over other ship types if they are getting close to a planet. However, if your defenses are overwhelmed by a massive fleet battle taking place at the same time as the attempted landings, then it's reasonable to assume that some troops could in fact get through and land. In that case, the level of remaining defense determines the condition of those forces when they reach the surface (along with any surface planetary defense units).

Space control while the ground battle is underway then gives you a substantial bonus, but the only sure way to stop an invasion is to have good defenses at each level - a system fleet, good defensive bases, good planetary defenses and a mix of defending ground troops and installations.

Regards,

- Erik

Hi Erik I do understand your point and I think both sides make valid arguments and I really appreciate your and Elliots continued support of this game. I'm not suggesting that no ships or bases be in orbit for you to have to land but that you need to have overwhelming space superiority. The same ground war trigger:
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations.

This is why I suggested it be an option at the beginning of game setup so everyone is happy. It would add a completely new and different way to play the game as well for extra challenge.

I think if you watch Haree's lets play where he invades the Gizurean homeworld and runs his troopships straight through a cloud of defenses and bases and takes everything you might understand my frustration. All ships, bases, planets, empire all become his in one swoop this way. You can't say there was not enough defenses because you can barely even see the planet. [:)]

Check out the 47:00 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Fw_ru ... 9&index=10
Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Yeah, I like the way it works now. If you have enough troop transports to overwhelm the defending fleet's ability to stop you, you deserve to take the planet. Adding some hardwired flag in the code that prevents your 20 troop ships from even attempting a landing simply because there's a single enemy escort in orbit seems way too artificial.

It would also make it way too easy for a human player to defend their planets without having to station any ground forces on them. As it is now, you need to have ground troops as a failsafe, which is a good thing, and way more realistic. I imagine that's also easier for an AI to handle. A human player could really cut corners by deciding which planets don't need troops at all, which is something an AI will have a tougher time doing.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that no ships or bases be in orbit for you to have to land but that you need to have overwhelming space superiority. The same ground war trigger:
Condition: Superiority in Local Space (near the planet) in terms of military
ships and stations.

You could say its gaming the system one way or the other really. Is it gamier to take everything from the AI by running through its defenses or having to have defenses to prevent AI landings? I would much rather have the latter and I think a lot of others would too. Thats why I am suggesting a compromise. This is why I suggested it be an option at the beginning of game setup so everyone is happy. It would add a completely new and different way to play the game as well for extra challenge.

Image
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

NO.

Great argument and discussion! Are you the developer? Do you control the game? No what?
Image
User avatar
PsyKoSnake
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:20 pm

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

Post by PsyKoSnake »

Are you playing on extreme? Because they will probably have more troop.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: PsyKoSnake

Are you playing on extreme? Because they will probably have more troop.

In the youtube example I cited Haree was playing on hard difficulty. Difficulty should not matter in this discussion its more about different processes.
Image
User avatar
PsyKoSnake
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:20 pm

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

Post by PsyKoSnake »

But if they have 3-4x the amouth of ships and 5 time the amouth of troop. And the better ship design of ai improved mod. You will have hard time to do it.

I will try in my game, if I dont get destroyed before.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5084
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

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

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: PsyKoSnake

But if they have 3-4x the amouth of ships and 5 time the amouth of troop. And the better ship design of ai improved mod. You will have hard time to do it.

I will try in my game, if I dont get destroyed before.

Like I said check out the video you could not even see the planet!
Image
Cauldyth
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:24 am

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

Post by Cauldyth »

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)
Cauldyth
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:24 am

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

Post by Cauldyth »

As an additional tweak, the percentages could scale with the amount of military forces causing the Space Superiority.
User avatar
PsyKoSnake
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:20 pm

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

Post by PsyKoSnake »

ORIGINAL: Cauldyth

Maybe a combination of the following two things:

1. Increase the attrition inflicted on troop ships by any defending ships and bases
2. Currently, whichever side has Space Superiority gets a +25% bonus. If no one has Space Superiority, no bonus is applied. Replace this with the following to give the defender a home field advantage unless the attacker has Space Superiority:
* If attacker has Space Superiority, attacker gets +25% (as now)
* If no one has Space Superiority, defender gets +25% (home field advantage)
* If defender has Space Superiority, defender gets +50% (attacker has marched into the jaws of doom)

That would be nice
Resok
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:37 pm

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

Post by Resok »

I'll chime in and say that I like the way it is now. Troop pods going to the planet surface while under heavy fire from the orbital defenses take significant damage. This makes them arrive often times fighting at very low effective health so if the planet has a significant defense force then combined with the space superiority of the defender things aren't looking too good.

As it stands now this opens up different strategies as opposed to being limited as the only strategy being to destroy defensive bases and then land. It also opens up the idea of taking over existing defensive installations.

There are already significant counters in the game to stop mass troop invasions by giving you more time to destroy the incoming ships - IE: Gravity Well Projectors
-Resok
Jethro420
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 4:47 pm

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

Post by Jethro420 »

I'm a new player. But, if it is truly how Erik says it is, then I think the current model is the right model.

You should be able to land some forces on a planet, even in the face of strong defenses. That's realistic (if any of this is, anyway).

Mind you, those landing forces and their troop carriers should get pretty shredded in the process. If they don't, then there's a problem.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”