Potential improvements based on first impressions

[hondo1375]

I want to make some comments on how I think the game can be improved based on my first impressions:

1. The game suffers from the usual 4X steam-roller effect, i.e. once I get an edge in production then it is a matter of grinding the opponent down. I think this problem orginates from two sources: the ratio of standing force to percent of that force that can be produced each turn is low, i.e. if we each have a navy of 12 ships, but I can produce 3 ships a turn, and you only 1, then after three turns I have a decisive edge of 21 ships versus your 15 ships. Second, and this is a related point, each planet represents a significant percentage of production capacity - lose one planet and the game is over. On the 4 planet map I played (2 each), losing one planet is 50% of your produciton base, and so losing one planet puts you at a 3-1 production disadvantage - game over.

My suggestion here is to increase the standing navy and army for the scenarios considerably, while increasing production time and cost for new units - or at least make this moddable. This should reduce the strategic impact of individual planet losses, and give the original owner some hope of mounting a counter-attack to retake it before the economic effects kick in.


2. From the game I played the tactical AI was not very impressive (I'm comparing this to AI's I've played against over the years, not a human player), and I defeated it easily. I hope the developers plan to work on this as I, like many players, do not have the schedule or inclination to play multiplayer. Without a competent opponent, the game doesn't have much replay value.


Not sure I can recommend the game at this stage. If the AI is beefed up and if the 4X stream-roller can be slowed down, then I think this is a welcome budget addition to the genre. I like the emphasis on tactical battles, and the chess-like way they are implemented, and these are potentially a lot of fun against a challenging opponent.

Hope this doesn't sound too negative.

Hondo

[MythicalMino]

heh, yeah.....i can agree.....


about the steam roller effect....what about this: the larger your empire is, the more corruption you experience.

In other words....you recieve no corruption until you take over half of the planets. But, once you go over the half way mark (as far as planets are concerned), your planets further out from your home base produces as a decelerated rate.

This could be explained through planet officials skimming "money" and other resources from their planets.


Also, what if the space stations were assigned before the game what upgrades are available in each one (each station having a different set of upgrades)? As it is now (or, so it seems), every space station offers the exact same upgrades. I could be wrong....but this is how it seems to be. This way, you have to make the stategical decision as to what stations you want/need.


That is all i have at the moment.....

Chris

[mllange]

As I mentioned in another post, I agree with these points... they certainly detract from the long-term viability of the game strategically. I do believe, however, that implementation of fog of war could potentially improve the game and reduce the effect of the 'steam-roller' grind. With the ability to move fleets outside of your opponent's range of vision you could create a diversionary force on one side and then sneak-attack and capture a planet on another side, re-gaining momentum. The ability to create decoy ships as Vance mentioned helps a bit, but it's not enough in my opinion, because if your opponent vastly outnumbers you he can meet both forces and destroy them no matter what you do. It is impossible to sneak a raiding party into his territory without his knowledge.

Of course, fog of war is not a perfect solution, if your opponent vastly outnumbers you he can simply spread out scouting parties to give him advanced warning of your approach, but at least it would force him to keep his fleet spread out a bit and he would have to scramble to meet your raiding party. As it is now, he knows exactly what you have and where it is (even if there are decoys) and he can mass his fleet to meet you wherever you go.

Another problem in my opinion is the requirement for the battle cruiser, it provides a HUGE advantage to the player with the most planets because the real tactical advantage they provide is the ability to safely transport carry your loaded troop transport freighters safely through the lines of battle. The underdog player who is behind in the planet race and can't build battle cruisers has almost no chance of sneaking a troop transport freighter or two through the lines w/out being destroyed. This simply creates a scenario where the 'rich get richer' and the player with the planet advantage becomes virtually unstoppable. Again, the problem is there is no way for the underdog to sneak troops around your opponent's battle lines. Perhaps if each ship could carry a certain load of troops depending on the size of the ship...? A smaller ship might only be able to carry one infantry while larger ships could carry larger loads, maybe two troops, etc. This would require the ability for several ships to off-load troops in one turn before ground combat begins, but it would provide some hope for the undermanned underdog player to maybe capture a planet here and there.

I don't know, just trying to come up with something to help the game.. it is fun, just too predictable so far. Having more than two players would solve some problems because underdog players could create a temporary alliance against the unstoppable player, but that's probably beyond the scope of the game as it stands.

[Rik81]

Perhaps mentioned elsewhere, but this thread is a good "catch all." In the "ground combat" aspect it would be useful if the ATTACK action option would not show up (be greyed out) if at present there is nothing in the attack range. I say this because in some terrain I found it impossible to tell if a unit were present, and if I could, I sometimes couldn't tell who it belonged to! This would save time.

[TheHellPatrol]

I agree that it can be very predictable when you are ahead in production but i have had a couple amusing events happen: One conquest scenario i accidentally[;)] blew up one of my planets and watched in horror as the ai started sending Battlecruisers in my direction. I managed to hold them off for a long time but realized that it would take forever being that they always had more ships to counter my better tactics so i considered quiting and calling it a loss. A couple turns later, probably due to the upkeep costs of their BC's, one of their planets went BOOM! Game over man! Game over[:D].

[TMcBane]

I have played about six games and easily won each one. I don't think that the AI has any truly game-killing flaws (at least among the game types I have tried), it is just that given equal footing, I am better. The AI does aggressively expand and sends more than one ship against the player, so it is viable, unlike some games with completely broken AI. There are probably situations where the AI should be tweaked, but all-in-all it is not a bad first effort. Here is what is needed in my opinion: option(s) where you can give the AI an advantage, when desired. Here are my suggested ways of giving the AI an advantage which would make Supremacy more challenging and enjoyable to me:

1. Percentage decrease of player production / number of turns. This would be a setting where you select the number of turns, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, and a small percent, which is the percentage that production is reduced on each occupied planet per the turn number. This would remain reduced even if the AI takes over the planet, at which time the decrease of production is stopped as long as the AI controls the planet. This forces the player to efficiently take over AI controlled planets before the player's production dries up. But, the AI's production continues at the full level, giving the AI gradually more to work with over time. Obviously, the setting will have to take into consideration map size, but recommended levels could be determined for each map and communicated to the player. This would result in shorter games, with smaller number of units produced.

2. The reverse of suggestion #1: Percentage increase of AI production / number of turns. This would result in longer games, with larger number of units produced.

3. Both #1 and #2. This would be trickier to balance the settings for a challenge, without the AI automatically winning, but it might be the most satisfying because victory or defeat might rest on a knife's edge.

4. Planetary rebellion percentage. This setting is intended to improve the ground combat section of the game. I use the strategy of occupying unoccupied planets with a single cheap unit to cut down on resource expenditure. The savings are used to increase my space fleet to make sure no enemy transports survive to invade one of my planets. This means that I have never been invaded in any game so far. If there was a chance that my single unit could rebel and give the planet to the AI, it would force me to place more troops on my planets, with a greater potential that the AI could actually initiate an invasion, and an interesting ground battle would occur assuming the AI brought some significant forces to the battle. The percentage could be the percent chance per turn that a single unit would revolt, and for each additional unit on the planet, that percentage is reduced by a certain amount, so that 0 % chance of rebellion is achievable with sufficient forces. If the rebellion is successful, the number of factories is reduced by one and the planet handed over to the AI. Of course, this would just potentially hurt the player. The AI for the amount of forces used to invade planets might need to be tweaked if this setting is created.

One or more of these advantages given to the generally competent AI would greatly increase the challenge and thus the fun of Supremacy. I think that it wouldn't be that hard to add these options via a patch, would it?

Finally, I would like to see a high score table be generated and saved. At the very least, challenge in Supremacy could be increased by competing against your earlier victories using that map and settings.

[praetorblue]

Thanks for the ideas TMcBane, input like this is important to help with future patches. I'll make sure to pass along your suggestions to the AI developer.

- Vance

[mllange]

Here's a couple more ideas... not sure if they're feasible or not as the game stands, but it's worth a mention.

1. Zone of control: The idea here being that if a ship decides to turn tail and run, the opponent gets a pot-shot at his back for 1/2 half damage. This would be helpful since the game isn't a 'we-go' system where both players act at the same time. As it is, it is much too easy to run and heal IMO.

2. 4-way shield damage and display for the larger ships. Damage could be done to each shield facing, resulting in a weaker ship if attacked at the weak spot. This would bring yet another strategic element into play.

3. Give all ships (except the possibly the smallest fighters to which you could add more speed) +1 or more range, or in other words, make it a space battle with more 'at-range' fighting. Allow shots to move through friendly space that is occupied by a friendly force (this is supposed to be 3-D space after all, not a 2-D flat board). With more long range fire and the opportunity to place support units behind the front lines we could really see some action! (If you really wanted to go the distance then decrease the accuracy % probability calculations with greater distance instead of an automatic hit).

4. (This one is most likely impossible for now, perhaps version 2?) A 'we-go' system instead of I-go/U-go. This would really make the game more strategic!

As things are, the game is enjoyable, much better when played head-to-head with another person because the strategies employed are much more unpredictable! It's worth the download price, give it a go!

[GreenDestiny]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
One conquest scenario i accidentally[;)] blew up one of my planets and watched in horror as the ai started sending Battlecruisers in my direction.

LOL...The same thing happen to me also.[:D]

[Franky007]

I like the idea of changing the production value of newly captured planet. Here are my suggestions:

Newly captured planet should give only 50% income. This value could increase by 5% each turn, so it would take 10 turns to get the full income of a captured planet. AI player could ignore this rule to make the game harder.

This would lessen the impact of losing a planet, especially on a small map, and help a losing player came back in the game.

[:)]

[merrillh]

I think the last suggestion is good as an [font="Tahoma"]option[/font], not as a rule. Not all of us need a harder opponent thank you very much [:'(]

[Zero G]

I think the "steamroller effect" and AI difficulty should be handled separately. I would welcome a difficulty setting. A percentage boost to resources would probably suffice.

I think the best way to combat the steam roller effect is two part. First, give the starter planet a boost of resources per factory built. That bonus could be flat so as not to compound the fuel advantage of starting on a Cha'ar world (or crystals for Fvost, etc.).

Second, have the base resources for acquired planets scale down. For instance, the second planet gives normal resources, the third gives 80%, the fourth gives 60%, and subsequent planets give 50% each.

This mean having double the number of planets as your opponent still gives a resource edge but not double the resource production.

As an example using a four planet map, having 3 to 1 planets would give you 3.8 times the current one world production while your opponent would have 2 times the current one world production. The 3 to 1 advantage in planets would be slightly less than a 2 to 1 advantage in resources.

Having 7 of 10 worlds would give you 5.9 vs your opponent's 3.8. This would add a strategic element to deciding how much effort to put into expansion vs direct assault. It would also make a larger empire more vulnerable to attack since territory would increase faster than the resources with which to defend it.

[TheHellPatrol]

After extended play and realizing that every other planet map load(invasion) "can" crash i have found another oddity: On the larger conquest scenarios, and the capture home planet scenarios, more often than not the ai has only one...1...yes one infantry unit guarding the planet. The ai was cranking out ships but after many turns i managed to send one lonely freighter to the other side of the map (large map), it had been screened by my ships most of which didn't make it or distracted the ai long enough for me to get my freighter to their home planet. There was one unit defending[8|].
I would love to see the ai beef up it's ground forces because IMHO that's what this game is about...planetary invasion. If we weren't meant to land forces then we would have "Deathstar" capabilities...right?[:'(]

[jnewl]

I disagree with any suggestion that BH make the AI cheat. That's the amateur's approach to AI. I'd rather have them put their energy into beefing up the strategy algorithms.

[praetorblue]

Hi TheHellPatrol,

One tactic almost all of our testers employed (and a tactic I've seen mentioned on this forum already) is keeping your costs down by holding most of your planets with just one soldier. But if the AI didn't build more troops as your freighter approached either a) he should be made smarter in a patch or b) his circumstances didn't allow him to build troops (no turn during which he could do so, no factories on the planet in question, not enough funds, etc.).

Thanks for the feedback.

Also, try an internet game with another player when you get a chance, and see how the game feels then. A few people already posted their interest in playing an online game in the "Opponents Wanted" section of the Supremacy forums.

- Vance

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: praetorblue

Hi TheHellPatrol,

One tactic almost all of our testers employed (and a tactic I've seen mentioned on this forum already) is keeping your costs down by holding most of your planets with just one soldier. But if the AI didn't build more troops as your freighter approached either a) he should be made smarter in a patch or b) his circumstances didn't allow him to build troops (no turn during which he could do so, no factories on the planet in question, not enough funds, etc.).
- Vance

I'm sure you're right because i tend to go in for the kill after the ai has just thrown a half-dozen Battlecruisers my way. I've learned that they can be very costly to keep in "supply" ergo the ai is on a tight budget. I mostly am referring to the "Capture Home Planet" scenario...i have a planet full of troops, and have to limit my ship production/movement because i am in the "red", but when i finally get there to only find 1 dude with a board with a nail in it: "Run! He's got a board with a nail in it!"[:D][;)]
Seriously, the ai does tend to, and do very well at times, try to take out your fleet first. For the sake of gameplay maybe the ai could have a larger "security force" in these situations without having to cheat...just my 2 cents[:)].

[hondo1375]

@ jnewl. I completely agree with this. However, if the devs decide to give the computer opponent advantages, then there should be a setting to switch them off.

@ Francoy. I like the suggestion of reducing production of captured planets. I would even take it further - let captured enemy planets have no production. Period. You are still denying the enemy the planets production value, so there is still strong reason to take them. Alternatively, what about having all the factories on a captured planet destroyed so they have to be rebuilt by the conquerer (or does this already happen - I don't remember?).

One thing I noticed about the AI - it seems very slow in capturing unoccupied planets on its own turf. I played a capture the home planet scenario where IIRC each player starts out with 2 planets, but there are four more in your own area of space, far from the enemy, to be captured. The AI was very very slow in capturing these planets, and in building factories on them. Building up your industrial base as quickly as possible must be a critical short term goal for any sensible strategy, but the AI seemed to squander early resources in a half-*ssed offensive that could never bring any real gain.

Hondo

[mllange]

In head-to-head the factories are all destroyed when you capture a planet. Not sure about vs-AI cause I've never scanned the planet before taking it over.

[mllange]

I've noticed the AI seems to put a great deal of emphasis on pirates (perhaps too much), which really detracts from their ability to negotiate a strategic deployment toward the opponent force.

For example, a typical reaction to one of their science vessels being tractor-held by a pirate is to send 3 or more ships, even if currently on the front lines, to deal with the pirate, leaving a huge gap in their lines for me to take advantage of. Wouldn't it be better for the AI to simply sacrifice the science vessel in most cases and deal with the clear and present danger presented by my fleet? It is really too easy to exploit the AI anytime a pirate makes itself known as things stand. Now multi-player, that's another matter! This game is a different beast when played against a human opponent!