How do you think Doomsday / Super weapons should be balanced?

[Slynx]

iirc there are doomsday weapons implemented by some mods (ISB for example) and they are just fine for my tastes - very lategame and very expensive tech, then very expensive build cost and so on.

but unless you think about diplomacy there is really nothing else you can do to balance it. you build doomstack + 1 planet killer. and wipe the whole galaxy (well...maybe energy cost of destruction (basically like terraforming a planet into the tomb world, while killing everyone on it may slow you down a bit...but in the end game you'd probably won't even notice)

 

[faljen_isus]

i would love if they add planet reconstruction techs along with doomsday weapons

if i go on a destruction rampage i would like to go on a rebuilding rampage also

 

[Maukka]

Building Doomsday weapons could cause negative opinion modifiers, divided by alliances or independent empires posessing them. Creating interesting cold war situtations.

 

[TempusxX]

I like the idea of super weapons/doomsday devices and should be allowed to use them to destroy a planet or the star system and all the planets that are in the star system. Of course should also make it where if you build and use a doomsday/ super weapon that every one in the galaxy will put aside their differences band together and start a war on you.

I like the idea of super weapons/doomsday devices so much that I use the mod Improved Space Battles to be able build doomsday devices and destroy a planet or to destroy all planets in a star system

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

The problem with super weapons is they are almost impossible to balance.

-The ability to consume a planet you own and drain all its resources and life to fuel your war machine? Sure, that works and we will already have something similar.
-The ability to build a giant deathstar that is almost invulnerable and hugely powerful? Sure, that's pretty cool, if likely not very effective.
-Giving that deathstar the ability to destroy planets in the system its in? Uh, maybe, at least you have to beat the enemy fleet first anyway. Needs a high cooldown.
-Having a superweapon that can destroy systems from across the galaxy? That sounds OP.

It is really difficult to find a middle ground with super weapons. Either they are really effective and strategies are based around researching and building them as fast as possible, or they are not worth the cost and no one builds them. I don't think I have ever played a game in which super weapons have been balanced, it is always one way or the other. Don't get me wrong, super weapons are cool, but the ability to destroy a planet that took 300 years to build up in an instant is just too much of a strategy game.

Also, I really doubt the AI will be able to handle them very well. A human might be able to attack the system you have based the weapon or adopt a position of MAD, but an AI will really struggle.

Maybe not destroy a planet as this would have major problems and would throw the game out of any sort of balance

I was thinking something like destroy all the buildings or kill half the pops or give a huge negative modifier convert most of the tiles to the bombarded blocker, but to counter this they should have limited range (maybe the range of a starting warp station) and could be completely negated by planetary sheilds, as a counter

This is the only way I could see it working in the game without major changes

 

[TempusxX]

don't think doomsday weapons/super weapons should be balanced, they are the ultimate expression of destruction. Again as I mentioned above, doomsday weapons/super weapons should be able to be used to destroy a planet or planets - because again they are the ultimate expression of destruction and when you have a doomsday weapon/super weapon then you should be able to destroy anything sun, planet etc.

 

[Elfwind]

They need a menu option to have no superweapons in a game at least.

 

[SolarGuy]

I think super/ doomsday weapons should be balanced by having extremely high diplomatic penalties / threat generation, as well as working as a deterrent. Say, if you have a planet destroyer, people will be super reluctant to declare war on you.

And if you do actually go around destroying planets and star systems, everyone will hate you and band together to stop you.

That's actually a really nice thought. If you HAVE the weapon but do NOT USE it, then nobody wants to oppose you but there will be fear of your strength at the same time.
And if you then start USING your superweapon, then the fearful people won't have any opposition in their own nation anymore and all past rivalries will be forgotten (at least until your weapon is destroyed).

This sounds like a nice way of promoting tall + peaceful play a little bit along the way. Tall and therefore high-tech empires can more easily maintain, and more quickly build, a doomsday weapon. And as long as they don't use it they're completely safe from outer threats unless it's fanatical purifiers, a crisis, or another doomsday weapon owner.
Looking at it like this, the inner stability should also be highly increased once you have such a weapon. Nobody wants to rebel if that causes their star to explode, I guess. But the unrest might still exist, although it won't cause anything as long as the weapon exists.

 

[krios41]

I think that any planet destroying weapon should just turn it into a tomb world instead of actually destroying it

This sounds like a nice way of promoting tall + peaceful play a little bit along the way. Tall and therefore high-tech empires can more easily maintain, and more quickly build, a doomsday weapon

Uhm, sure, a large empire may potentionaly do a tiny bit longer about getting there.
But it will defenitly have a much easier time to maintain them than a tiny empire would

 

[terrycloth]

iirc there are doomsday weapons implemented by some mods (ISB for example) and they are just fine for my tastes - very lategame and very expensive tech, then very expensive build cost and so on.

but unless you think about diplomacy there is really nothing else you can do to balance it. you build doomstack + 1 planet killer. and wipe the whole galaxy (well...maybe energy cost of destruction (basically like terraforming a planet into the tomb world, while killing everyone on it may slow you down a bit...but in the end game you'd probably won't even notice)

Yeah, and they had to turn off the AI using it because they got doom-happy.

On the other hand, it could be an end-game that explains why the galaxy starts out so empty. As you tech up doomsday weapons get easier and easier to deploy. Maybe having one used on you (or on anyone?) gives you 50% research towards building your own if you can get a science ship there to examine the wreckage of the planet, so once you start using them *everyone* has them. Eventually, the galaxy is wiped clean except for a few 'winners' who have half a dozen planets left. n.n

Maybe have it so that destroyed planets become habitable again after 500 years or something. q:3

 

[krios41]

Yeah, and they had to turn off the AI using it because they got doom-happy.

Space Ghandi... anyone?

 

[SolarGuy]

But it will defenitly have a much easier time to maintain them than a tiny empire would

Unless of course you focus a little bit more on maintenance reduction techs. There are techs that reduce megastructure build costs and time. So it's likely that a superweapon feature could also have such techs, including a bunch for maintenance.

 

[krios41]

Unless of course you focus a little bit more on maintenance reduction techs. There are techs that reduce megastructure build costs and time. So it's likely that a superweapon feature could also have such techs, including a bunch for maintenance.

But that would also make it easier to maintain more planetbusters for a large empire...
I don't think we want anyone to have butloads of those, large or small

 

[ponasozis]

make them very costly/special research/ascension perk/long time to build
and very stronk honestly super weapons should be more of a late single player weapons as nobody in mp should even allow you to build it
a warning to all known empires once somebody starts building a super weapon
but once build it should be almost unstoppable unless completely left unguarded and outnumbered

 

[krios41]

a warning to all known empires once somebody starts building a super weapon

something along the lines of
-sound plays-
pop up text -> "Empire X has constructed a super weapon!"
perhaps?

 

[andxtiltone]

They should take a while to complete (like Megastructures), and if they can move, they should do so very slowly, and only able to be moved every 'x' years, maybe even cost influence to move.

 

[Slynx]

Building Doomsday weapons could cause negative opinion modifiers

unless it;s a negative opinion of your own citizens - it doesn't matter. who will even listen to the opinion of barely sentient xenos? next step you'll have feelings for them?

They need a menu option to have no superweapons in a game at least.

if it's a dlc you'll be able to just turn it off.

This sounds like a nice way of promoting tall + peaceful play a little bit along the way.

barely. wide can be almost as effective in science, but also will have territory, energy and minerals to build\maintain it.

a warning to all known empires once somebody starts building a super weapon

let's just hope that there will not be Civ5 solution to the nukes, where they could be banned by the votes from the weaklings in UN

 

[Pyramid_Head]

The reaason tells me that before balancing Doomsday\Superweapons we should have balanced default weapons. Which we have not. Noreason to build upon a lousy foundation.

 

[ashbery76]

They don't need to be balanced.Endgame tech should be crazy and overpowered.

 

[Slynx]

They don't need to be balanced.Endgame tech should be crazy and overpowered.

that may turn into "who reached endgame tech first - won the game" and it's not really a good thing