SE choices for AI - suggestions

[Yitzi]

Now I'd start with balancing infantry vs infantry battles.

I would agree that that's the place to start, especially as once that's balanced, rover vs. infantry will be a lot easier.

With the +25% to base, I think they intended you to 'break' a base with infantry.  Unfortunately, with infantry having double the attack as defense, this doesn't work.  You can never get infantry next to a base safely.  So even at a basic level it's broken.

However, I think that can be fixed via tech tree manipulation.  If attack is only 1.5 times the defense until Probability Mechanics, then the attackers inside the base will still have a 1.5X advantage, but defenders in the base (assuming a perimeter defense) will have a 1.33X advantage even against rovers (more with ECM against rovers), so while the base defenders have the advantage (as it should be, to provide a level of stability to the game), there isn't such an advantage to rovers over infantry; certainly not enough to justify a 2X cost difference.

I feel that they really got the whole combat system backwards in SMAC.  Armor values should be equal to or greater than weapon values.  And then, bigger modifiers should be on the attack of a unit.  For example, give infantry +100% attack to base.  Rovers, +100% in the open (attacking from a base would not count).  Air units, +100% against fast units and non AAA-ships.  This sort of thing.  This creates more of a 'I make this unit to kill this unit' dynamic.

I don't think that's the right dynamic; that's a good dynamic for a war game, not so good for an empire builder.  I think weapon values higher than armor values, with the advantage being potentially negated when using more mobile units and reversed when attacking a base, would provide a gameplay that's focused more on empire-building but provides the stability and need for variety which is lacking in the current game.

Likewise, rovers/air should have armor on them for balance purposes.

Air shouldn't have armor on them; rovers can have armor on them, just not weapons as well without being very expensive.  Which I think is good, as it encourages variety of unit types...or would, if armor weren't less than weapons by so much.

[Nexii]

At 3:2 the optimal strategy would still be 100% offensive rovers I think.  Maybe less so if ECM is also powered up to 100%.  One thought might be to give infantry one of ECM or AAA for free, but  unable to put both on the same unit.

Defensive rovers are an interesting unit, and decent to sometimes have 1 of, if only because they can hit mindworms at 100% attack prep.  But they cost too much compared to infantry and generally I find Scout Police Rovers are better sentinels.

Is it more interesting to have 'offense' and 'defense' troops' rather than troops where you max both?  Perhaps.  My thought was that if you make weapon and armor relevant to every unit, that might make the tech choices a little more interesting.  Where armor doesn't help air, I think I'd still tend down the 'weapon' tree even if armor was boosted up.

I do agree with the lack of variety.  It's very dull as it is, you more or less make the same troops every game.  Do you feel the game is too war oriented?  I would say that war is quite destructive in SMAC.  If the AI managed and picked units better, being declared on by more than one AI would usually mean your death. 

[Yitzi]

At 3:2 the optimal strategy would still be 100% offensive rovers I think.

I don't think so.  At 3:2 in the field (and thus 5:3 to the defender's advantage when attacking a base with non-infantry) if the enemy uses only offensive rovers, then they can't take your bases without expending substantially more than you (and then they don't have defensive units there, so you can take them back fairly easily), so all they can do is try to go after your formers/crawlers/terraforming.  But that'll be difficult, as if they stick around in your territory without taking your bases, you have a natural "safe zone" (your bases) from which to attack them with your own rovers or even infantry (depending on how good your road system is and how well they're armored).

Defensive rovers are an interesting unit, and decent to sometimes have 1 of, if only because they can hit mindworms at 100% attack prep.  But they cost too much compared to infantry

They do tend to be a bit more expensive (until you get quantum or singularity reactor), but can help keep your force somewhat resistant to counterattacks without sacrificing mobility.

Is it more interesting to have 'offense' and 'defense' troops' rather than troops where you max both?  Perhaps.  My thought was that if you make weapon and armor relevant to every unit, that might make the tech choices a little more interesting.  Where armor doesn't help air, I think I'd still tend down the 'weapon' tree even if armor was boosted up.

Actually, armor does help air by keeping the enemy from taking your bases and killing your air units.  Not to mention that a lot of armor is on the track to Monopole Magnets, which I'm pretty sure can be quite useful.

Do you feel the game is too war oriented?

No, but if it were substantially more then it would be.

[Nexii]

Well you're always going to bring a probe to down the Perimeter Defenses.

I'm not so convinced the early game or the game in generally is actually even that unbalanced at 2:1, as I think more and more on this.  The problem is, few games are played at a high level between humans with a warring mindset.  The AI wars poorly, and humans prefer to build (logically, growth/teching is exponential so you get left in the dust to be too aggressive early). 

I had the thought that a more sensible way to balance might be around chassis cost only, rather than tweaking the movement and rules of everything which is a lot more complex.  That takes a lot more thought in terms of new tactics and their countertactics.

Here are some common early-mid game unit costs (pre-Fusion/Chaos/Silksteel):

Infantry:
1/2-ECM: 20
1/3-ECM: 20
1/3-AAA: 30

4/1: 20
6/1: 20

6/3: 50  (6/3 AAA/ECM is more than 50, not worth it)

Rovers:
2/1: 20
4/1: 30
5/1: 40
6/1: 50

Needlejets:
6/1: 40
6/1-AAA: 50

Copters:
6/1: 40
6/1-AAA: 50

The problem here is that air units get a flat quartering cost reduction.  This makes all 3 air units (8+1)/4 -> 2.25 factor, universally cheaper than rovers (2+1) -> 3 factor, or hovertanks (3+1) -> 4 factor.  Logically air should cost more than a rover or even a hovertank.

What if we change copter's movement cost factor to 30, and Needlejet to 18?  Then we get:

Needlejet
6/1: 80
6/1-AAA: 100

Copter
6/1: 120
6/1: 150

You'd still buy them, just not in mass quantities.  Then you can keep AAA as-is (100% with a cost: 1)

[Earthmichael]

I agree, Nexii.  Aircraft are undercosted with respect to Rovers.

I like the fix for Needlejets.  I think Copters should cost double the amount of Needlejets (if they are not banned outright).

But if we change this, is it possible to make AAA no cost on Air units (like deep radar).  I see no reason for intercepters to cost more, since they take a 50% penalty to ground to compensate for the double air attack.

As long as we are mucking with things, I think armor on Hovertanks should be costed the same as Infantry.  As it is, it is prohibitively expensive to put armor and a weapon on a Hovertank.  Which seems absurd, since tanks for known for armor.  Yet, in a real game, nearly all of my Hovertanks are unarmored.

I am OK leaving Rovers alone.  But by the time you have figure out the tech for Hovertanks, surely we have figured out how to make a decently priced mobile armor unit.

[Nexii]

Agreed with the Air Superiority on air units.  I gave the reasons on why I feel they are overcosted earlier.  The -move of AS is as much a penalty as the -50% to ground, IMO.  Actually they don't get double (in most cases) vs air, though they probably don't need it where non-AS air units will have 1 armor?  Giving the AS attacker double against the defender, might imbalance things though.  Scrambling would always be a good thing for the aggresor, i.e. you'd send an interceptor in at their formers, and hope the defending jets fight you.  Unless of course the defender got the +100% AS on defense too.  But again thats redundant.

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri/Units - good source for unit cost, it seems close/accurate

EM do you ever make infantry with both attack and defense?  I find that its overcosted but maybe you find it has a niche role?  You can get a x/1 infantry and a 1/y infantry for less cost as an x/y infantry.  Plus the defensive special abilities on the 1/y will be cheaper %-wise.

Changing "S" in the formula is easy, it's just the "Cost" variable in alphax.txt.  Yitzi would have to comment on how much harder it is to edit the hardcoded parts like the 1/4 air cost reduction.

On a side note Gravships also need a raising in their 'move' for cost purposes.  Likely to somewhere between Copters and Needlejets.  I haven't analyzed foils but I feel they're also overcosted, and are also tilted towards 'all attack' or 'all defense' units.

If I put Needlejet to 17 (17+1->18/4 - 4.5 factor), and Copter to 35 (35+1->36/4 = 9 factor), we get:
6/1 Needlejet - 70
6/1 Copter - 140

The thing is though in the later game, you'll see copters and other 'expensive units' not have the same gap in cost vs rovers.  This is because the better reactors cut down costs non-linearly.  I'm not sure if this was intended, and it's something else to consider.  It impacts all units, and although it makes units with both attack and defense more affordable, it also has the effect of making the best chassis cost a lot less.

[Yitzi]

Well you're always going to bring a probe to down the Perimeter Defenses.

On the other hand, the other guy will have probe teams to defend against them...and he can put an infantry chassis on his, making them cheaper.

I'm not so convinced the early game or the game in generally is actually even that unbalanced at 2:1, as I think more and more on this.  The problem is, few games are played at a high level between humans with a warring mindset.  The AI wars poorly, and humans prefer to build (logically, growth/teching is exponential so you get left in the dust to be too aggressive early).

On the other hand, if you take over enemy bases, that's also a form of growth...and if the bases are fairly high population/infrastructure (you'll lose some facilities, but probably not all), it can be a lot cheaper than building your own bases (assuming you have the POLICE rating to keep the captured bases under control).

I had the thought that a more sensible way to balance might be around chassis cost only, rather than tweaking the movement and rules of everything which is a lot more complex.

Well, rovers are already over twice the cost of infantry, and hovertanks are fairly late, so it really just becomes a question of air units.

Here are some common early-mid game unit costs (pre-Fusion/Chaos/Silksteel):

Keep in mind that that's with the current tech tree.  If you get defense 4 at the same time as ECM (as I'm proposing) and reduce AAA to ECM's cost (also a good idea IMO), that would affect things.

Infantry:
1/2-ECM: 20
1/3-ECM: 20
1/3-AAA: 30

4/1: 20
6/1: 20

6/3: 50  (6/3 AAA/ECM is more than 50, not worth it)

Rovers:
2/1: 20
4/1: 30
5/1: 40
6/1: 50

Needlejets:
6/1: 40
6/1-AAA: 50

Copters:
6/1: 40
6/1-AAA: 50

The problem here is that air units get a flat quartering cost reduction.  This makes all 3 air units (8+1)/4 -> 2.25 factor, universally cheaper than rovers (2+1) -> 3 factor, or hovertanks (3+1) -> 4 factor.  Logically air should cost more than a rover or even a hovertank.

You generally won't want AAA on an air unit; air superiority makes sense, but AAA is for defensive units.

More to your point...I think the idea is that the extra movement and slightly lower cost (as compared to rovers) is supposed to be counteracted by not being able to go far from your bases/airbases, so it can't be used to threaten assets away from the border.  Plus, of course, by AAA giving +100% whereas ECM only gives +50%.

A 1/4/1 ECM (and thus 1/4/1 AAA if AAA is changed to cost the same as ECM) costs only 30, less than the 6/1 needlejet that the AAA version would defeat quite easily.  At 1/3/1, it'd cost only 20, half the cost of the needlejet.

Air does substantially better against rovers, but rovers in turn can threaten infantry by outmaneuvering them and not granting as extreme a defensive bonus.  (Air can't outmaneuver infantry in the same way, as they have to stay fairly close to an airbase/base that can't move at all.)

What if we change copter's movement cost factor to 30, and Needlejet to 18?  Then we get:

Needlejet
6/1: 80
6/1-AAA: 100

Copter
6/1: 120
6/1: 150

You'd still buy them, just not in mass quantities.  Then you can keep AAA as-is (100% with a cost: 1)

Those are really expensive; at that cost, they're not really worth using except under extremely specific circumstances (undefended, perhaps even non-combat, units with no SAM units around.)  On the other hand, Fusion reactors would then throw things off horribly.

But if we change this, is it possible to make AAA no cost on Air units (like deep radar).  I see no reason for intercepters to cost more, since they take a 50% penalty to ground to compensate for the double air attack.

Making SAM have the same cost as deep radar does seem to make sense.  Good idea.

As long as we are mucking with things, I think armor on Hovertanks should be costed the same as Infantry.  As it is, it is prohibitively expensive to put armor and a weapon on a Hovertank.

Armor alone isn't; it's only armor+weapons that is.

Which seems absurd, since tanks for known for armor.

And the result is quite expensive; in the real world we do that because there's no such thing as "attacking units only use their weapon values, defending units only use their armor values", but Alpha Centauri does have such a rule.

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri/Units - good source for unit cost, it seems close/accurate

A full formula can be found here (reply #8).

Yitzi would have to comment on how much harder it is to edit the hardcoded parts like the 1/4 air cost reduction.

Not too difficult, but they'd have to be optional which would increase the difficulty somewhat.  Doable, but it'll have to wait its turn.

On a side note Gravships also need a raising in their 'move' for cost purposes.  Likely to somewhere between Copters and Needlejets.  I haven't analyzed foils but I feel they're also overcosted, and are also tilted towards 'all attack' or 'all defense' units.

I think that a decrease to move might be a better choice for gravships more than a cost increase.  That way, a fleet of gravships isn't as fast as needlejets...but it doesn't need bases and so can move toward your territory.

The thing is though in the later game, you'll see copters and other 'expensive units' not have the same gap in cost vs rovers.  This is because the better reactors cut down costs non-linearly.  I'm not sure if this was intended, and it's something else to consider.  It impacts all units, and although it makes units with both attack and defense more affordable, it also has the effect of making the best chassis cost a lot less.

Yes...that's a large part of why I don't think cost is the right way to handle air.

[Nexii]

Re: Perim defenses.  Yes it's true that a lot of wars come down to whether you can hold the enemy at a single chokepoint.  Generally if there's only one base in reach, it is quite difficult to break.  As well CDF and CBA make you more or less unbreakable at a single choke city.

Air does need a higher minimum cost and a higher overall cost.  Perhaps not as dramatic increase in cost as I had above.  Especially not as big an increase if AAA is made free (I assume you mean -1 modifier like ECM, in that its free on defense units only).  Having to take ECM and AAA on most of your infantry not made for cities, I think is a good thing. 

There are many points in the game (New reactors, when air first is available, and after Centauri Psi) where 100% air would still counter AAA infantry, even if AAA is made free.  Where air counters rovers, attack infantry, foils, cruisers, and anti-air (on par) also, you'd largely still see 100% air-to-ground copter armies.

For example, Chaos Fusion Chopper is 30 in cost.  That's absurd, it has the same cost as a 1/4/2*AAA-ECM infantry, with free AAA.  Even ignoring standard combat, if you suicide that into 2-3 crawlers or formers it pays off.  You can even make these even into the endgame.  This is why I'm also in favor of letting non-combat units (formers and crawlers specifically) get armor for free.  Granted, they would perhaps need to be changed to -75% combat power to compensate.

The way reactors reduce costs really messes with overall balance, and a single minimum unit cost across all chassis types is a big part of this.  I feel that reactors were plenty strong without also reducing unit costs in the way that they do.  A better formula would have made the later weapons/armor a bit less costly instead.  And then a modifier based on chassis alone rather than the strange move+chassis hybrid system they had.

[Earthmichael]

I believe air combat only uses the attack strength of the defender, so armor is of no value on an air unit, except maybe defending against non-air units.

I see no reason that Hovertanks should be penalized so heavily for having both armor and weapons.  I think it should be treated exactly like infantry.

What really needs help is ships.  Armor on transports (and other non-combat ships) should be much less expensive.  AAA should be free on ships, just like air superiority should be free on aircraft, because ships are sitting ducks for aircraft since they do not get a bonus for terrain.  Sea terraformers should also be cheaper.  Sea colony pods are costed OK because they effectively include a free Recycling Center.

[Yitzi]

Re: Perim defenses.  Yes it's true that a lot of wars come down to whether you can hold the enemy at a single chokepoint.  Generally if there's only one base in reach, it is quite difficult to break.  As well CDF and CBA make you more or less unbreakable at a single choke city.

Not quite unbreakable; a sufficient resource advantage will do it.  But yes, a single chokepoint does make it very difficult.

But let's say one player doesn't have the chokepoint.  (Let's use the example of Morganites and University, as they're both fairly neutral in direct combat ability, and say Morgan lacks a chokepoint.)  Now the University uses air units (as that's what we're discussing) to take Morgan Metagenics.  Even if it's not a chokepoint, air units still are fairly weak against AAA, and the base can have an aerospace complex as well to make it even harder, so say that they spend 3 times as much resources to take the base as the Morganites lose in defenders.  Now, the University can still do that; air units are fast, so they can concentrate 5 or 6 times as much force on one base as the Morgans have to defend it, but they do lose quite a bit more.

Now the Morganites can try to take the base back...they, however, are trying to take a base that's in their territory, connected to their road/maglev system, so they have the freedom to use infantry.  Infantry still is at a disadvantage when attacking a base with perimeter defense, but not as much, so say the Morganites lose 1.5 times as much as the University does.  Still, at the end of the day, they've come out ahead unless the University defends the base with 4 times as much as the Morganites did...possibly doable (though difficult) with one captured base, unfeasible with a significant amount.

Air does need a higher minimum cost and a higher overall cost.

Minimum cost is difficult to do.  But why is an increase in cost any better than a decrease in effectiveness?  Either one increases the number of minerals' worth of air units you need to attack a target...

I assume you mean -1 modifier like ECM, in that its free on defense units only

Indeed.

Having to take ECM and AAA on most of your infantry not made for cities, I think is a good thing.

And it doesn't hurt for infantry either.

Though only the defensive units would get it.

There are many points in the game (New reactors, when air first is available, and after Centauri Psi) where 100% air would still counter AAA infantry, even if AAA is made free.  Where air counters rovers, attack infantry, foils, cruisers, and anti-air (on par) also, you'd largely still see 100% air-to-ground copter armies.

Let's take those one at a time:
1. New reactors: Fusion is the big one here (quantum is only a 33% increase to effectiveness, and I think it may be advisable to double the benefits of AAA and ECM with Probability Mechanics anyway to offset the fact that attack later in the game is twice the corresponding defense).  Now, it's certainly a substantial advantage, but it applies to everything; your rovers infantry also get an advantage with it.  So the real question is whether fusion reactors themselves are too overpowered.

I think not, simply because of where they fall in the techtree; consider some of the other things that you might get instead (particularly if playing by game-normal rules, i.e. blind research, which limits beelining):
-Monopole Magnets.  Arguably the best mobility tech in the game.  And you know what they say about the importance of logistics...
-Orbital spaceflight.  While I would move the best satellite in the game to substantially later, replacing it with a weaker satellite (say, Orbital defense pod) would still give the advantage of seeing the whole map...and of course missiles are useful too.
-Retroviral Engineering.  +50% to minerals is quite useful, especially in wartime.
-MMI.  Speaking of copters...

2. When air first is available: This is why it's not enough just to make AAA cheaper; it also has to come earlier in the tech tree than air units do.  I think making Advanced Military Algorithms a prerequisite for Doctrine:Air Power (replacing Doctrine:Flexibility) is a good way to do that.

3. After Centauri Psi: No, no, and absolutely not.  Psi units ignore base defenses, but they do not ignore AAA, and they only get a 3:2 attack ratio anyway; worse yet, those infantry can be made AAA/trance, and they'll absolutely demolish psi air attackers.

For example, Chaos Fusion Chopper is 30 in cost.  That's absurd, it has the same cost as a 1/4/2*AAA-ECM infantry, with free AAA.

Yes, but it's a lot higher on the tech tree.  The Chaos copter requires 30 techs, whereas the 1/4/1*2 infantry (assuming we go with my idea of moving defense-4 down to advanced subatomic theory) needs only 20.  A better analogy would be missile copters vs. 1/4/1/*2, or chaos copters vs. 1/5/1*2 silksteel defenders.

Even ignoring standard combat, if you suicide that into 2-3 crawlers or formers it pays off.

Yes, copters are good for that...but in that case, wouldn't it be easier to make 4/1/8*1 copters for only 20 minerals?  The fact is, keeping your formers and crawlers that close to your enemy's bases without defending them is a fairly stupid idea.

This is why I'm also in favor of letting non-combat units (formers and crawlers specifically) get armor for free.  Granted, they would perhaps need to be changed to -75% combat power to compensate.

And then how would you make "armored formers" for use in battle zones?  (Note that if they have armor they don't even take the -50% combat power.)  Better to have normal crawlers/formers be vulnerable (and then whoever owns them just needs to keep them out of the line of fire), and then if you want to pay the extra cost to armor them you can.

The way reactors reduce costs really messes with overall balance, and a single minimum unit cost across all chassis types is a big part of this.

So...perhaps increase the minimum cost, but apply the "infantry is half cost" after that?

I believe air combat only uses the attack strength of the defender, so armor is of no value on an air unit, except maybe defending against non-air units.

I think it does get more complicated than that.

I see no reason that Hovertanks should be penalized so heavily for having both armor and weapons.  I think it should be treated exactly like infantry.

So only rovers would get +2 rows for having both armor and weapons?

What really needs help is ships.  Armor on transports (and other non-combat ships) should be much less expensive.

Let's see how much it costs for armored transports...
Anything below defense 5 costs 1 row more than unarmored transports, or the minimum of 30 with fusion reactors.
Defense 6 or 8 (or psi for that matter) costs 2 rows more than unarmored; with fusion it's 30 for foils and 40 for cruisers.
Defense 10 or 12 with a fusion reactor is 40 for both foils and cruisers
So simply removing the "+1 row for both weapon and armor cost above 1" rule for noncombat units would probably be the best way; it'd have to be made optional, but shouldn't be too hard.

AAA should be free on ships, just like air superiority should be free on aircraft, because ships are sitting ducks for aircraft since they do not get a bonus for terrain.

How about defensive ships (which are actually fairly cheap; a 1/12 cruiser is only 40 with a fission plant; even infantry cost 60) get AAA for free, whereas offensive ships (which can't use it as much anyway) don't, and might even have it cost more?  (Transports would be "defensive" at armor 5 or more.)

Sea terraformers should also be cheaper.

Agreed, but in exchange the thermocline transducer should be delayed on the tech tree; I think moving the transducer to Planetary Economics and the subsea trunkline to Advanced Ecological Engineering is a good way to do it.

[Nexii]

Centauri Psi is game breaking because it gives you Dissociative Wave, which lets you ignore ECM/AAA/Trance.  Gas Psi Choppers crush everything, and +Planet/Dream Twist only add onto this.  There isn't a counter, cheap normal units don't really work (due to min unit costing).  But if they do that then you just mix in some copters with conventional weapons. 


For examples, it's highly dependent on tech-level (especially reactors) as to how much it costs to break a base with air (or ground for that matter).  What I would prefer to see is a more consistent balance throughout the game. 

So...perhaps increase the minimum cost, but apply the "infantry is half cost" after that?

Maybe.  Halving infantry is a lot like doubling everything else (which impacts air).  I think you'd see mostly infantry and air in this case, and not much rovers/hovertanks.  It would really depend what else was tweaked.

What I don't like about the current costing model is that often an increase in weapon is actually a decrease in effective attack/defense per mineral spent.  Sometimes due to rounding, but more often to the wonky way in which reactors affect costs.  The efficiency of weapons/armor should go up on their own accord, and not with reactors (which already double/triple/quadruple both attack and defense).  I'll see what I can come up with.  I don't feel that units like Impact Copters should be relevant once you've well surpassed that tech.  Also they can travel 2 turns out, and hit those former/crawlers from 16 tiles away even if they are hard capped to 8 movement per turn.  That's usually pretty far into your territory.

[Earthmichael]

Yes, the idea is for only Rovers to be penalized for having offense & defense; that tech improvements get rid of this limitation for Hovertanks.

I like the idea of defensive ships being able to add AAA for free, as long as it includes armored non-combat vessels (like transports).

Maybe we can add that offensive ships can add air superiority for free if they choose.

My multiplayer games never get to Centauri Psi, so I don't have much experience with it.  But if gas affects combat, one simple fix is to for gas to have no effect on Psi combat.  Then it is just straight morale vs morale; secret projects can still help, but most people don't prioritize secret projects that affect psi combat.

[Yitzi]

Centauri Psi is game breaking because it gives you Dissociative Wave, which lets you ignore ECM/AAA/Trance.  Gas Psi Choppers crush everything, and +Planet/Dream Twist only add onto this.  There isn't a counter, cheap normal units don't really work (due to min unit costing).  But if they do that then you just mix in some copters with conventional weapons. 

Dissociative wave is fairly broken, I'll grant that (though they're useless against Trance, since they're not allowed on psi units.)  It does need to be either increased in cost or banned for air units; I'd favor the latter, on the basis that the equipment is too bulky for aircraft.
Gas psi choppers are also an issue; perhaps ban gas on psi units?  (That said, psi choppers with the Dream Twister will still be very strong against non-trance units...but all projects are strong in their niche.)

For examples, it's highly dependent on tech-level (especially reactors) as to how much it costs to break a base with air (or ground for that matter).  What I would prefer to see is a more consistent balance throughout the game. 

Yes, perhaps reactor cost effects need to be reworked.  I'll start a thread in Modding for ideas.

What I don't like about the current costing model is that often an increase in weapon is actually a decrease in effective attack/defense per mineral spent.  Sometimes due to rounding, but more often to the wonky way in which reactors affect costs.

The rounding will probably be compensated for by the fact that you have a better chance of surviving to get healed; the reactor effects are more of a concern.  Perhaps reactor effects need to be decreased, and the reactor-based minimum also decreased.

Also they can travel 2 turns out, and hit those former/crawlers from 16 tiles away even if they are hard capped to 8 movement per turn.  That's usually pretty far into your territory.

Ah, I didn't count on "suicide" meaning "take damage the first turn".  Of course, that leaves them vulnerable to counterattack (or simply pulling formers and crawlers into the base/another area for a turn or two) after being seen by sensors.  It also means that they'll die easily to scrambled interceptors.

Yes, the idea is for only Rovers to be penalized for having offense & defense; that tech improvements get rid of this limitation for Hovertanks.

Whereas I see it as that the tech is all going into making hovertanks possible at all.

I like the idea of defensive ships being able to add AAA for free, as long as it includes armored non-combat vessels (like transports).

Depends how armored and what type of combat vessels.  How about:
Transports and probes can get AAA for free with silksteel armor.  Formers need neutronium armor (Matter Compression) for free AAA, crawlers need antimatter (Matter Editation), and colony pods need stasis (Temporal Mechanics).  That should be fairly easy to do.

Maybe we can add that offensive ships can add air superiority for free if they choose.

Now that I think of it, it'd be way too difficult to make air superiority free for interceptors (which I think we agreed is a good idea) but not for ships.  I think let's just make it cost the same as Deep Radar: Free for air and sea, not free for land.  So any ships would be able to add free Air Superiority (though purely defensive ships would not be so certain to win).

[Nexii]

What do you mean never gets to Centauri Psi?  Aren't Hovertanks on the same level of tech as Psi (roughly)?  I'm curious as I haven't actually played a lot of MP for typical tech beelines late.  I'm just thinking more in terms of a war than build mindset.  Maybe I'm in the minority that likes the war side of the game as much as the builder side.  It's just that there's a lot less strategy in it, which is a shame considering the brilliant concept of the unit design shop.

It's Wave that is game-breaking more than Gas.  Gas is -25% enemy morale for +25% cost.  Against higher morale defenses taking Gas actually downs the efficiency of Wave Choppers a bit.  But it's not a huge effect and generally worth taking so you can more reliably preserve choppers.  Since their efficiency ratio is so high, you don't need to put a lot into minerals to have a stronger army.

Psi combat (and native life combat) is a much harder thing to balance.  Generally native life is not that good because you can't put modifiers on it.   


A much simpler and intuitive unit cost formula would be:

M = (W + A + C) * 10

M: the cost of the unit in minerals
W: weapon factor.  would scale from 1 for early game weapons to 6 for the late-game weapons.
A: armor factor.  would scale from 1 for early game armors to 4 for the late-game armors.
C: chassis factor.  0 for infantry, 1 for rover, 2 for hovertank, 3 for needlejets and gravships, 4 for copters. 1 for foil and 2 for cruiser. 

Since weapons have double the values of armor, and a 3:2 cost ratio, this would give a 3:2 effectiveness ratio of attack to defense (the same as PSI).

For rovers, foils, cruisers, needlejets, copters, and gravships, add (W-1)*(A-1) to the above cost

[Yitzi]

It's Wave that is game-breaking more than Gas.

Indeed, which is why it needs to either have its cost doubled (at a minimum) or be banned on air units.

Gas is -25% enemy morale for +25% cost.  Against higher morale defenses taking Gas actually downs the efficiency of Wave Choppers a bit.  But it's not a huge effect and generally worth taking so you can more reliably preserve choppers.  Since their efficiency ratio is so high, you don't need to put a lot into minerals to have a stronger army.

Yes; I'd say let air units have both types of gas (nerve and soporific) but not Wave; psi units should be unable to get any of the three (nerve gas is the only one they can get now IIRC).

A much simpler and intuitive unit cost formula would be:

M = (W + A + C) * 10

M: the cost of the unit in minerals
W: weapon factor.  would scale from 1 for early game weapons to 6 for the late-game weapons.
A: armor factor.  would scale from 1 for early game armors to 4 for the late-game armors.
C: chassis factor.  0 for infantry, 1 for rover, 2 for hovertank, 3 for needlejets and gravships, 4 for copters. 1 for foil and 2 for cruiser. 

Since weapons have double the values of armor, and a 3:2 cost ratio, this would give a 3:2 effectiveness ratio of attack to defense (the same as PSI).

For rovers, foils, cruisers, needlejets, copters, and gravships, add (W-1)*(A-1) to the above cost

It'd be simpler, but would encourage combining the best armor with the best weapon on infantry and tanks (as putting high armor on a high-weapon unit is a lower percentage increase to cost than putting it on a 1-attack unit), whereas discouraging it makes for more interesting unit choices.