Do you like the mission system?

Talk about all things to do with the sequel to our flagship 4X title.

Moderator: Erinys

Locked
User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38673
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 1:10 am

good thing there are supply ships ;)

User avatar
Korgan
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:15 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Korgan » Wed May 30, 2012 1:16 am

the supply ships keep hording all the good fish for themselves though!

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38673
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 1:22 am

its all in cans though...after the 8'th year those lil roll up sardines get REALLY dreadful :P

Xehlwan
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Xehlwan » Wed May 30, 2012 1:40 am

Agent.nihilist wrote:I may be incorrect but I believe endurance is Consumed Supply over Total supply, so a Fleet using 500 supply but storing 6000 would have a 12T Endurance. Range is Speed divided by 4 times endurance.

So a 12T fleet with a speed of 7 can travel 21 LYs outside of supply range.


Interesting. I may be missing something obvious here, but why divide by 4? In any case, thanks!
Zuul still confuses me, though. One moment a fleet can't reach the neighboring system, the next it can travel from one end of my empire to the other... :googly: I think I'll go back to my trustworthy Hivers for now. :P

User avatar
Agent.nihilist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:57 am

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Agent.nihilist » Wed May 30, 2012 1:43 am

Xehlwan wrote:
Agent.nihilist wrote:I may be incorrect but I believe endurance is Consumed Supply over Total supply, so a Fleet using 500 supply but storing 6000 would have a 12T Endurance. Range is Speed divided by 4 times endurance.

So a 12T fleet with a speed of 7 can travel 21 LYs outside of supply range.


Interesting. I may be missing something obvious here, but why divide by 4? In any case, thanks!
Zuul still confuses me, though. One moment a fleet can't reach the neighboring system, the next it can travel from one end of my empire to the other... :googly: I think I'll go back to my trustworthy Hivers for now. :P

Whoops, looks like I'm wrong, list speed is per turn. so drop that /4
Last edited by Agent.nihilist on Wed May 30, 2012 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Will the Great wrote:Well, that's probably why you're having a difficult time. Because you made the game more difficult.

Ishantil wrote:BIRD RUSH KEKEKEKEKE

Don't mind me, I'm unreasonably reasonable :twisted:

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38673
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 1:47 am

it doesn't..movement is still in LY/turn

User avatar
DandyOne
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by DandyOne » Wed May 30, 2012 8:24 am

Mecron wrote:Dandy...sorry...but that is incorrect. The number of "no fuel to return home" naval missions in the history of mankind is numbered on one hand...and not a sign of a winning strategy.

Well, with doomsday class weapons, it can be an interesting tactic ;)

In one of the more epic games of Master of Orion 2 against my friend (that was a lot of years ago and it lasted about 16 hours) I was in a inferior position, controlling a little more then one third of the galaxy, while he held the rest. He was obviously going to win in the end due to attrition if I didn't do something radical, so I designed Titans with stellar converters as their only weapon (plus the equipment that boosts the beam damage and initiative), and made a lot of them on all of my planets. Then I sent about four to five of those to each of his planets (timing it so they all arrive withing a few turns window) and then just ignored his defence fleets and fired directly on his planets to kill off his population.
Almost none of my ships returned, but he lost about 90% of his industrial capacity and... guess who won in the end ;)

It doesn't matter that it is not a common strategy or that it is rarely a winning strategy, I just want to have it as an option.

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Wed May 30, 2012 10:45 am

DandyOne wrote:It doesn't matter that it is not a common strategy or that it is rarely a winning strategy, I just want to have it as an option.


In my opinion it is impossible to include every little quirk of possibility into a system without it being exploited to death. In reality such tactics are so rare and often don't even work that omitting them is in my opinion the correct thing to do.

The same argument goes for being able to produce a balanced game effect for the attack on Pearl Harbour in a WWII game using the basic structure of the game rules. If you do you would end up in impossible game balance issues because such an attack require such unorthodox and special circumstances.
That is why most game include such as special events and/or script driven events etc...

Jorgen_CAB
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:14 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Jorgen_CAB » Wed May 30, 2012 10:54 am

I would also like to add that it is as much a moral and ethical aspect to this. It is my opinion that the digital ethics of gamers are as cold as steel... ;) that is why things like ramming other ships and other suicide attack types does not work very well in a game. In reality you need some form of control or desperation to start with suicide attacks, in a game there are usually no such restrictions and most gamers do it on pure math... it is simpler to ram my cheap ships into the enemy and build new ones then shooting at them.

Personally I try to play with a human mindset, that is, trying to prevent actually loosing my ships. I like to keep my digital dignity, even if it might be inconvenient at times. ;)

Of course it would depend on what race and government I play in this game how closely I would follow this.

ForceUser
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by ForceUser » Wed May 30, 2012 12:20 pm

I would like to point out tho that in Moo2 you also had limited ranges and you didn't even have supply ships to extend that range. heck the range was limited to the lowest range ship in the fleet even. Also the maps are a LOT smaller. There also aren't stellar converter class weapons in sots. The closest you get is bio weapons and those are stopped relatively easily.

Basically the tech lore wise isn't there to warrant a suicide attack in the first place either. There is no doomsday weapons that could spur on such an attack.

Mecron himself I believe stated that the races are still a few tech levels away form that scale of doomsday weapons.
Perspective Man: Much like common sense, it's so rare it's a gorram superpower.
Agent.nihilist wrote:Ooo! Whats the gesture for ramming!?
Korgan wrote:probably a pelvic thrust
Mecron wrote:oy that is wrong at so many levels...well done! :P

User avatar
DandyOne
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by DandyOne » Wed May 30, 2012 12:58 pm

In MOO2 you had virtually limitless range in the later game stages, even if you didn't get thorium fuel cells.

You had siege drivers in SotS Prime that could do a lot of damage to the planet.
Also, a suicide bio attack on a lot of enemy planets at the same time can have a devastating effect.

I could see Hivers performing kamikaze attacks pretty regularly, if you take into account the whole hive mentality, so I don't see why that isn't an option. Plus, it was possible in SotS prime, so I consider this a downgrade.

ForceUser
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by ForceUser » Wed May 30, 2012 1:40 pm

Here we go again :)

DandyOne wrote:In MOO2 you had virtually limitless range in the later game stages, even if you didn't get thorium fuel cells.

The maps were TINY compared to SotS 2 maps though so moot point. Also 'Virtually' isn't the same as actually being limitless. You still couldn't actually get to the other side of the map if you didn't have a colony/outpost (functioned kinda like naval yards) or Allies nearby or had the very best engines.

You had siege drivers in SotS Prime that could do a lot of damage to the planet.

Still not planet breaking level of attack. And those things were close to end game tech and iirc you could still shoot the asteroids down?

Also, a suicide bio attack on a lot of enemy planets at the same time can have a devastating effect.

Not really, you need a proper fleet behind the Bio attack to make sure the missiles actually make it to the planet. With being able to set every weapon, including missiles, to PD those bio missiles will have a hard time getting through.

Also, there are cures/immunity techs for majority/all? of the plagues so again, not nearly as effective as a stellar converter class weapon. Will work very well on lightly defended worlds and that is what you use jammers for anyways, to hit multiple worlds at the same time and the enemy doesn't know what fleet has what. Also if you just add one jammer and all the rest supply ships you can have stupid range anyways. You can still have your suicide deep strikes if you think past your self set limitations :)

I could see Hivers performing kamikaze attacks pretty regularly, if you take into account the whole hive mentality, so I don't see why that isn't an option. Plus, it was possible in SotS prime, so I consider this a downgrade.

I don't think it works *quite* that way lore wise. They are a 'hive' in that they work together and have very high loyalty but it's kinda of like the difference in moo3 between pure Hive mind and Unification. They still have Independent thoughts and are still actual individuals. They enjoy cooking and sports and things like that from what I remember reading. Read up on them in the race forum and the sotspedia to get a clearer picture of exactly what "hive mind" they have. While they have high loyalty, especially the workers, even admirals still have a 'loyalty' value and can defect. You can still have rebellions etc. like a normal race and have splinter factions etc. Hiver History in fact has been *quite* bloody with many coup attempts etc.

I do not really see them any more likely to go on a suicide mission than your standard patriotic modern day soldier (sans religious fanatics) that would die for his country, but not die stupidly, knowing he'd most likely die from hunger or thirst because of a decision by the commanders upstairs.

Also, no way to keep people from abusing it. Why use it only when desperate? Why not use it just to make it easier for yourself? No matter how you word it or look at it you just want SotS1 movement back. At least lets be honest about that because Mecron has been honest from before sots ][ was even released, saying that sots ][ is not sots prime ;)
Perspective Man: Much like common sense, it's so rare it's a gorram superpower.
Agent.nihilist wrote:Ooo! Whats the gesture for ramming!?
Korgan wrote:probably a pelvic thrust
Mecron wrote:oy that is wrong at so many levels...well done! :P

User avatar
gennadius
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by gennadius » Wed May 30, 2012 4:31 pm

DandyOne wrote:
Mecron wrote:Dandy...sorry...but that is incorrect. The number of "no fuel to return home" naval missions in the history of mankind is numbered on one hand...and not a sign of a winning strategy.

Well, with doomsday class weapons, it can be an interesting tactic ;)

In one of the more epic games of Master of Orion 2 against my friend (that was a lot of years ago and it lasted about 16 hours) I was in a inferior position, controlling a little more then one third of the galaxy, while he held the rest. He was obviously going to win in the end due to attrition if I didn't do something radical, so I designed Titans with stellar converters as their only weapon (plus the equipment that boosts the beam damage and initiative), and made a lot of them on all of my planets. Then I sent about four to five of those to each of his planets (timing it so they all arrive withing a few turns window) and then just ignored his defence fleets and fired directly on his planets to kill off his population.
Almost none of my ships returned, but he lost about 90% of his industrial capacity and... guess who won in the end ;)

It doesn't matter that it is not a common strategy or that it is rarely a winning strategy, I just want to have it as an option.


The difference here, and I think that further on posts clarify the point, is that your strategy did not preclude your ships from returning home. It wasn't a one way trip due to fuel or supplies or anything like that. It was a very dangerous trip in the sense that it was a desperate high-risk/high-reward all-out attack on his industrial capacity, but it was not strictly speaking, a suicide mission.

The naval mission system seems to indirectly imply that commanders are responsible in discharging their duties, among those duties is to not spend their people and ships needlessly or wastefully. In the 99.9% case, that means no missions where there is 0% chance of returning. Not only would that be terrible for the morale of the navy itself overall, but can you imagine what it would be like to be the crew on those ships? How motivated would you really be to carry out your mission? Would you even go on the mission? You may need to conscript a fleet full of fanatics AND have a government type that promoted that type of fanaticism in order to even get the mission off the ground.

Until those things can adequately be accounted for, I agree with the others that have said that allowing such maneuvers would simply lead to exploitation and would not add enough to the game to balance it out. That's just my opinion though.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38673
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Mecron » Wed May 30, 2012 6:29 pm

also gamers do not make real life decisions...this is why when you introduce a suicide unit, it gets used like popcorn. :twisted:

Panthera Leo
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:47 pm

Re: Do you like the mission system?

Post by Panthera Leo » Wed May 30, 2012 8:01 pm

Mecron wrote:Dandy...sorry...but that is incorrect. The number of "no fuel to return home" naval missions in the history of mankind is numbered on one hand...and not a sign of a winning strategy.


It being a winning strategy? No contest there, there's nothing to bright about it. As for how often total nut cases go on missions they have no plans to come back from? You must have many figures on that hand Mecron. Many more then Count Rugen. :P (Although you did qualify it 'navel missions'.)

--------

As for the mission system? I ask for being able to re-station a fleet after or during a mission, but that's been said it's on the way.

The ability to sheep dog supplies to outside the normal range, or pool them from many different bases would be nice. Maybe instead of <X> supplies per system, have <X> supplies per province or sector.

The ability to make fleet templates or assign commanders based on a bracket of traits instead of a person by person basis would be nice. Instead of assigning specifically Wesley to command the black fleet. You assign the current 'Dread Pirate Roberts' to command. That is, you make the role, and take whoever fills it as they come, rather having to disband and reform a fleet when their replacement turns out to be a total dunce.
No, there is no pleasing me, Why would you think there is? :P I'm mean, and always wrong...I mean right! :)

Locked

Return to “SotS2”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests