A Defense of CastelloNova's Ground Defense System (+ Anti-Space Howitzers)

[Magdaki]

Yet another ground combat thread. I'll keep my reply simple in this thread because I don't really see the point of having a thread to rehash another thread. Why not just continue the discussion in that thread?

I would absolutely not want anything mentioned in the original thread or any of the suggestions here to make ground combat more complex.

It will add little to nothing to the game. It will cause wars to drag on long after they've been lost. From a game mechanic perspective, the player that has won in space will inevitably win on the ground. No system will escape one of the four game meta-states I've described in other threads. It seems like all of these suggestions end up in the 4th state, namely that taking a planet has a space fleet cost (due to losses from the ground). Ultimately, is that deeper more complex or just more button pushing to queue up whatever losses occur to have no change to the outcome? If you want the ability to have fortress planets that can hold out for a period of time that can be done without adding an iota of complexity. If you add a more complex ground combat system, I can all but guarantee that it will change zero outcomes in any war perpetrated by a planet. What it may do is return us to a point where the AI cannot invade planets very well again.

Adding a feature or mechanic to a game solely because it would be really cool is a very bad way to design a game.

 

[Larknok1]

I would absolutely not want anything mentioned in the original thread or any of the suggestions here to make ground combat more complex.

So we're in agreement. I wouldn't want it to be more complex either. That's why it should all be automated (besides creating armies, as we currently do.)

It will add little to nothing to the game. It will cause wars to drag on long after they've been lost.

Space Howitzers would entail that you *haven't* lost just because you lost your fleet, because invading your planets would slowly destroy their fleet, during which you might be able to rebuild your own fleet for counter-attack.

From a game mechanic perspective, the player that has won in space will inevitably win on the ground.

Sure, but the point isn't to keep the planet. The point is to keep it long enough to chip away at the enemy fleet with anti-space howitzers so coming back from a defensive war is possible.

No system will escape one of the four game meta-states I've described in other threads. It seems like all of these suggestions end up in the 4th state, namely that taking a planet has a space fleet cost (due to losses from the ground). Ultimately, is that deeper more complex or just more button pushing to queue up whatever losses occur to have no change to the outcome?

The question is the degree to which your anti-space howitzers deal AoE Damage over Time. If they deal significant enough damage then no, it's not just ordering another corvette. It's sending your entire fleet home to repair 20-30% damage to every ship per planet, at which point you might be able to intercept and come back in the war, or buy enough time to rebuild your own fleet.

If you want the ability to have fortress planets that can hold out for a period of time that can be done without adding an iota of complexity.

I agree, although I think the ground invasion simulation (because let's be honest, it's not a system you interact with, it's a simulation that runs in the background and you have an option of watching) -- helps explain why certain anti-space howitzers are destroyed when they are.

If you add a more complex ground combat system, I can all but guarantee that it will change zero outcomes in any war perpetrated by a planet. What it may do is return us to a point where the AI cannot invade planets very well again.

Not true. There would be no player input on the ground invasions. It would all be AI run, running in the background. You'd have an option to watch. The ai would be simple for each player. Spawn an army, have the army advance towards an enemy. Not much more complicated than auto-right clicking an enemy army in HoI4.

Adding a feature or mechanic to a game solely because it would be really cool is a very bad way to design a game.

Actually, if that feature is cool but doesn't harm gameplay at all -- then it's a GREAT way to design a game.

I'm afraid you still think something that's objectively false: the simulation/system I'm defending requires *zero* player input. It would be exactly like watching your ships fight in space in the current build. Just something you could watch happen and couldn't interact with. The combat AI would handle it all for you, just like how ship combat AI functions right now.

As for space howitzers: the point is to make it so you can come back from defensive wars. I don't have a solution for getting rid of the grind of offensive wars, but I think there are intelligent work-arounds available to PDS.

 

[Magdaki]

Actually, if that feature is cool but doesn't harm gameplay at all -- then it's a GREAT way to design a game.

It is rarely so that a feature has no effect on gameplay. I don't think you understand how complex game design is. Practically everything in a game is carefully crafted to give a particular experience. If you add something that can be watched then some players will watch, this impacts gameplay and so the prudent designer needs to take into account. It is not enough to simply say, well the player doesn't have to watch it if they don't want to.

Even a non-interactive simulation requires CPU and memory if nothing else. Even non-interactive system can have side effects. Back when 1.4 came out there was much discussion on whether the targeting in space combat was optimal or even correct at all. There is almost no instance of adding a feature that has no impact or potential for impact.

 

[Magdaki]

As for space howitzers: the point is to make it so you can come back from defensive wars. I don't have a solution for getting rid of the grind of offensive wars, but I think there are intelligent work-arounds available to PDS.

You cannot come back from defensive wars. Your spaceports will be dead and you'll have no build capacity.

 

[Larknok1]

You cannot come back from defensive wars. Your spaceports will be dead and you'll have no build capacity.

I don't think you have any clue how game balance works.

There is a theoretical number at which damage from space howitzers would achieve exactly the result you want for them.

I know this because I know what 0 damage does (current system), and I know what infinite damage does (wipes entire enemy fleet.)

Therefore, there's a number at which it works but isn't over-powered.

 

[Magdaki]

I don't think you have any clue how game balance works.

There is a theoretical number at which damage from space howitzers would achieve exactly the result you want for them.

I know this because I know what 0 damage does (current system), and I know what infinite damage does (wipes entire enemy fleet.)

Therefore, there's a number at which it works but isn't over-powered.

No, actually I have a very good idea of how game design works. Twiddling with numbers is certainly one aspect of design especially for balance; however, game design is not solely about looking at numbers but interactions between systems and how those systems come together to give a particular user experience.Game design is about consider the design space that you have available and deciding what fits in that space to give the experience you're looking for.

 

[Xoatl]

Surface to space defense systems are common in sci-fi. Most notably starship troopers. Considering that's enough rationale for other features then there's certainly an impetus for including this in Stellaris.