VGA Planets refers to these as "super-weapons", but they did not exist until v4.

Personally, I also felt they didn't add much to the game and introduced a level of complexity that was unwarranted.

I'd much rather have individual hulls display unique attributes that are not directly "firepower-centric" though.

Were these done as slots? Could you replace them or these were tied to the hull? And a link maybe? :)

Why would I not like this? The automatic part, I'm not too fond of specifically, but having a reason to return to base may be interesting or irritating, depending on how it is introduced. Then again, it is a matter of determining how much this really adds, and whether this compensates for the level of complexity involved (might be a lot to keep track of these routine maintenances).

You will not like it :D

Premise: 1) Ships are not only about firepower/armour/speed but also about "how long it fights vs how long it is in maintenance", sure you can make a super powerfull one but if 80% of time it needs to stay in repairs/maintenance it's not that useful. Frequency of maintenancy, breakdown rates, etc add a nice strategic level consideration to fleet building. 2) Obsoleting ships on regular basis, introducing new ones over time (not necessarily a different function or purpose, just a better version of the same good classic destroyer, just with slightly upgraded electronics and guns). I love the (realistic) concept of fleet/army being more or less static in size but ships being like "equipment" that is replaced/upgraded constantly. 3) Adding a whole new layer of maintenance infrastructure (not just shipyards to produce ships and that's it), repair bases, supply depots, etc. 4) Since old ships require more and more mainenance it gives and incentive to scrapping old ships, which is nice in the sense that no ship is made to be everlasting and combat casualities (especially among old ships) is not that traumatic (as long as crew is able to use escape pods since they are the key resource).

To make it really work it should be automatic I think (but I would be delighted to see another scenario). Like a typical ship needs to go to maintenance every 10 turns and it make it unavailable for 1-2 turns. The sipliest mechanic would be that these ships are auto "teleported" (I said you would not like it :D) to the nearest military base then it would be unavailable for X turns based on distance. Then it is teleported back to the original fleet regardless on when it is at the moment (unless the original fleet is destroyed/disbanded in such case it will be in reserve and can be assigned to another fleet).

During maintenance ALL ships (in the base) are stripped of all equipment (empty slots), then equipment is reassigned from scratch among these ships based on what is available (like newly produced equipment). Crew's morale is also "refilled". The ship is set to "maintenance 100%", in addition the ship is repaired of all damage (if higher damage it might require sitting more turns in the base - like +1 turn per damage severity level).

During/after combat heavily damaged ships are auto retreated to the base for repairs (so "anihilation of whole fleets" is unlikely). Also all ships that reach 10% maintenance or worse are auto sent to maintenance.

Destroyed ships create "escape pods" which is kind of ship which slowly returns to the base and frees crew for further use.

Were these done as slots? Could you replace them or these were tied to the hull? And a link maybe?

I could not find a reliable screenshot so here are two references from the DOS era:

In essence, once you've selected a hull, it tells you how many beams, torps and engines you can have on it. Whatever you select will fill all of the slots and the ship can't be built without engines.

So there's no mix/matching in this system. You either get all torp mk4 or all mk7, but not half and half.

Premise: 1) Ships are not only about firepower/armour/speed but also about "how long it fights vs how long it is in maintenance", sure you can make a super powerfull one but if 80% of time it needs to stay in repairs/maintenance it's not that useful. Frequency of maintenancy, breakdown rates, etc add a nice strategic level consideration to fleet building.

So far, I like it. A big part of my concept is bringing repair units and fuel on the front to prevent having to move your fleet back for repairs and refuel. As a matter of fact, some of the best ships in the game are weaklings with good cargo space and decent speed because they make all of your warships more efficient by staying in combat.

2) Obsoleting ships on regular basis, introducing new ones over time (not necessarily a different function or purpose, just a better version of the same good classic destroyer, just with slightly upgraded electronics and guns). I love the (realistic) concept of fleet/army being more or less static in size but ships being like "equipment" that is replaced/upgraded constantly

That's a part I don't really like. I see how this can be realistic, but I'm not convinced by the gameplay ramifications and the design challenge involved. What decisions does the player need to make?

3) Adding a whole new layer of maintenance infrastructure (not just shipyards to produce ships and that's it), repair bases, supply depots, etc

Indeed. One of the core principle of my game is to field bases for the sole purpose of repairing your fleet faster. These bases can be very costly and extremely vulnerable, but when defended properly, having one lightyears closer to your enemy can mean the difference between a breach and annihilation.

4) Since old ships require more and more mainenance it gives and incentive to scrapping old ships, which is nice in the sense that no ship is made to be everlasting and combat casualities (especially among old ships) is not that traumatic (as long as crew is able to use escape pods since they are the key resource).

BattleStar Galactica and the Enterprise would disagree. But eh! Suit yourself ;)

To make it really work it should be automatic I think (but I would be delighted to see another scenario). Like a typical ship needs to go to maintenance every 10 turns and it make it unavailable for 1-2 turns.

The concept of refueling and repairing in the field (requiring moveable resources such as fuel and repair units) mimics this perfectly in my opinion. It abstracts the whole concept to having only care to where resources are and where they need to be. It also gives the player the choice of moving said resources, or ships instead.

The sipliest mechanic would be that these ships are auto "teleported" (I said you would not like it ) to the nearest military base then it would be unavailable for X turns based on distance. Then it is teleported back to the original fleet regardless on when it is at the moment (unless the original fleet is destroyed/disbanded in such case it will be in reserve and can be assigned to another fleet).

Movement plays a strong role in my game, so it wouldn't work for my concept to have ships warp in/out without associated fuel costs, but it can work for yours.

During maintenance ALL ships (in the base) are stripped of all equipment (empty slots), then equipment is reassigned from scratch among these ships based on what is available (like newly produced equipment).

Exactly how the Fed ability works in VGA Planets (it's as old as 1992!)

Destroyed ships create "escape pods" which is kind of ship which slowly returns to the base and frees crew for further use.

That was in VGA Planets 4 though. :P

In essence, once you've selected a hull, it tells you how many beams, torps and engines you can have on it. Whatever you select will fill all of the slots and the ship can't be built without engines.

So there's no mix/matching in this system. You either get all torp mk4 or all mk7, but not half and half.

But what about these superweapons? How these were installed? And why exactly you found these not so great?

Acharis, on 04 Nov 2014 - 5:27 PM, said:


2) Obsoleting ships on regular basis, introducing new ones over time (not necessarily a different function or purpose, just a better version of the same good classic destroyer, just with slightly upgraded electronics and guns). I love the (realistic) concept of fleet/army being more or less static in size but ships being like "equipment" that is replaced/upgraded constantly



That's a part I don't really like. I see how this can be realistic, but I'm not convinced by the gameplay ramifications and the design challenge involved. What decisions does the player need to make?

It's not about decisions, but about convenience. I don't want/like (as a player) piles of old ships that I simply send as useless cannon fodder to just die. Or these hiding at the bottom of my pile of new ships. I would like to just obsolete these and get new shiny ones :)

Also I don't like "unlimited number of ships", would prefer smaller force that you recycle.

The decision would be when you want to replace your old ships.

Exactly how the Fed ability works in VGA Planets (it's as old as 1992!)

No way! They stolen my brilliant idea as early as in 1992 :D Outrageous :D

Destroyed ships create "escape pods" which is kind of ship which slowly returns to the base and frees crew for further use.

That was in VGA Planets 4 though.

Hmmm, do you have a link to some wiki/manual about these?

But what about these superweapons? How these were installed? And why exactly you found these not so great?

Because they could one-hit kill any ship and even destroy planets...

It's not about decisions, but about convenience. I don't want/like (as a player) piles of old ships that I simply send as useless cannon fodder to just die. Or these hiding at the bottom of my pile of new ships. I would like to just obsolete these and get new shiny ones

Unless you make them useful. If tech progresses incredibly slowly, then these ships will remain relevant even if their power slightly diminishes over time. It reduces the amount of ships they can hope to destroy, but they's still potent.

Also I don't like "unlimited number of ships", would prefer smaller force that you recycle.

The decision would be when you want to replace your old ships.

Your concept at least answers this. In that regard, it is interesting. Unfortunately, not fitting for my particular concept.

No way! They stolen my brilliant idea as early as in 1992 Outrageous

In VGA 4.0, it was applied to all races so... yeah. I think your idea was robbed even before it was your idea :P

Hmmm, do you have a link to some wiki/manual about these?

Not a particularly easy to navigate one, but this is the VGA Planets 4 guide: http://planets4.hood-net.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

I'm a VGA Planets 3 player however (and VGA Planets Nu, which is a remake of VGA Planets 3): http://vgaplanets.org/index.php/Main_Page

There are tons of topics here, and I'm only going to hit a couple of them.

At their core, games are about optimization *choices*. Ideally, some choices are easy, while others are hard. Depth emerges from *compounding* choices and alternate optimization axes.

If ship config doesn't effectively create effective choices, its not helping the game. However, simply removing it isn't enough. The replacement should create optimization choice depth.

For example, if your hull construction structures each make one hull, and have no maintenance, then there is no choice.. You just build them all! Result, no depth.

However, if a hull construction structure can make 3 hull types, but you have to lock in which type, and to switch requires a costly change.. Now we have a choice. If there are situations where each are optimal, now I have to predict and choose which to specialize in, and which to handle suboptimally. Boom.. Game depth!

You can see this pattern in every game. Take SC2 for example. Tech tree upgrades have cost. This cost creates tradeoffs. They also have compounding prerequisites. While technically you can buy all tech, doing so too early means no money for army.

I know you said you have no tech tree. That's fine. Just remember, games need some sort of meaningful optimization choices and axes, otherwise they degenerate to a game of chance (war) or worse, a boring linear brawl.

I know you said you have no tech tree. That's fine. Just remember, games need some sort of meaningful optimization choices and axes, otherwise they degenerate to a game of chance (war) or worse, a boring linear brawl.

There is no 4X tech tree per se, but there is a system in its place which I've called logistics.

Every turn, players make a critical choice on each of their bases:

a - Build a ship?

OR

b - Upgrade the base infrastructure?

Building a ship is straightforward.

Upgrading a base allows one to unlock further hull designs (or weapons, in a scenario where ship customization exists).

I'd like to think this is one of the big innovations over the original VGA Planets system which allowed the player to do both. I think that forcing to stop on making the upgrade is significant because it slows down military production and should be a big deal.

Before I became any good at Starcraft, I came across an interesting video by Day9 which became a game changer in how I played Strategy Games. The core concept he was explaining was whether it was a good time to press an offensive on an enemy base and when to "expand" economically to a new base (which is concept that can be applied to tech upgrades as well).

The core idea is "do I deserve this?". In essence, "teching up" or "expanding economically" in a 1v1 match-up is the result of a correct risk assessment and capitalizing on a short-term advantage to gain a long-term one because expanding, just like teching, costs a lot of resources short-term, and takes a bit of time to pay back for itself.

It turns out that the best time to do this is when you've successfully thwarted an enemy attack: instead of retaliating and falling prey to his defender's advantage (immobile defenses and high ground, namely) better turn an opponent's inability to mount a serious attack in the short term into a sizeable advantage.

I believe my concept emulates this idea: If one techs up too quickly, they'll lack the military units to protect that "lead" and they will fall. Correctly assessing the situation, with limited information, becomes key to teching up. This might lead to a number of players negotiating a truce in the early game while they're teching up, and this gives a lot of value to covert ops as a result.

I feel there's a lot of depth with that system, regardless of ship customization.

My "current" conclusion re: ship customization however is that I may have been misled into thinking I don't need it simply because my reference game (which I do like to play) executed it poorly. VGA Planets' ship customization is filled with dominant strategies, which inherently defeat the purpose of it having any.

My original take on ship customization has much fewer dominant strategies (and I'll be balancing the heck out of it to pretend there are none at all) which means I might be adding a bit of depth through it. Given it is a lightweight and simple system, I feel it wouldn't hurt the game in the end. Players don't get to make "bad choices" from the get go (all components are valuable) but learning how to best utilize them would be key.

Furthermore, tech 1 would be all-around good, which means newcomers which are not particularly versed in the game could stick with these while exploring the many facets of the game. In time, they'll meet in battle with components and understand better how to use them efficiently and see how it can supplement their strategies.

In addition, such components would help me keep smaller/older warships relevant. For example, how to use a 2 canon-scout relevant to a late-game? Outfit it with two scatter-canons (similar to flaks) and use it to sweep down fighter wings. They probably can't do much against the carrier but they'll end up killing enough fighters to give your main warship a chance to close on the carrier itself (which otherwise would be impossible).

Hopefully now, that should be the last time I open a thread on this (took me 3 topics to get it straight...)

However, if a hull construction structure can make 3 hull types, but you have to lock in which type, and to switch requires a costly change.. Now we have a choice. If there are situations where each are optimal, now I have to predict and choose which to specialize in, and which to handle suboptimally. Boom.. Game depth!

Hmm, seems compatible with my "corporations" idea.

Each corporation can build certain hulls & components. You can unlock new ones (per corporation), but there are so many one corporation can unlock. So you end up with corporations specializing (one produce ships with good scanners, another has improved metallurgy and can make better armours, etc). In addition each corporation has production capability, so you can't just order the whole fleet from one corporation (unless your fleet is quite small :D).

I guess it would work best with components being produced and installed separately from hulls (so if one corporations builds reactors these can be later installed in other corporation's designs).

Also some very simple "licence" system. Like one corporation designs (basic only) reactors and sell licence to other corporations and they can produce these too (but it should be limited to basic and some components only).

In VGA 4.0, it was applied to all races so... yeah. I think your idea was robbed even before it was your idea

Typical :D

Because they could one-hit kill any ship and even destroy planets...

Yeah, that's lame... I think a thematic "superweapon" should be more about an effect instead of raw power. Like freeze the enemy for one turn, disable PD guns, extra damage to shields, damage over time, irradiate enemy hull.

The core idea is "do I deserve this?". In essence, "teching up" or "expanding economically" in a 1v1 match-up is the result of a correct risk assessment and capitalizing on a short-term advantage to gain a long-term one because expanding, just like teching, costs a lot of resources short-term, and takes a bit of time to pay back for itself.

I like much more "choose which tech you want but you can't have them all". Instead of economy vs technology, technology vs technology. It's still some quality choice but more varied gameplay and more fun I would say.

This might lead to a number of players negotiating a truce in the early game while they're teching up

I call this degenerated gameplay :) In my games I try to discourage such tactics (it's boring).

I like much more "choose which tech you want but you can't have them all". Instead of economy vs technology, technology vs technology. It's still some quality choice but more varied gameplay and more fun I would say.

That's where my side-grade concept comes in.

Economy allows you to tech up, but higher techs are only side-grades: not more powerful, just provide you with versatility.

I call this degenerated gameplay In my games I try to discourage such tactics (it's boring).

The fun with such "tactics" is that it's really about who feels they are on top at any given time and choose to break the truce. Nearly all of my gameplay mechanics insist that you become stronger by acquiring more planets, and many factions rely solely on combat (which means they can't claim unoccupied planets and gain the same benefit). These factions are known, and they'll often be the instigators, and oftentimes, are more powerful as a result.

The game is not meant to be balanced on a 1v1 level, but rather, as a "whole".

Having 2-3 factions preserve a non-aggression pact in the early game is interesting as it allows them to focus on external threats and reduces their frontlines while their military production kicks in.That doesn't mean there won't be any combat though.

I also like this phase of the game because everybody plays it cool because they feel they are claiming more planets than they can defend which makes them frail, but players will still try to mobilize forces where they believe the conflict will erupt first, or get ready to invade. Any faction with cloaking ships will try to spy on the enemy and ready a takedown assault, and all factions will be affraid to have a cloak-capable race on their front.

There's a lot of tension despite hardly any fight beyond a mere "accidental" skirmish. There's no randomness, but there's a lot of hidden information, and having strong sensor power in the early game becomes critical.

In short, it is all but boring, unless you're looking for the artifice of combat alone. A true military tactician will be delighted by this phase if the game emulates it sufficiently.

Also, one can't expect every race to be at war with every other all the time. There are times for alliances, times for uneasy peace talks, and heated negotiations. Trying to secure peace or trade with another faction while being unsure of the outcome makes you think long and hard whether striking at one of their economic planets that "rightfully belongs to you" is the right move. If lucky, you might get the planety AND the treaty, but chances are you'll get either if any. Then, you can blame your greed, when you end up fighting 2 enemies at once.

But that's going to be my next topic: Diplomacy in a 4X game!