[MOD] Slowing it all down

[hsuzy1987]

I would perhaps link some upgrades to whether if there is a capital on the planet or not if that is possible... that would make a difference between core worlds and colonies as well.

I might not want to increase the cost of warships because that would most likely upset the balance of war a bit much unless invasions of planets was made to take much longer as well. Build time of ships might be a bit on the fast side but when you consider that you only build one ship per space station at a time I think the time it takes to build a ship is reasonable. In reality you should be able to build many ships at the same time.

Increase the build time of the ships and buff the corvette/destroyer/cruiser/battleship yards +construct speed bonus maybe?

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Increase the build time of the ships and buff the corvette/destroyer/cruiser/battleship yards +construct speed bonus maybe?

I think this is a reasonable approach... anything that makes vulnerable infrastructure more important is a good thing.

The important thing is that war become a matter of attrition and not over as soon as one side loose most of their ships, wars should be an extremely costly affair.

 

[serpentskirt]

I've just returned to explain my respecteful disagreements.

I have no objections for the mod itself but please, for the love of god, no in-game sliders. I'm against because it'll a) split community or/and b) require additional resources from dev team.

Regarding a) - multiplayer will for sure be exclusevily played on quickest speed and we'll end up with "quick sect", "marathon adepts" and "normal commonality". Taking Civ into example - if you usually play on normal/marathon it is super annoying if you want to try multiplayer games because they are played on quick - and it's compeltely different game because most of the times it is just stupid resource number scaling.

As mentioned before, stupid scaling w/o changing stuff like ship travel speed will skew game towards tech competition or production competition. Really, Civ on quick and on marathon are completely different games, they have different priorities, build orders and so on.

Now, you can indeed invest more b) to rebalance everything so the balance between game components will be more or less the same, but in the end it's just doing same work twice or thrice. Don't forget that there is a shitload of events you'll need to adjust numbers for as well. Take into account that there will be A LOT of changes due to expansions and for each introduced mechanic it will need testing on different speeds to avoid stuff like "espionage is broken on marathon". I really don't want dev team to sink resources there.

Finally, even with sliders some people will be unhappy with one or the other aspect and will mod them. So, just slap everything in a mod and don't turn game into convoluted mess of sliders.

Hitler was a bad guy.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

In regard to planetary invasions I think that if it is possible to increase ground troop resistance to damage and make ground combat take much longer would be something that also should be considered.

From the streams it does look like planetary ground combat is over in a matter of weeks or months, I would like it if well defended planets took much longer than that to actually defeat once you landed your troops.

 

[hsuzy1987]

I have no objections for the mod itself but please, for the love of god, no in-game sliders. I'm against because it'll a) split community or/and b) require additional resources from dev team.

I'm with you on this, in fact. I believe a game alteration like this is firmly in mod territory.

Hitler was a bad guy.

?
...Ok, that's slightly random

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I've just returned to explain my respecteful disagreements.

I have no objections for the mod itself but please, for the love of god, no in-game sliders. I'm against because it'll a) split community or/and b) require additional resources from dev team.

Regarding a) - multiplayer will for sure be exclusevily played on quickest speed and we'll end up with "quick sect", "marathon adepts" and "normal commonality". Taking Civ into example - if you usually play on normal/marathon it is super annoying if you want to try multiplayer games because they are played on quick - and it's compeltely different game because most of the times it is just stupid resource number scaling.

As mentioned before, stupid scaling w/o changing stuff like ship travel speed will skew game towards tech competition or production competition. Really, Civ on quick and on marathon are completely different games, they have different priorities, build orders and so on.

Now, you can indeed invest more b) to rebalance everything so the balance between game components will be more or less the same, but in the end it's just doing same work twice or thrice. Don't forget that there is a shitload of events you'll need to adjust numbers for as well. Take into account that there will be A LOT of changes due to expansions and for each introduced mechanic it will need testing on different speeds to avoid stuff like "espionage is broken on marathon". I really don't want dev team to sink resources there.

Finally, even with sliders some people will be unhappy with one or the other aspect and will mod them. So, just slap everything in a mod and don't turn game into convoluted mess of sliders.

Hitler was a bad guy.

I think we could reserve discussion in this thread to a mod not to actual official game changes.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

I would perhaps link some upgrades to whether if there is a capital on the planet or not if that is possible... that would make a difference between core worlds and colonies as well.

I might not want to increase the cost of warships because that would most likely upset the balance of war a bit much unless invasions of planets was made to take much longer as well. Build time of ships might be a bit on the fast side but when you consider that you only build one ship per space station at a time I think the time it takes to build a ship is reasonable. In reality you should be able to build many ships at the same time.

I thought this through. Ground unit spam looked like a bit of an issue as did sorting out attachments. Was planning on making it harder/slower to create troops, and more expensive, this slows down invasions to match space combat.

Also by increasing the cost and relevance of resource stations they become more valuable and thus more viable targets.

Regarding buildings on the core worlds, simply done by some builsings requiring a special capital building on the plbuiltthebuilding.

 

[hsuzy1987]

In regard to planetary invasions I think that if it is possible to increase ground troop resistance to damage and make ground combat take much longer would be something that also should be considered.

From the streams it does look like planetary ground combat is over in a matter of weeks or months, I would like it if well defended planets took much longer than that to actually defeat once you landed your troops.

Would be nice to be able to counterattack, drive off a besieging fleet and drop reinforcements to the defenders. How much longer should they be without turning every planetary campaign into a massive grind... there's the million dollar question. It's going to take quite a bit of testing.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I thought this through. Ground unit spam looked like a bit of an issue as did sorting out attachments. Was planning on making it harder/slower to create troops, and more expensive, this slows down invasions to match space combat.

Also by increasing the cost and relevance of resource stations they become more valuable and thus more viable targets.

Regarding buildings on the core worlds, simply done by some builsings requiring a special capital building on the plbuiltthebuilding.

I had something similar in mind... especially assault armies seemed bit inexpensive in comparison with defensive armies.

Assault armies actually are a bit stronger and only cost about twice as much and come with their own transport ship in addition to that. Seems like assault armies should be way more expensive considering all the perks they enjoy such as being able to move and reinforce planets where needed and able to do invasions. Defence armies are static and weaker.

Then, making the combat themselves take longer should be possible with increasing the hit points or some such of all armies (or lower their damage done).

 

[serpentskirt]

Yep, I've posted the wall just to show that as there are supporters for speed sliders, there are as well people who are against them. That being said, I'm going out of the thread for good.

Have a nice day.

 

[moglus]

To prevent boredom at the start, initial, costs for important technologies like colony ships or basic building unlocks will probably be increased less than later techs or even remain the same, so that there is something for the player to do instead of just staring at the tech accumulation ticking up.

In my opinion if you seriously hamper pop growth, increased mineral cost and build time of all infrastructure projects you don't need to fiddle with tech costs at all, you will per definition get much lower tech growth anyway.

I'd argue that for the sake of balance you'd need to increase that as well (tho it could be a submod to leave it be), since tech costs increase with total population not increasing the time needed to expand, while also increasing the default cost of the techs themselves, would just double the effect you were trying to create (kinda like how at lower difficulties in Civ IV you get huge "pop growth" buffs, which causes "unhealthyness" to run rambant in your cities since even with "slavery" you can't keep up with the "pop growth". creating a self-reinforcing problem)

 

[KingRolan]

...Ok, that's slightly random

Actually, I'm pretty sure he only said that to make people who click Respectfully Disagree on his post look like Hitler supporters.

 

[MasterOfGrey]

If we're slowing things down, one thing that I find slightly strange about this one is population growth. Pop growth should be a lot slower, to be realistic, though your homeworld should probably start almost packed to the brim.

That way then a concerted settlement effort would involve *encouraging* movement from the homeworld to the colonies, or allowing internal migration which is of limited effect. It would *really* accentuate the impact of your core worlds vs your colonies then.

 

[moglus]

to be realistic, though your homeworld should probably start almost packed to the brim.

I don't know if i agree with that at all, human beings actually utilize a surprisingly low percentage of the earth for "living space"(aka residential areas, not resource extraction or conventional soil farming) The vast majority of the land that we use is for things like conventional soil farming, which is horribly space inefficient compared to even current "vertical farming" technology, a species capable of FTL travel has most likely already made that shift which would increase the population a planet could support so much that i think the (5-7 POPs you start with?) is a fairly accurate representation of that.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I'd argue that for the sake of balance you'd need to increase that as well (tho it could be a submod to leave it be), since tech costs increase with total population not increasing the time needed to expand, while also increasing the default cost of the techs themselves, would just double the effect you were trying to create (kinda like how at lower difficulties in Civ IV you get huge "pop growth" buffs, which causes "unhealthyness" to run rambant in your cities since even with "slavery" you can't keep up with the "pop growth". creating a self-reinforcing problem)

To some degree the negative modifier for population will reduce tech growth but it is merely a mitigating factor, you still gain allot more tech than that mitigating factor will impact you.

If tech need to be changed as well would be a balancing act based on how slow you wan tech progression to become, but it need to come at a pace so you don't stagnate to much and don't have new stuff to build or do.

When you combine higher mineral cost and build time and pop growth you are looking at considerable lower tech growth, is it enough will remain to be seen.

 

[moglus]

To some degree the negative modifier for population will reduce tech growth but it is merely a mitigating factor, you still gain allot more tech than that mitigating factor will impact you.

If tech need to be changed as well would be a balancing act based on how slow you wan tech progression to become, but it need to come at a pace so you don't stagnate to much and don't have new stuff to build or do.

When you combine higher mineral cost and build time and pop growth you are looking at considerable lower tech growth, is it enough will remain to be seen.

I based my response on the OP post's assumption that they weren't sure if they were gonna touch POP growth and build times (and tech cost for unlocking the colony ship)

If i know paradox as well as i think i do (considering the truly mindbogglingly large part of my life i've wasted playing their games) the increased tech cost from total POP is going to be a percentage modifier applied to the total points cost of a tech. which means that only increasing the time it takes for POPs to grow wouldn't slow down the reasearch times at all in the early game.
Additionally increasing the buildcost without increasing the techcost would only serve to make traits like "intelligent", "natural physicists/sociologists/engineers", "strong" et cetera, much more powerful than they already are since everyone who don't have those traits wouldn't be able to make buildings to compensate until much later.

If we operate off of the assumption that the game is sufficiently balanced at launch, then in my experience, for a mod like this, you'd need to increase the cost of everything to preserve that balance, and only make slight buffs and nerfs when needed, otherwise there is gonna be an extremely OP playstyle, and if my experience as a modder and coder has taught me anything it is that the vast majority of players just cannot help themselves from exploiting the game.

 

[hsuzy1987]

If we operate off of the assumption that the game is sufficiently balanced at launch, then in my experience, for a mod like this, you'd need to increase the cost of everything to preserve that balance, and only make slight buffs and nerfs when needed

Modded other Clausewitz games a bit, nothing more than changing a few values or localisation files though. I'm aware that there are a lot of values to be changed, not just the tech costs, but I intended this thread to be more an interest/feasibility discussion. It's certainly feasible and doable within the confines of the game engine, but tedious as hell, unfortunately.

 

[moglus]

Modded other Clausewitz games a bit, nothing more than changing a few values or localisation files though. I'm aware that there are a lot of values to be changed, not just the tech costs, but I intended this thread to be more an interest/feasibility discussion. It's certainly feasible and doable within the confines of the game engine, but tedious as hell, unfortunately.

A simpler way of doing it would be to make additional "hidden" modifiers for each "cost"(build-times, POP growth, research speed) that apply to everyone, it would be much less tedious.
But... it would make it harder to balance specific things... and would probably have to be done via percentage modifiers (paradox loves those) which is fine AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT MULTIPLICATIVE. (i say that because some previous paradox game had "only" additive modifiers... and then like one multiplicative modifier that didn't say it was multiplicative)

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I based my response on the OP post's assumption that they weren't sure if they were gonna touch POP growth and build times (and tech cost for unlocking the colony ship)

If i know paradox as well as i think i do (considering the truly mindbogglingly large part of my life i've wasted playing their games) the increased tech cost from total POP is going to be a percentage modifier applied to the total points cost of a tech. which means that only increasing the time it takes for POPs to grow wouldn't slow down the reasearch times at all in the early game.
Additionally increasing the buildcost without increasing the techcost would only serve to make traits like "intelligent", "natural physicists/sociologists/engineers", "strong" et cetera, much more powerful than they already are since everyone who don't have those traits wouldn't be able to make buildings to compensate until much later.

If we operate off of the assumption that the game is sufficiently balanced at launch, then in my experience, for a mod like this, you'd need to increase the cost of everything to preserve that balance, and only make slight buffs and nerfs when needed, otherwise there is gonna be an extremely OP playstyle, and if my experience as a modder and coder has taught me anything it is that the vast majority of players just cannot help themselves from exploiting the game.

I don't see what you see though... less pop (build cost and time) means that you don't get to use as many new laboratories, that is my whole argument that less pop give you less actual research. The same should be true for Intelligent trait for example, these a percentage based so will effect everyone equally harsh, the cost to build a laboratory will have no direct impact on the difference here.

You will get more tech in the beginning and less as time go by in comparison with the vanilla game, but that would be a conscious choice. The whole idea here would be that the increase in science are significantly reduced while being roughly the same in the beginning so you can still get a decent amount of early tech while by mid game tech progression will slow down considerable and slightly pick up again at the end of the game. You simply get a different curve and primarily get the slower progression when you want it the most as a design choice.

Exactly what you prefer then is up for discussion though.

 

[moglus]

I don't see what you see though... less pop means that you don't get to use as many new laboratories, that is my whole argument that less pop give you less actual research. The same should be true for Intelligent trait for example, these a percentage based so will effect everyone equally harsh, the cost to build a laboratory will have no direct impact on the difference here.

But having less POP means that the techs are cheaper, meaning you don't need as many new laboratories as a "wide" nation to research them, so increasing buildcost would not affect everyone equally harsh.
Intelligent, natural physicists/sociologists/engineers traits and the materialist ethos all increase tile output of "science resources", meaning in that timespan of the game where you can't build laboratories they would have a significantly higher (specifically +20%/+20%/+35% in any order) output of "science" than everyone else for much longer, which would cause snowballing with those traits to be much easier.
Especially in the mid-late game if you choose to go for a "tall" empire instead of a "wide", since everyone else gets an increasing "research speed" penalty in addition to not being able to build/upgrade as many research stations and laboratories as they normally could to compensate.
It's not that the immediate impact is ridiculously large, it's the fact that the potential snowballing is incredibly OP.

You will get more tech in the beginning and less as time go by in comparison with the vanilla game, but that would be a conscious choice. The whole idea here would be that the increase in science are significantly reduced while being roughly the same in the beginning so you can still get a decent amount of early tech while by mid game tech progression will slow down considerable and slightly pick up again at the end of the game. You simply get a different curve and primarily get the slower progression when you want it the most as a design choice.

Exactly what you prefer then is up for discussion though.

Well i do agree that it is a subjective preference and a design choice how you want the "curve" to progress, it still has to be balanced so that no specific playstyle is overtly broken.

(Also most of my responses here is not really indicative of personal preference, just offering some tips based on my modding experience, and the thread name being "slowing it all down" might have had an impact on my perception of OP's vision for their mod-to-be )