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

[Icemania]

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 is a really good compromise Cauldyth, it keeps the design intent as described by Erik, while appearing readily implementable. Supported!

[Flinkebeinchen]

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)

Good idea! Imagine how the Attacker or Defender gets help from the orbit with orbital strikes. You don't need to have missiles, just a rock thrown from orbit will do.

[Vardis]

ORIGINAL: Icemania

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 is a really good compromise Cauldyth, it keeps the design intent as described by Erik, while appearing readily implementable. Supported!

But what does that solve? Those changes only affect difficulty. Is that really a problem that needs solving?

[Icemania]

It remains far too easy to invade homeworlds without firing a shot, even with previous changes we've requested such as increasing homeworld troop strength, and even on Extreme. This helps close an exploit because the AI never uses the "sneaky fast troop transport" strategy. It also makes sense, if you had space superiority, just like air superiority, that should have a significant effect on ground battles.

I'm not a fan of having a list of things that I choose not to do in-game because an exploit hasn't been closed. The other major exploit that needs attention is the diplomacy system as the funds that can be farmed from the AI are ridiculous. I don't just mean technology trading (turning off a feature is not a fix), it's also selling stations/bases and sanctions/war.

If you are asking whether I would prioritise AI improvements over closing exploits, the answer is yes, I agree with Sithuk. But both should be addressed before the patching cycle winds up.

[Shark7]

Let me just put it this way:

How many amphibious landings in human history took place on beaches that the attacking force already controlled? This is the same thing.

Sure you don't have to take out the defending stations, but you have to brave the defensive fire. In DW, by landing prior to taking out all the space defenses, you suffer more losses than if you send in a fleet to eliminate the defensive bases and starport first.

It works well as far as I am concerned.

You don't have to take down every wall to breech the castle, though it does make it much easier. [;)]

[Icemania]

We've moved on a bit Shark7. The idea Cauldyth had was essentially to increase the defensive fire and the role of space superiority for the defender.

[Kizucha]

For me the mechanik are ok as it is now, the only thing i think what it change to a better side is to give the space control a much higher ratio like 50% or more. Like the suggestion Cauldyth did but i think if the attacker get 50% if they have space control, the defender also must have the 50% if they have space control.

And with Haree's lets play i think its not about using an exploit... he have 1 million more soldiers than the enemy and for that the enemy killed a lot of haree's soldiers.^^ Also he have troops with boni, he renderd their space control boni useless, in fakt he have at the end an +50% boni. In that way he deserved the win.[:D]

[Keston]

Planets are big and can be approached from any direction. The current concept is best. Take landing losses if you dare.

[Sithuk]

Do the landing losses happen to forces executing a sneak attack?

[corwin90]

I think it would be great if certain numbers such as the space control bonus were user configurable. In addition, I would like to see it divided into two numbers, offensive and defensive as described above. Then, players could adjust the numbers as they see fit and in accordance with their play style. In a previous post, someone said there is a substantial bonus for space control. Then, someone mentions that bonus is 25%. Undoubtedly, some players might want that space control bonus raised to 50% or even 75% or higher. As for me, I was thinking 1000% might be nice. [:)]

[Tanaka]

To all of the defenders of the current process watch the video again. I don't think Haree loses ONE transport in all of that mess.

Enough said. [8D]

[mensrea]

Once the troops are on the planet what would orbital forces be able to do? They could use their weaponry I imagine, but that would also jeopardize the lives of civilians. In fact I have actually seen instances of ships bombarding a planet that my forces were invading; everyone took losses.

I always thought of it as the invading forces always essentially relying on the moral/ethical restraints of enemy spacecraft crews to gain an advantage. When your troops are in enemy cities will they really be willing to shell them? That said, I think its completely absurd that capturing a planet means capturing all its orbitals and bases. Those should remain in the hands of who owned them and not be magically transferred to whatever fly by night now inhabits the soon to be bombarded planet.

[Flinkebeinchen]

@mensrea
Just read "The Lost Fleet" from "Jack Campbell" and you get a pretty good idea what ships from space could do.. Amazon link

[Blackstork]

In light of DW:U settings I agree fully with mensrea. It could be otherwise for some completely different conversion setting, BT for this game I think its pretty fine to be able to capture planet without full domination on orbit.

[Vardis]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

To all of the defenders of the current process watch the video again. I don't think Haree loses ONE transport in all of that mess.

Enough said. [8D]

I'd rather see the AI switch targets to transports and have it build bases with more tractor beams that push loaded enemy transports away.

[Blackstork]

ORIGINAL: Vardis

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

To all of the defenders of the current process watch the video again. I don't think Haree loses ONE transport in all of that mess.

Enough said. [8D]

I'd rather see the AI switch targets to transports and have it build bases with more tractor beams that push loaded enemy transports away.

+10000
could not say better

[Icemania]

It would be great to have full access to Tractor Beam tactics. From the Developer Support Wishlist in the AI Improvement Mod thread:

• Add the ability to configure the Tractor beam tactics (i.e. push / pull) in the Ship and Base Design Templates. Refer Post 189-200 for discussion of test performance and benefits. Note also the discussion regarding "Pull In" with Troop Transports, this could be used to help prevent sneaky invasions by human players (which is an AI exploit) e.g. holding them at 100 range.

And also implement what Cauldyth suggested.

[Erik Rutins]

I could see increasing the attrition a bit more, but we balanced this pretty well across a variety of cases in Shadows and Universe development. I think a higher modifier for space control could actually make it too powerful and reduce the need for the rest of the elements of a successful invasion or planetary defense. A good player will still find ways to win though and from what I can see, Haree hit that planet with pretty overwhelming force. I don't think that makes the case on its own that adjustment is needed.

Regarding tractor beams, we recognize the reported corner case and we're working on modifying the AI's use of tractor beams to account for it, so that it takes the optimal effective weapon range of each ship/base into consideration before it decides to push or pull.

Regards,

- Erik

[Icemania]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Regarding tractor beams, we recognize the reported corner case and we're working on modifying the AI's use of tractor beams to account for it, so that it takes the optimal effective weapon range of each ship/base into consideration before it decides to push or pull.

What was reported in the AI Improvement Mod Thread is not a corner case. It involved ships with beams and torpedoes on similar sizes which is common. However, I thank you for considering this.

What has been suggested would help for this case:

In a test between an Ikkuro Cruiser with Beams/Pods/Tractor Beams and a Kiadian Cruiser with Torpedoes (so evenly matched in size and technology) ... the Ikkuro ship pushed the Kiadian ship away, out of Beam range and into good Torpedo range, which turned the battle into a slaughter.

The other case to consider is this one:

In a test between an Ikkuro Cruiser with Beams/Pods/Tractor Beams and a Kiadian Destroyer with Torpedoes (so the Ikkuro ship is larger Size 500 v Size 400) ... the tractor beam was not powerful enough to pull the Kiadian ship into close range (noting also the "All Weapons" ship tactic), the ships stayed at a range where Beams were weak and Torpedoes were still strong, so the Kiadian ship won.

I had much better results if the Ikkuro Cruiser tactic was set to "Point Blank". As the Ikkuro Ship was focused on it's target the Tractor Beam slowly pulled it closer. It managed to defeated the Kiadian Destroyer by boarding but lost all Shields in the process. Note again that there is nothing in the Design Templates as yet to set "Point Blank" for the AI. And if we did have that setting, we also need to be able to configure the Tractor Beams, otherwise there will be situations where the Ship Tactic and Tractor Beams work against each other.

In short, there needs to be alignment between the Ship Tactic and Tractor Beam Tactic, otherwise they work against each other. At the moment, I can't configure either Tactic with the AI. In combination, however, they can make a significant difference.

[Vardis]

On a side note, is the tractor beam component info wrong by any chance? The normal one at higher tech levels looks like it would have zero power halfway through its max range.