Enemy building in your system

[kalauer]

the blorg Hug Boxes weren't very expensive to set up in the grand scheme of things. Compared to the building and regular maintenance costs of the entire blorg wa- i mean, friendship fleet.

due to them being able to have FTL inhibitors that force the ships warping in to land near them, placing one at minimum in every border system would immediately stop any and all penetration from construct ships that want to go build wormhole stations.

Once you have a small one in virtually every system, the enemy construct ships will be hopeless unless the enemy sends their navy in first to smash everything.

Yes, that was proposed before: just secure all Systems with defense stations. And I agree, this would Keep construction-ship spam at bay. But then you really Need them in each and every System, not just on the frontline (Because I assume, and yes, it is just an assumption, that wormholes have a quite high range compared to warp).

But I am not as confident as you are about the effort one has to put in there, especially the upkeep costs could skyrocket when you bild them everywhere. And in case the costs can be neglected, one may just spam each System with the stations, putting up some real firepower and come to trench warfare reloaded (which makes it rather likely,imo, that the costs can not be neglected). Also, when you have to build a building in every System, why model it explicitly? Why not make it an automatically built Installation (not meaning I want this)?

i imagine Wiz simply didn't get around to building the necessary defensive infrastructure because A) playing on high speed means he was already struggling to keep up with internal things such as tile improvements, let alone other considerations. B) he favoured a larger overall fleet with his resources so he could split it and have half go to the west and half to the south and have strong chances of victory instead of two smaller overall fleets that would have lesser chances except on the defensive

I also think that these factors made him ignore the construction ships and wormhole stations. And I think this may also happen in non-stream games: You ignore the stations because you do not want to bother with the Micro to chase them down (thus making an error, strategy-wise, because of discomfort).

but even wormhole stations that are ignored dont seem that bad. hyperlane and warp drive races can already get around just fine in your territory, and if a wormhole nation wants to try to drive too deep into your nation they risk being cut off if wormhole stations fall and they don't have construction ships on hand (who would definitely need to be able to build in enemy territory to counteract this. especially since the assault fleet might not be with the navy at that time who was securing the area around a planet in advance of ground assault armies)

Yes, wormhole-Empires have this distinct disadvantage, that their Overall range is limited. But by my proposal, they would still be able to build in enemy's territory, they would just have to do it with more commitment than just spamming construction ships.
Anyhow, wormhole-Empires will always face the threat of being cut off in offensive Actions, no matter the building-policy. Allowing single construction ships to get those "encircled" ships rescued by themselves in that case also encourages spamming them in the hope that "one of them will come through". Sending a rescue fleet accompanied by construction ships seems much more reasonable to me.

And maybe, just maybe, wormhole-Empires should take construction ships with them? Maybe every empire should? To fortify controlled Systems? My Claim is that this should only be possible in Areas where they have control (indicated by significantfleet presence).

Also, the same Thing applies not only to wormhole-stations but also defense stations. I can not get used to the thought that a construction hsips Slips through the lines and starts to build enemy defense stations next to my shipyards... This might even be worse when warp-Empires do it.

Imagine a warp empire infiltrating the wormhole-empire with a construction ship and building defense stations next to the wormhole-stations. Some here might say it is a valid strategy. I say it is abuse.

 

[kalauer]

While I know this is not something really likeable to do, I am not strong enough to resist. I just want to point out the quote from today's stream (@1:45:50):

"It will take a lot of micromanagement to hunt down all of these things, so I'm not gonna"

This is related to wormhole stations inside the Blorg Communality. Note this statement was made just after the Just League attacked Blorg home turf (which should give all the incentive needed to do so).

So I would underline the proposition made to only allow building in enemy territory when the construction ship is accompanied by a fleet of considerable strength (thus reducing the potential micro).

 

[Chaos_TLW]

So I would underline the proposition made to only allow building in enemy territory when the construction ship is accompanied by a fleet of considerable strength (thus reducing the potential micro).

Define "considerable strength", in objective terms, please.

 

[KonradKurze202]

While I know this is not something really likeable to do, I am not strong enough to resist. I just want to point out the quote from today's stream (@1:45:50):

"It will take a lot of micromanagement to hunt down all of these things, so I'm not gonna"

This is related to wormhole stations inside the Blorg Communality. Note this statement was made just after the Just League attacked Blorg home turf (which should give all the incentive needed to do so).

So I would underline the proposition made to only allow building in enemy territory when the construction ship is accompanied by a fleet of considerable strength (thus reducing the potential micro).

If you want to handicap yourself by consciously ignoring enemy fleets you will pay the price. The game doesn't need to make itself easier just because you are too lazy to play it. Wiz elected not to do because he is streaming on fast, and wants to show off the game. When playing a real game this isn't an issue.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

No... when you play a real game you would typically play on Normal or Slow during a war, so I see no reason to fear these things at all.

I at least hope there is a message setting that will automatically pause the game when an enemy wormhole, warp signal or the like show up within my detection range. It will otherwise be a nightmare constantly check your systems for incoming fleets. That would me unnecessary micromanagement no one needs.

 

[kalauer]

Define "considerable strength", in objective terms, please.

A percentage of the enemy's (defending side) fleet strength. I came up with 15%, but that is an issue of balancing.

If you want to handicap yourself by consciously ignoring enemy fleets you will pay the price. The game doesn't need to make itself easier just because you are too lazy to play it. Wiz elected not to do because he is streaming on fast, and wants to show off the game. When playing a real game this isn't an issue.

No, he did because it was too much micro. He said that. The micro is not reduced by playing slower. And, most important: he was not ignoring enemy "fleets" but single construction ships. That's my point: If it was a fleet building the stations, you would be right to blame him for ignoring them. As it is, ignoring them is a reaction to the heavy micro and totally understandable, not only on stream.

No... when you play a real game you would typically play on Normal or Slow during a war, so I see no reason to fear these things at all.

I at least hope there is a message setting that will automatically pause the game when an enemy wormhole, warp signal or the like show up within my detection range. It will otherwise be a nightmare constantly check your systems for incoming fleets. That would me unnecessary micromanagement no one needs.

I agree with your last two sentences. But do you want to play at slow only because you have to hunt down single construction ships? War demands attention, true. But attention to significant actions, not unarmed construction ships "invading".

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

No, I play on slow becasue I enjoy the tactical part of a game like this, it also give me more of an immersive feeling of involvement and time to think about alternate strategies as they unfold.

Perhaps I want to study a battle to better understand how different ship types, combinations, stances and wepaons effect the outcome.

I don't like micromanagement for the sake of micromanagement, but I also would not like to move my fleets in one or a few large stacks at higher speed just becasue I want the game to progress faster.

For me it is more about the detail and immersion rather than fast progress.

I'm not even interested about the end goal of a game, I'm all about the story and role-playing aspect of games like these. So... for me I gladly send squadrons all over the place to guard a system from enemy ships trying to probe them or whatever, I have no problem with that.

That said it is obviously not a good strategy by the AI to send lone construction ships into enemy territory. Anyone who bother with the micromanagement can abuse such bad AI behavior and drain their economy more than otherwise.
If the AI build stations they need to do it while having fleet superiority like anyone else would.

Besides... they mentioned in the last stream this was fixed. The AI will only build new stations when they need them now. Case closed...

 

[kalauer]

No, I play on slow becasue I enjoy the tactical part of a game like this, it also give me more of an immersive feeling of involvement and time to think about alternate strategies as they unfold.

Perhaps I want to study a battle to better understand how different ship types, combinations, stances and wepaons effect the outcome.

I don't like micromanagement for the sake of micromanagement, but I also would not like to move my fleets in one or a few large stacks at higher speed just becasue I want the game to progress faster.

For me it is more about the detail and immersion rather than fast progress.

I'm not even interested about the end goal of a game, I'm all about the story and role-playing aspect of games like these. So... for me I gladly send squadrons all over the place to guard a system from enemy ships trying to probe them or whatever, I have no problem with that.

That said it is obviously not a good strategy by the AI to send lone construction ships into enemy territory. Anyone who bother with the micromanagement can abuse such bad AI behavior and drain their economy more than otherwise.
If the AI build stations they need to do it while having fleet superiority like anyone else would.

Besides... they mentioned in the last stream this was fixed. The AI will only build new stations when they need them now. Case closed...

Wiz mentioned they fixed the massive building of it, not the actual possibility (he said the AI will still do it if they need to). And we saw that it is not a totally bad strategy. The just league destroyed two major space stations in blorg territory because they were able to jump in that far.
It is only a bad strategy if the player tends to the ships (otherwise, it is very effective!). Thus, he is forced to do so. Thus micro. I predict that many players do not tend to them because of the micro. Thus it is a strategy that is successfull because it punishes players that react with micro.

Now I get what you said about studying battles. I like that too. I can do an unreasonable amount of micro if it means something. But hunting single construction ships is something else, isn't it? You will be busy doing this repeatedly, and can not do what you would like to do (be it progress fast or get into details), that is the point.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Wiz mentioned they fixed the massive building of it, not the actual possibility (he said the AI will still do it if they need to). And we saw that it is not a totally bad strategy. The just league destroyed two major space stations in blorg territory because they were able to jump in that far.
It is only a bad strategy if the player tends to the ships (otherwise, it is very effective!). Thus, he is forced to do so. Thus micro. I predict that many players do not tend to them because of the micro. Thus it is a strategy that is successfull because it punishes players that react with micro.

Now I get what you said about studying battles. I like that too. I can do an unreasonable amount of micro if it means something. But hunting single construction ships is something else, isn't it? You will be busy doing this repeatedly, and can not do what you would like to do (be it progress fast or get into details), that is the point.

I agree!

 

[KonradKurze202]

Wiz mentioned they fixed the massive building of it, not the actual possibility (he said the AI will still do it if they need to). And we saw that it is not a totally bad strategy. The just league destroyed two major space stations in blorg territory because they were able to jump in that far.
It is only a bad strategy if the player tends to the ships (otherwise, it is very effective!). Thus, he is forced to do so. Thus micro. I predict that many players do not tend to them because of the micro. Thus it is a strategy that is successfull because it punishes players that react with micro.

Now I get what you said about studying battles. I like that too. I can do an unreasonable amount of micro if it means something. But hunting single construction ships is something else, isn't it? You will be busy doing this repeatedly, and can not do what you would like to do (be it progress fast or get into details), that is the point.

Oh my god! A player has to take care of his borders! He can't just sit back and let the game play itself!

You are beating a dead horse. Wiz has never said that the AI shouldn't be able to build Worm Holes in enemy territory, he said they shouldn't be so aggressive about it. The ability to send construction ships with 0 defenders into enemy territory and build Worm Hole Stations will be in the final game, there is no point in arguing your point over and over again, ignoring everyone else's points that you cannot find a argument against. We are right, and PDS agrees. Construction ships will not require some arbitrary escort and the AI will occasionally (probably not as often as in the Blorg stream) build Worm Hole Stations in your territory.

 

[kalauer]

Oh my god! A player has to take care of his borders! He can't just sit back and let the game play itself!

Sorry to hear that bothers you. O wait, you meant to be sarcastic? In that case, sorry to hear you have to resort to sarcasm.

You are beating a dead horse. Wiz has never said that the AI shouldn't be able to build Worm Holes in enemy territory, he said they shouldn't be so aggressive about it.

You are right, he did. And I merely disagree with the fact that they are allowed to do it at all. IF they are allowed, they surely should not be so aggressive about it.
So ... your point is, disagreeing with a part of the game is futile, hence we should not do it? Nice one.

The ability to send construction ships with 0 defenders into enemy territory and build Worm Hole Stations will be in the final game,

Yes, building a new concept ten days before release would be bold and not very smart. But that does not influence the quality of the system in place.

there is no point in arguing your point over and over again, ignoring everyone else's points that you cannot find a argument against.

Funny, I have the Impression you did not come up with arguments against my proposal. And the only argument you had was "there is no problem", which is weird since in the last WWW, Wiz presented the problem first hand (should get rid of the stations but did not because of micro).

But well, if there were no different opinions, we would live in Russia. I don't blame you for your opinion, I just say you were unable to find arguments to defend it.

Although I grow tired of your accusations, just Point me at an argument you raised and I did not answer. I feel obliged to answer it (not that you are going to like the answer...). Because I am convinced I am right, just as you are.

We are right, and PDS agrees. .

YOu think you are right, I believe that. But stating it as fact is rather ridiculous. That PDS agrees is speculation or at best wishful thinking. I claim it is in the game because they did not find a better solution for this issue by now. Or do you say they have made the perfect game and are perfectly happy with it?

Construction ships will not require some arbitrary escort and the AI will occasionally (probably not as often as in the Blorg stream) build Worm Hole Stations in your territory.

Yes they won't and yes it will. So it is good because it is? The normative power of the de facto, that's your point?

 

[KonradKurze202]

You are right, he did. And I merely disagree with the fact that they are allowed to do it at all. IF they are allowed, they surely should not be so aggressive about it.
So ... your point is, disagreeing with a part of the game is futile, hence we should not do it? Nice one.

My point is I agree with their design decision, and they agree with their design to decision. If everyone disliked the design (frontier outposts/colonies projecting borders like crazy in stream #2) then criticizing it can be constructive, however in this instance more people here disagree with you than agree and the devs disagree. You can argue it all you want, but it won't change anything.

Yes, building a new concept ten days before release would be bold and not very smart. But that does not influence the quality of the system in place.

Again the presumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, sorry to break it to you, but sometimes the long person arguing against something is actually wrong.

Funny, I have the Impression you did not come up with arguments against my proposal. And the only argument you had was "there is no problem", which is weird since in the last WWW, Wiz presented the problem first hand (should get rid of the stations but did not because of micro).

But well, if there were no different opinions, we would live in Russia. I don't blame you for your opinion, I just say you were unable to find arguments to defend it.

Although I grow tired of your accusations, just Point me at an argument you raised and I did not answer. I feel obliged to answer it (not that you are going to like the answer...). Because I am convinced I am right, just as you are.

You should reread the first few pages, people stopped responding to you because you ignored most of what people were saying.

YOu think you are right, I believe that. But stating it as fact is rather ridiculous. That PDS agrees is speculation or at best wishful thinking. I claim it is in the game because they did not find a better solution for this issue by now. Or do you say they have made the perfect game and are perfectly happy with it?

Something doesn't have to be perfect for me to be happy with it. Introducing your nonsensical artificial limit would make me less happy, I don't see a need for a 'better' solution as this is a tiny non-problem. If you were a construction ship and travelled to a system with the intent to build something, and were summarily told 'nope, even though you are a fully functional construction ship with all the materials you need to construct a station you cannot actually do anything because there are 0 military ships around' you would be scratching your head going 'wtf?'.

Yes they won't and yes it will. So it is good because it is? The normative power of the de facto, that's your point?

As usual you ignore the fact that I believe the system as is doesn't have a problem. You are so convinced there is a problem that you project your beliefs onto everyone else, you think people disagreeing with you must just be fan boys, voting against change just because they don't want change. I am not voting against change just 'cause, I am voting against change because I believe the system as it is works. If you are in a MP game and your opponent takes the time to send out construction ships into your territory then you can either take the time to destroy them or block them, or you can suffer the consequences of ignoring them. Just because you are too lazy to use this tactic, or respond to this tactic, doesn't mean other people who would should be punished.
Its a game, play it like you want. The only 'solution' I can see this needing is an automated setting for fleets to automatically engage lower strength fleets in your territory. That wouldn't take away from the game (like an arbitrary limitation does), and would be optional (the AI will rarely play as effectively as a player), so it would only be used by people who really dislike anything that smells at all like micro. Even this isn't necessary in my opinion, and I wouldn't want too much dev work to go into this rather than new features that are more universally applicable, but this is the only 'solution' to your 'problem' that I would accept.

 

[kalauer]

My point is I agree with their design decision, and they agree with their design to decision. If everyone disliked the design (frontier outposts/colonies projecting borders like crazy in stream #2) then criticizing it can be constructive, however in this instance more people here disagree with you than agree and the devs disagree. You can argue it all you want, but it won't change anything.

That PDS disagrees is an assumption you keep making. I do not say it is wrong but we do not know. I understand that you try to make an authority Argument because you have non else, but I am not impressed by it.

Again the presumption that you are right and everyone else is wrong, sorry to break it to you, but sometimes the long person arguing against something is actually wrong.

I do not assume I am right, I am convinced, which is a difference. If I assumed, I would not argue but just state "I am right". Which is what you did. And it is no way to discuss things.

You should reread the first few pages, people stopped responding to you because you ignored most of what people were saying.

I had the perception, and tried whatever I could to answer every point raised, even when it was raised several times by different people. And unless you show me arguments I did not answer (which you seem to know some), I will continue to believe that. More so, by now I have to say I take you as a person who does not want to discover the truth but force his opinion even by raising unfounded accusations. Which is something I normally do not assume, ven after very heated discussions.

Something doesn't have to be perfect for me to be happy with it. Introducing your nonsensical artificial limit would make me less happy, I don't see a need for a 'better' solution as this is a tiny non-problem. If you were a construction ship and travelled to a system with the intent to build something, and were summarily told 'nope, even though you are a fully functional construction ship with all the materials you need to construct a station you cannot actually do anything because there are 0 military ships around' you would be scratching your head going 'wtf?'.

I understood that you do not like the idea of having top present a fleet presence to be allowed to build. Maybe you did not understand the concept of control, maybe you just outright reject it. Maybe both. That I can not tell from your answers. What I took from your reasoning is that you think it is okay for an enemy power to fly an unarmed ship next to your capital and build a Military Station there. I disagree, and that's that.

As usual you ignore the fact that I believe the system as is doesn't have a problem.

I am well Aware that you think there is no Problem. In fact, that's what I said in the very post you are quoting.

You are so convinced there is a problem that you project your beliefs onto everyone else, you think people disagreeing with you must just be fan boys, voting against change just because they don't want change. .

Never accused anyone of being fanboys. If any, I consider myself the closest to it as can be. But you just did not convey arguments a)against my proposal and b) in favor of the results we saw in the stream apart from "I do not care to do the Micro".[/QUOTE]

I am not voting against change just 'cause, I am voting against change because I believe the system as it is works. If you are in a MP game and your opponent takes the time to send out construction ships into your territory then you can either take the time to destroy them or block them, or you can suffer the consequences of ignoring them. Just because you are too lazy to use this tactic, or respond to this tactic, doesn't mean other people who would should be punished.

You mean that in MP, the Player who uses the two clicks (per ship) to send a construction ship should be rewarded by having his enemy have to make a lot more. I disagree. THis is Micro-harassment and well suited for starcraft, but not for Grand Strategy: Prominent instances where this Kind of Micro has been reduced in EU4 lately:

- fort System, giving control over provinces even without forts (control zones), so that 1k stacks are not viable any longer
- commitment to moving after 50% of the way to another province has been gone (so that the Micro-effort of issueing and aborting orders for tactical advantage is reduced)

Now tell me again PDS is not in favor of reducing Micro.

Its a game, play it like you want. The only 'solution' I can see this needing is an automated setting for fleets to automatically engage lower strength fleets in your territory. That wouldn't take away from the game (like an arbitrary limitation does), and would be optional (the AI will rarely play as effectively as a player), so it would only be used by people who really dislike anything that smells at all like micro. Even this isn't necessary in my opinion, and I wouldn't want too much dev work to go into this rather than new features that are more universally applicable, but this is the only 'solution' to your 'problem' that I would accept.

Patrol missions are a way to alleviate this and I hope they are in the game. But they are merely treating the symptom, not the illness. (eah, yeah, of which you think there is None...)

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Are there really much point in arguing this...

If you play against the AI this will not become a problem... people will complain that it is tedious work to swat AI construction ships if the problem persists and they would change it so it happen more rarely. It's not like it would be difficult to deal with, just annoying.

In multi-player people will not do this unless they can defend the ship or the station, they will get smacked around if they couldn't.

It will solve itself.

The game are open and you will have to deal with it when it happens IF it happens. I really don't see any problem with this what so ever.


When you go on the offensive you need to keep a strategic reserve if you want to secure your borders, battle stations will only get you so far. You also might need to hit the enemy infrastructure and/or patrol his system and hunt for their fleets. It will be up to you if you want to risk defending from raiding forces, the benefit of swiftly invading enemy planets or if you want to defend all your territory for a longer drawn out war.

The problem is that all we need to care about in the game are resources so it become a question of what will cost you more.

In reality we would also need to look at political motives and sentient lives. I would really like games to incorporate the last two a bit better as a factor in wars. The only thing I can do is role-play that lives and political motives actually matter in my game world.

 

[kalauer]

More so, by now I have to say I take you as a person who does not want to discover the truth but force his opinion even by raising unfounded accusations.

I wish to apologize for this and take it back. I was unnecessary harsh and I am not in the position to know you as a person. I still find the ntion that I did not answer Points unfounded, though.

 

[kalauer]

...

I sure hope it will not be an issue.