Nerf envirosuits

[LordAldrich]

Envirosuits are too good. They are available with no research, have only a nominal material cost, and completely negate all environmental hazards. This means that there is effectively no difference between the various planet types, mechanically or thematically - it all plays and feels the same.

This is a shame! The planet generation is really cool, and it would be good if the environments had more impact on the gameplay. Here's a few suggestions:

- Right now armor provides both combat protection and environmental protection. Split these functions apart so that you can design them separately.

- You could make advanced protections require an energy supply. Spacesuits need power to heat or cool things. This would make power a (much) more important resource on uninhabitable planets.

- You could add combat penalties to the more advanced environmental protections. This would give a reason (beyond resource cost) to use filters / thermal suits / no armor at all. Morale or readiness penalties makes sense - MOPP/HAZMAT gear and spacesuits are uncomfortable, bulky gear that no-one wears unless they have to.

[UmpaLumpa]

I feel that way too and like your ideas

[Lovenought]

It's also a bit strange. Right now i'm playing on a Medusa world that is an almost carbon copy of Earth, complete with 20% oxygen 70% nitrogen. The only problem is the native pollen and such being toxic. So why are my guys at the start running around in full environment suits? You'd think that just some kind of gas mask filter would work. Right now infantry on an earthlike planet with just one or two incorrect conditions fight and operate the same as a formation fighting on an airless moon.

[ramnblam]

I disagree about the cost being nominal, if you're playing on a nice Siwa class you can cheap out on the Armour and put out more troops on the field.

[Tchey]

It’s already quite slow to produce new units, if they are dying because of lack of enviro-protect-stuff, it’s gonna be weird to play.
However i do agree with the other part : planets actually all feel pretty much the same.
That part should be adressed, maybe not the enviro-suit one.

[YppY]

I really can't agree more. Right now there are no real choice in personal armor. You always go for the best armor you have, even if that is padded envirosuits suits on a planet with perfect atmos (with maybe an exception very early on if you don't have a metal supply). Simply because how much more survivable your troops are with armor, it is well worth the price. This is unlike most other design choices in the game where you have to weigh a lot of competing option.

[zgrssd]

The one thing that annoys me teh most about Environmental Suit, is that Soldiers on breathable planets do not wear them as minimum armor.
I want to at least see a armor that is same tech level, same cost, but stronger.

Seperating Armor and Environmental proteciton would make sense.
Just give the Environmental Suite option -50HP - to simualte one rupture being potentially dealdy - and call it a day. Yes, that means without armor Infantry has 0 HP. It turns out using your personal atmosphere as armor is a really bad idea! But we also got something like Light Armor (+50 HP) then, so we could at least avoid the 0 HP case.

[Ekaton]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

The one thing that annoys me teh most about Environmental Suit, is that Soldiers on breathable planets do not wear them as minimum armor.
I want to at least see a armor that is same tech level, same cost, but stronger.

Seperating Armor and Environmental proteciton would make sense.
Just give the Environmental Suite option -50HP - to simualte one rupture being potentially dealdy - and call it a day. Yes, that means without armor Infantry has 0 HP. It turns out using your personal atmosphere as armor is a really bad idea! But we also got something like Light Armor (+50 HP) then, so we could at least avoid the 0 HP case.

That's a great idea! I would love to see fights in a completely inhospitable environment being a lot deadlier, especially on lower tech. One good shot, especially with biohazards, and you're most likely done for. I would also love if AI could then be more careful on such planets - it can easily lose a lot of precious manpower really quickly.

[76mm]

I've been playing on Siwa planets with breathable atmospheres, so have never used Envirosuits...is there any reason to do so? I didn't realize that they include armor as well?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I've been playing on Siwa planets with breathable atmospheres, so have never used Envirosuits...is there any reason to do so? I didn't realize that they include armor as well?

Reason?
Armor/extra HP and all previous protections combined. You have a hard time running into any Temperature or Rad issue with those.

Starting with combat armor, that level of Enivronmental Protection seems implied.

[Destragon]

I agree with the general ideas in this thread.
It's kinda sad that all factors like biohazards, temperature, radiation get pretty much nullified by basic infantry armor.

[MatthewVilter]

I see basically three factors in play:

1) Basic life support which everyone needs* but varies from planet to planet like atmosphere filters or condensers and pressure suits.

2) Specialist protection for conditions that vary geographically like temperature and radiation.

3) Armor to protect in combat.


I can see (1) setting a baseline minimum "encumbrance" for infantry and like @zgrssd suggests giving a defense penalty on planets where the atmosphere is aggressively hostile. Technology could offer improvements here over time.

(2) would be customizable so that the player can create specialist troops to deal with e.g. arctic or irradiated conditions. Depending on planetary conditions some of the options here might be redundant (and removed from the list) e.g. if everybody's already wearing pressure suits and carrying oxygen you don't need to issue radiological respirators.

By the time the player gets to customizing (3) on a hostile planet they should be making tough choices about encumbrance.


*As @Tchey points out it would be weird if your infantry just start dying from what your citizens probably consider normal conditions.

[EuchreJack]

Perhaps the problems aren't that envirosuits provide too much protection (they had to keep people from dying for 200 years as they tried to kill one another, so they should be decent), but that the problems fighting in envirosuits aren't reflected. I mean, shouldn't the guys in big bulky suits be a little less deadly and whole lot slower?

[Elver]

I do agree with the above comments that it would be nice if environmental protection was separate from armor. Some encumbrance making comprehensive environmental protection vs. armor a tradeoff in unpowered armor would feel right, and help cut down on all worlds blending together. Environmental protection bulk reduction actually seems like a very good candidate for a linear tech...

One other small thing that arises from the ubiquity of full envirosuits is that the chemical weapons stratagem is worthless against everything but animals on many planets from turn 1 onwards.

[FAA]

It would be great if Vic told us how he imagined them, lore-wise. Is it one-hit and you lose the air completely, or are they more robust. If they can be pierced easily, the game must take atmosphere, bio hazards, temperature and radiation into account when calculating losses. Medical tech for field hospitals is also necessary.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Yes, it is kind of pointless to have all these rich planet generation options, all these environmental hazards if at the end of the day all play exactly the same (or with some minor differences like having to spend a little more for getting water or farming)

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury
Yes, it is kind of pointless to have all these rich planet generation options, all these environmental hazards if at the end of the day all play exactly the same (or with some minor differences like having to spend a little more for getting water or farming)

+1. Any difference for low-gravity planets, for instance? Perhaps some types of vehicles could only be built on low-gravity planets, with special movement characteristics.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I would prefer to have 3 options for planet generation: earth-like, mars-like, moon-like with deep consequences, with significantly differences in play style and combat strategies than to have 10+ planet options that play exactly the same, with some minor building constructions but otherwise cosmetic differences like lakes water or lava

[Ekaton]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I would prefer to have 3 options for planet generation: earth-like, mars-like, moon-like with deep consequences, with significantly differences in play style and combat strategies than to have 10+ planet options that play exactly the same, with some minor building constructions but otherwise cosmetic differences like lakes water or lava

Couldn't agree more. It's great that we have such a robust world gen, but we definitely need them to be more unique. Gravity is an excellent example.

[Destragon]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

I would prefer to have 3 options for planet generation: earth-like, mars-like, moon-like with deep consequences, with significantly differences in play style and combat strategies than to have 10+ planet options that play exactly the same, with some minor building constructions but otherwise cosmetic differences like lakes water or lava

The resource availability and terrain differences seem pretty significant to me.
What kinda deep consequences do you actually mean?