Voting for features and bugfixes for patch 3.6

[vonbach]

Honestly I'd be happy with just being able to auto plant forests.
Heres a question would it be possible to rename facilities in game?

[Yitzi]

Honestly I'd be happy with just being able to auto plant forests.
Heres a question would it be possible to rename facilities in game?

I think that if you change the name in your alphax.txt file, it will change the name in-game.

[vonbach]

I mean without altering the alpha file.

[hilton]

Option 2. - might it be easier to just create another option under former automation? Right now you can disable forests, terrain elevation, condensers/boreholes, fungus removal, sensors, and roads/tubes. The only thing you CAN'T disable is farms/mines/solar collectors. If you COULD disable those, you could get formers automated in any way you want - albeit I suppose the downside would be that ALL formers that are automated. Personally this would be my wish - mid to late game all I want is for automated formers to remove fungus, plant forests, and maybe build sensors. My usual Army Of Formers would be so much easier to manage.

(seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)

[Lord Avalon]

... (seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)

Well, this doesn't really tell me much. Are we talking a few dozen, or what? And it isn't even your most numerous unit? 

[Yitzi]

I mean without altering the alpha file.

Adding the ability to rename facilities in-game would be somewhat tricky, and if you want it to last between saves it'd be even harder.

(seriously, Army of Formers - my current game has a terraformer count that is nearly as high as my police sentinal count and 3-4 times my offensive unit count...)

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

[MercantileInterest]

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

Really like this idea. Each former has a base 1 mineral support requirement? How much less time for improvements? Would still enjoy benefits for super former and weather paradigm.

[Yitzi]

Actually, I did some thinking about that phenomenon, and it occurred to me that the best solution might be to have improvements take much less time...but increase the upkeep of formers working on them (and clean reactor and SUPPORT rating wouldn't help with the extra).   That way, the limiting factor on terraforming isn't former numbers, so there wouldn't be a reason to get such a huge (and annoying to manage) number.

Really like this idea. Each former has a base 1 mineral support requirement?

It'd be the same as previously...so 1 (affectable by SUPPORT/clean), possibly moddable to 0 at a future date.

How much less time for improvements?

It'd be moddable.

Would still enjoy benefits for super former and weather paradigm.

Most likely, when this is present, both of those would reduce the extra support cost instead of decreasing time spent (I'm thinking -1 to the cost for WP, and halved rounded up for super former)...but that might be made moddable as well.

[Yitzi]

Voting is now closed, and the features and bugfixes slated for 3.6 are as follows:

-I intend to fix the creche morale bugs once and for all, and while I'm at it make it somewhat moddable in terms of effect on units homed to that base, as well as enable some modding of probe team morale rules.
-I intend to implement "bombing" (air artillery).
-I intend to implement an "interlude landmarks" system.  A guide to using the system will be included with the patch.
-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.
-Territory rules for sea bases, and for sea bases affecting land spaces and vice versa, will be moddable.
-Disabling autodesign will apply to reactor-based autodesigns as well.
-The prompt about breaking a truce/treaty will apply before attacking with artillery or having air attacks intercepted.
-Scient has done quite a bit since his patch version that Kyrub (and then I) built off of, and I plan to start implementing some of that as well.

[MercantileInterest]

-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.

Might it be easier to allow probe teams to remove enemy infiltration?  (Oh, please.) Something to keep in mind if it is too difficult. Non-permanent infiltration would be a definite improvement but it's not very strategic.

[Yitzi]

-I plan to check how difficult it will be to allow non-permanent infiltration; if it's not too hard, I intend to implement that as well.

Might it be easier to allow probe teams to remove enemy infiltration?  (Oh, please.) Something to keep in mind if it is too difficult. Non-permanent infiltration would be a definite improvement but it's not very strategic.

You mean as a probe team action carried out in your own base?  It could probably be done...but that might make infiltration too weak (since you need to get a probe team near the enemy and remove opposing probe teams to infiltrate, whereas removing it would not take such effort).

Unless removing infiltration required a probe team action at an enemy base...that might work.

[MercantileInterest]

Originally thought it might require moving in on the enemy's HQ but that would be too hard if he's not located in a coastal or sea base. Suppose just any enemy base would work. In multiplayer games especially it would create a fun 'cold war' dynamic, with both sides striving to achieve information dominance.

Course, it wouldn't be right for this to affect alliance, planetary governor or Empath Guild infiltration. It would also make the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm even better. (In Binary Dawn, the technology for the Nethack Terminus follows HSA tech but the algorithmic enhancement special ability is pushed back to end of game research.)

[dino]

Could this thread be used to propose features for 3.7 patch ?

I've come to conclusion that the extremely heavy advantage given in the combat resolution to the attacker is the main reason that AI doesn't pose any threat to human player in combat.
2x bigger chance to hit for the attacker ( of comparable technological level ) coupled with splash damage for the defending stack,
It's super easy to knock down 5x bigger AI army with just a few cheap speeders without armor.

So I'd like an option to disable splash damage for regular combat ( you can still deal with huge SoD's with artillery and AI like using it a lot anyway).

As for the attacker chance to hit I see two solutions, one is easy to implement and balance, the other is more ellegant. Any of them would satisfy me:
1. Add an option to change % bonuses of perimeter defense and tachyon field. Then increase armor values and reduce base defenses % via alphax file. Or...
2. Modify combat resolution function so it'll use, as defender base chance to hit, a weapon stat without defensive % bonuses divided by attacker armor without offensive % bonuses.
Then teach AI to favor building units with both armor and weapon. BTW Teaching AI to upgrade its units would be great too, since it keep bases full of useless outdated units.

These changes would equalize chances of attacker and defender in the fileld without changing dynamics of base conquering much.
Currently the most efficient tactic is to flood enemy with cheap, no armor, no special abilities, multiple attack units and make sure you are an attacker in combat.

It would be a complete game changer for the AI as it cannot into maneuvering and uses a lot of infantry, but also more realistic and better for multiplayer too imo.
With these changes mobile units wouldn't completely dominate infantry and bonuses from special abilities and terrain would gain much more importance.

[Yitzi]

Could this thread be used to propose features for 3.7 patch ?

It's really somewhat early for that, but we can still discuss possibilities.

I've come to conclusion that the extremely heavy advantage given in the combat resolution to the attacker is the main reason that AI doesn't pose any threat to human player in combat.
2x bigger chance to hit for the attacker ( of comparable technological level ) coupled with splash damage for the defending stack,
It's super easy to knock down 5x bigger AI army with just a few cheap speeders without armor.

So I'd like an option to disable splash damage for regular combat ( you can still deal with huge SoD's with artillery and AI like using it a lot anyway).

The problem is that without splash damage, you'd be able to stack everything together and have the best defender against everything.  So if splash damage is eliminated, you'd need to make it so that it's not always the best defender that defends (how close you get to the best defender doing the job would probably be dependent on morale).

As for the attacker chance to hit I see two solutions, one is easy to implement and balance, the other is more ellegant. Any of them would satisfy me:
1. Add an option to change % bonuses of perimeter defense and tachyon field. Then increase armor values and reduce base defenses % via alphax file. Or...
2. Modify combat resolution function so it'll use, as defender base chance to hit, a weapon stat without defensive % bonuses divided by attacker armor without offensive % bonuses.

#1 would work and both are already planned for "eventually".  The same is true of a previously proposed idea similar to #2, where the attacker and defender take turns trying to hit the other (using their weapon against the other's defense; % bonuses would likely affect the damage done on a hit).

Then teach AI to favor building units with both armor and weapon. BTW Teaching AI to upgrade its units would be great too, since it keep bases full of useless outdated units.

AI fixing is another matter entirely, and a big one (I'd need to learn more about how the AI works first).  That said, if it's a good idea to favor building units with both armor and weapon that's sub-optimal balance-wise; in such case, it may be better to adjust the cost formula so that "just armor", "just weapon", and "mix of both" are all desirable in cases.

[MercantileInterest]

Eagerly awaiting the return of Yitzi.