RE: Space Opera - Test Games
Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:02 pm
Some thoughts on the suggestions....
- I would have loved to have put in a supply system. I just don't think the regular AT engine could handle it very well given what I've had to do with the scenerio to make the space/ground thing work. That's why I didn't even bother trying with it.
- Logicaly, controling space would make the ground war pretty much superflous...as you would be able to simply bombard any hostile ground units into dust with your fleet from orbit before landing. That seemed rather boring/one dimensional to me...so I specificaly designed with the intention of avoiding that. I wanted the ground war to mean something...with space still being very important. That's why I came up with the "No Atomics" rule....essentialy the Houses are fighting a somewhat limited war...where they can't afford the political ramifications of mass bombardments of the planets they hope to rule.
So basicaly, I decided not to allow Space Fleets to DIRECTLY influence the fight on a planets surface. They could INDIRECTLY effect it by preventing reinforcements from entering the fray. However, I did want SOME limited ground support role for having a Navy in system. That's where Space Fighters/Bombers were supposed to come in. The design flaw that I have (IMO) in the version that we are playing is that there is a disincentive to build/risk many of them in a ground since they use the same critical resource - Isotopes - that players need for Spaceships. Thus loosing a bunch of fighters/bombers to SAM batteries is a really big deal for a player... bigger probably then it aught to be.
What I did in the updated version was changed the resource that these units require to Minerals (the same one that mechanized ground units use) which I hope will fix the dynamic... As loosing fighters/bombers in that case, while still not fun... shouldn't be as painful a blow as loosing something that takes Isotopes to replace.
I'm hoping this helps address the air/fleet support issues. If not, I may look at putting in some sort of air unit specificaly designed for doing bombardments. Maybe a cruise missle type thing or a specialized bomber. I want to be carefull not to tip things too far the other direction though...otherwise the ground war will become irrelevant.
The other problem with allowing long bombardment ranges is that there is no "terrain type" cost for bombardments....so allowing ships to bombard from orbit also means allowing ships to bombard other space units across Deep Space hexes or JumpGates....which should not be happening.
Naval Units - I agree with this. Although I did give Warships some bombardment capabilty (I think about the same as AT cruisers)... wet water navies could definately use some work in the scenerio. I didn't spend alot of design time on them. They probably are way too expensive given their limitations. I'll go back and take a look at the numbers on them again... they can probably use a bit of a speed boast...maybe a couple additional SFT's...and some cost tweaking. Will try to get that in an updated version over the next few days.
- Artillery has pretty much the same stats as vanilla AT except for the range. I felt given the scale, a 1 hex range made more sense. (IMO) Multi-hex ranges can really make artillery over-powered in many scenerio's as well (not that it isn't in reality though). So I'm kinda leaning at keeping it at one. I could consider putting in some weaker version of artillery with longer range though....maybe some sort of rocket/missle artillery. Mobility for guns shouldn't be bad if you provide horses as transport... that's what I see most people do with it in vanilla AT.
- Given the scale of the scenerio...I did realize that it COULD take forever to play to conclusion. That's why one of the very first updates I did was to add Victory Conditions and a Time Limit (Optional of course...you CAN keep playing past the time limit if you choose). Under that revision the game lasts 5 years (or 60 turns) and your score at the end is determined by the number and size of the cities you control (basicaly Production Points). So in order to win....you don't need to destroy the other players... you just need to make sure that you capture and hold onto more cities then everyone else before the timer runs out. In that way...it almost disincentivizes players from hunkering down and doing the turtle/attrition thing...since you won't get taken out...but you can't win by doing that. Again the rationale behind the scenerio is that the Houses are fighting more of a limited war with each other...not neccesarly to the death...but until one achieves enough dominance to be recognized as Emperor. It's my hope that this makes a little bit of the....I know I've got zero chance to win but it'll take forever to finally destroy me...dynamic that makes the end part of some other "total war" type scenerio's a little tiresome to play out. With this sort of victory conditions....even if you know you won't win....how well you hold out can help determine who actualy does. I'm not sure whether 60 turns is too long, too short or whatever...but it seemed like a nice arbitrary number to pick. I display the score in a report each turn anyway...so players could always agree to play to a different number of turns.
In short...I think some of the updates I've already made in new versions will help address many of the issues that have been brought up.
The two things I'll try adding to the next update will be:
- A revisit of Wet Water navies to make them more cost effective given their limitations.
- As an expirement, I'll try adding a space-to-ground missle type SFT...buildable only at starbases...and too heavy to transport out of system. It can be very resistant to AA fire but I'll make it destructable upon use and fairly cost ineffective for the playload....as I don't want players building hundreds of these things and simply dominating ground war with them. I'll make it use Minerals though...so as to not gum-up Starship production overmuch. That should add a little punch to controling space in a system...without overpowering the ground war element.
- I would have loved to have put in a supply system. I just don't think the regular AT engine could handle it very well given what I've had to do with the scenerio to make the space/ground thing work. That's why I didn't even bother trying with it.
- Logicaly, controling space would make the ground war pretty much superflous...as you would be able to simply bombard any hostile ground units into dust with your fleet from orbit before landing. That seemed rather boring/one dimensional to me...so I specificaly designed with the intention of avoiding that. I wanted the ground war to mean something...with space still being very important. That's why I came up with the "No Atomics" rule....essentialy the Houses are fighting a somewhat limited war...where they can't afford the political ramifications of mass bombardments of the planets they hope to rule.
So basicaly, I decided not to allow Space Fleets to DIRECTLY influence the fight on a planets surface. They could INDIRECTLY effect it by preventing reinforcements from entering the fray. However, I did want SOME limited ground support role for having a Navy in system. That's where Space Fighters/Bombers were supposed to come in. The design flaw that I have (IMO) in the version that we are playing is that there is a disincentive to build/risk many of them in a ground since they use the same critical resource - Isotopes - that players need for Spaceships. Thus loosing a bunch of fighters/bombers to SAM batteries is a really big deal for a player... bigger probably then it aught to be.
What I did in the updated version was changed the resource that these units require to Minerals (the same one that mechanized ground units use) which I hope will fix the dynamic... As loosing fighters/bombers in that case, while still not fun... shouldn't be as painful a blow as loosing something that takes Isotopes to replace.
I'm hoping this helps address the air/fleet support issues. If not, I may look at putting in some sort of air unit specificaly designed for doing bombardments. Maybe a cruise missle type thing or a specialized bomber. I want to be carefull not to tip things too far the other direction though...otherwise the ground war will become irrelevant.
The other problem with allowing long bombardment ranges is that there is no "terrain type" cost for bombardments....so allowing ships to bombard from orbit also means allowing ships to bombard other space units across Deep Space hexes or JumpGates....which should not be happening.
Naval Units - I agree with this. Although I did give Warships some bombardment capabilty (I think about the same as AT cruisers)... wet water navies could definately use some work in the scenerio. I didn't spend alot of design time on them. They probably are way too expensive given their limitations. I'll go back and take a look at the numbers on them again... they can probably use a bit of a speed boast...maybe a couple additional SFT's...and some cost tweaking. Will try to get that in an updated version over the next few days.
- Artillery has pretty much the same stats as vanilla AT except for the range. I felt given the scale, a 1 hex range made more sense. (IMO) Multi-hex ranges can really make artillery over-powered in many scenerio's as well (not that it isn't in reality though). So I'm kinda leaning at keeping it at one. I could consider putting in some weaker version of artillery with longer range though....maybe some sort of rocket/missle artillery. Mobility for guns shouldn't be bad if you provide horses as transport... that's what I see most people do with it in vanilla AT.
- Given the scale of the scenerio...I did realize that it COULD take forever to play to conclusion. That's why one of the very first updates I did was to add Victory Conditions and a Time Limit (Optional of course...you CAN keep playing past the time limit if you choose). Under that revision the game lasts 5 years (or 60 turns) and your score at the end is determined by the number and size of the cities you control (basicaly Production Points). So in order to win....you don't need to destroy the other players... you just need to make sure that you capture and hold onto more cities then everyone else before the timer runs out. In that way...it almost disincentivizes players from hunkering down and doing the turtle/attrition thing...since you won't get taken out...but you can't win by doing that. Again the rationale behind the scenerio is that the Houses are fighting more of a limited war with each other...not neccesarly to the death...but until one achieves enough dominance to be recognized as Emperor. It's my hope that this makes a little bit of the....I know I've got zero chance to win but it'll take forever to finally destroy me...dynamic that makes the end part of some other "total war" type scenerio's a little tiresome to play out. With this sort of victory conditions....even if you know you won't win....how well you hold out can help determine who actualy does. I'm not sure whether 60 turns is too long, too short or whatever...but it seemed like a nice arbitrary number to pick. I display the score in a report each turn anyway...so players could always agree to play to a different number of turns.
In short...I think some of the updates I've already made in new versions will help address many of the issues that have been brought up.
The two things I'll try adding to the next update will be:
- A revisit of Wet Water navies to make them more cost effective given their limitations.
- As an expirement, I'll try adding a space-to-ground missle type SFT...buildable only at starbases...and too heavy to transport out of system. It can be very resistant to AA fire but I'll make it destructable upon use and fairly cost ineffective for the playload....as I don't want players building hundreds of these things and simply dominating ground war with them. I'll make it use Minerals though...so as to not gum-up Starship production overmuch. That should add a little punch to controling space in a system...without overpowering the ground war element.