recent posts recent posts - RSS

6 hours ago
Topic:
Message about a non-existant contract

Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 224
A turn later I got another regular message that Aywanez bought the afore mentioned infantry. So the first message was probably somehow caused when they accepted the contract. But it wasn't showing as accepted until it was completed.
6 hours ago
Topic:
Message about a non-existant contract

Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 224
"Contract 0 was accepted

Your contract titled Sell Military UnitGroup for $2,000,000 was accepted by Aywanez Incorporated"

I had a level 7 infantry up for sale for $2,000,000, but it's still there. Nothing else seems to be missing.
16 hours ago
Topic:
Raiding

jimbobdaz
jimbobdaz
Posts: 16
jimbobdaz
jimbobdaz
Posts: 16
Topic: Raiding
Maybe a new unit completely that is specialised in raiding?
1 days ago
Topic:
Raiding

ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
Topic: Raiding
Is it possible to set up the raiding mechanic to simply look at the power levels and pros and cons of each ship to determine if it breaks the blockade... basically I'd like to see the raider not be penalized with reparations when he osnsinply going after resources that are not defended..
1 days ago
Topic:
Grains

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Topic: Grains
Farms and meats used to have TEN different products EACH 6 months ago in Alpha =)

It was reduced to 6. A lot of product type reduction was done. there used to be more like 180 products now its down to 150(?)

There used to be an ACP item for every TYPE of structure in the game back then also (like 40?) as opposed to the single ACP Structure we have now that can be built into any structure.

I ain't going back, you can't make me! =)
edited by DrDread on 6/23/2017
1 days ago
Topic:
Raiding

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Topic: Raiding
Raiding for items in general is difficult to implement in a good way, I want to change artifacts into a product that is very slow to mine using the same system we do now except it makes 1 qty worth of artifact every x amount of turns and probably have an artifact product for every type of artifact (Cybertronics, Dimensional etc ). The artifact product can be taken to your Corp HQ or perhaps even the existing building that is mining them, to create the artifact items themselves using something like 100, 500 or 2000 qty worth of appropriate artifact (throwing out numbers there) . This would allow them to be raided just like any other product and would also make small amount of artifact available as quest rewards or event hand outs etc. All the while making Items un-raidable which is the way I want to keep it.

Artifact as a product was actually what they were developed as originally and it actually went back and forth between making them a product or an item out of the research lab a couple of times.
1 days ago
Topic:
Raiding

ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
Topic: Raiding
Could add an effect for a ship to increase raid results smile and fortifications decrease gains?
1 days ago
Topic:
Raiding

ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
ChaChaCharms
ChaChaCharms
Posts: 129
Topic: Raiding
Allow the raiding of artifacts.. if people do not adequately defend them they should think twice before driving up OC. Also, can raiding instead of destroying the enemy units simply damage them?

This would increase the PvP without necessarily hindering people with reparations and destroying units.
1 days ago
Topic:
Grains

EdwardBishop
EdwardBishop
Posts: 12
EdwardBishop
EdwardBishop
Posts: 12
Topic: Grains
I realized this would imbalance Farms & Ranches, so I would suggest Dairy for Ranches to go along with Grains for Farms.
edited by EdwardBishop on 6/23/2017
2 days ago
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics

EdwardBishop
EdwardBishop
Posts: 12
II like the idea of artillery being more effective rather than simply less costly, since they're fixed, they should pack more of a punch.
3 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Leyic1 wrote:
I don't see why it's difficult to make assertions, provided some caveats are understood. You provide the combat data, so I can run "simulations" in a spreadsheet to determine how many units are needed to beat another type of unit. But the caveats are, as I've said before, that this is idealized combat, meaning there are no random effects, no mixed compositions, and no intervention. Making determinations based on just a few of these data points would be a bad idea, but looking over the entire table, trends can be revealed, showing that some units have a wider range of dominance than others. By then considering logistical and financial costs, and how fast a combat would end, one can identify units that are generally better for their particular situation, and then consider a practical group composition over that smaller subset.

Like you say, 20x monolith+varitek combos will annihilate pretty much everything, but will also cost almost 20 mil per turn if you have no other military and a level 10 HQ. You might win several battles, but I'll get the last laugh and win the war when you go bankrupt and auto-liquidate.

Incidentally, it takes 5 level 10 commandos to bring down a level 10 max defense monolith, and possibly 9 level 10 commandos to bring down a level 10 max defense monolith with a level 10 varitek (this sim is even more iffy as I don't know how the damage reduction mechanic works exactly, so I ignored it).

But anyhow, are commandos working as intended, being specialists at taking out fixed defenses while also being great for taking down spacecraft?



I see what you're saying. Commandos are supposed to be the defenses and structure take down unit, and really should not be that great at anything else, especially attacking star ships cheaper than anything else.

They already are doing almost 0 to ships but they are so cheap relative to the ships that you can mass so many it tips the scales. So I have another vector to try to fix the problem with. Instead of making then hit even less vs ships, perhaps I make Infantry hit them even harder and have them hit infantry even less. Or make some other unit like corvettes hit them harder. "How does that help capital ships?!" Well it can be looked at as a horribly unsupported situation where you have a lone capital ship because the other guy can go in with Commandos and destroy you NOT because they do a ton of damage but because capital ships are so shitty at hitting them back. What you should do is have Infantry in your ship hangars And/Or corvettes escorting because they hit commandos back so hard and commandos dont hit them back for squat. Its the basis for the "Size" mechanic in combat, get a larger mass of a counter unit to draw the fire away from the attacker that cant fight back well.

Commandos attacking a battleship in your example the battleship eventually loses BUT if you put a 20x of Infantry in the hangar of a battleship it swings the fight dramatically. the 20x infantry will now take like 70% of the fire (Size 10 bship, size 20 infantry) and if commandos hit infantry for squat Then the commando attack is going to fail . The 20x infantry is going to hit commandos for 50x20 = 1000 damage a turn, like 5x what the bship is hitting for.

I should run some numbers but I think the all commando vs battleship scenario where the bship loses is legitimate if you dont have ANY infantry to counter them on the ship (Or battlesuits/fighters for that matter). All capital ships have some hangar now, battleship has 20.

When we talk about ground unit vs mass infantry we should consider a touch of counter infantry and how much it tips the scales back.
edited by DrDread on 6/21/2017
3 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Leyic1
Leyic1
Posts: 7
I don't see why it's difficult to make assertions, provided some caveats are understood. You provide the combat data, so I can run "simulations" in a spreadsheet to determine how many units are needed to beat another type of unit. But the caveats are, as I've said before, that this is idealized combat, meaning there are no random effects, no mixed compositions, and no intervention. Making determinations based on just a few of these data points would be a bad idea, but looking over the entire table, trends can be revealed, showing that some units have a wider range of dominance than others. By then considering logistical and financial costs, and how fast a combat would end, one can identify units that are generally better for their particular situation, and then consider a practical group composition over that smaller subset.

Like you say, 20x monolith+varitek combos will annihilate pretty much everything, but will also cost almost 20 mil per turn if you have no other military and a level 10 HQ. You might win several battles, but I'll get the last laugh and win the war when you go bankrupt and auto-liquidate.

Incidentally, it takes 5 level 10 commandos to bring down a level 10 max defense monolith, and possibly 9 level 10 commandos to bring down a level 10 max defense monolith with a level 10 varitek (this sim is even more iffy as I don't know how the damage reduction mechanic works exactly, so I ignored it).

But anyhow, are commandos working as intended, being specialists at taking out fixed defenses while also being great for taking down spacecraft?
3 days ago
Topic:
(AX) Cybertronics

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
Topic: (AX) Cybertronics
Valhalla wrote:
While I think you were a little heavy handed with the nerf on some ground units. (Artillery are literally described as anti-large ship units, but now do nothing to ships.) I admit it was a needed change, as there was no good reason to build spaceships before cause ground units eclipsed them. At least you didn't nerf aircraft vs ships so they are still the counter to ships they are supposed to be. Sadly this change means I need to get rid of "standard" artillery, as they no longer serve a purpose for their non-existant hp levels. upset

By the way Hutton (New york) I'd swap you heroic infantry, xenos, and commandos for those Battlemechs if you want. I got a bunch to spare atm. They may be useless in my fleet, but I can still find a use for them defensively or something.


Details Smaller version of Ion Cannons that defend vs ships but with homing abilities. Very effective against ground targets and large ships but very vulnerable.

It lies! smile
edited by Valhalla on 6/18/2017



Ya know you may have a point about artillery vs ships. I'm trying to place artillery as high firepower and low hits and the best "ground unit" against ships and soft targets like mass infantry but it didn't turn out that way because the Battlesuit does about the same to ships now and have twice the HPs and cost less. I might need to reduce battlesuits to like 3-4 vs capital ships and make artillery do 8-10. We're playing with small numbers now so its tricky. I need to make them more effective than Commandos vs ships but commandos are so much cheaper. What might need to happen is that transports go to 0, infantry goes down to 1, commandos goes down to 2, Battlesuits go to 3 and artillery goes to 8 or 10. That makes artillery slightly less effective than fighters against capital ships for the money but still makes commandos cheaper than artillery vs ships. Might have to reduce the cost of artillery, and make them more efficient at fighters and small craft where commandos suck at, but commandos are more efficient at capital ships than artillery. Still iffy ...
3 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Posts: 1095
The logistical matchup is difficult to make assertions about because there is so much scaling on ground units level. You compare a level 10 commando vs a level 10 Battleship at equal logistics and got that result. but if it was 2 level 5 commandos or even worse, 5 level 2 commandos, they would get obliterated. Also 2 level 10 commandos against a size 20 monolith should be a different outcome than battleship matchup. There is a huge logistical savings on higher level ground units that ships don't enjoy which I guess plays into the strategy. In HUGE fights with several level 10 ground units, the small number of large ships will get overwhelmed and you really have to use ground forces in addition. But in smaller engagements, where the levels are lower, level 5 raider units, you can actually go in there with half a dozen corvettes and be much more effective than bringing a battleship. Corvettes hit for half as much as capital chips but at like 5% of the cost. However because they are more firepower than hit points, you have to have the other side greatly out numbered to be very effective and survive

There is no easy way to outnumber huge ground forces with ships alone. Huge ground defenses have to be fought with huge ground forces.

Another thing about logistics vs cost. If you want to get "more logistics", you use the bigger more expensive units, they always pack a lot more punch for the same logistics. 10 logistics of commandos vs 10 logistics of fighters is no contest for example. And if you made a 500 logistics worth of commando artillery army, I can probably make a 200 logistics army of armored and bombers or something and obliterate you.

An all varitek force of 2000x aboard a fleet of 20 monoliths is probably going to obliterate anything you have on the ground but it costs 10 billion dollars
4 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Leyic1
Leyic1
Posts: 7
In a one v. one fight between a level 10 commando and a level 10 battleship (max defense), both of which take 10 logistics points, the commando does 2.00% damage to the battleship in the first turn, while the battleship does 1.50% damage to the commando in the first turn. The commando wins in over 50 turns not considering random effects.

In a one v. one fight between a level 10 bomber and a level 10 battleship (max defense), both of which take 10 logistics points, the bomber does 53.33% damage to the battleship in the first turn, while the battleship does 0.83% damage to the bomber in the first turn. The bomber wins in two turns, so there's less opportunity for random effects to change the outcome.

The bomber certainly gets the job done faster, but the upkeep is 30 times that of the commando. If you have the income, by all means use bombers and dreadnoughts to defend every last mine and quarry you have.
4 days ago
Topic:
Reaching 10 mil pop should open 2 new star systems

Ranged
Ranged
Posts: 2
Hutton's post is what I meant. Why spend valuable effort and resources developing systems that are relatively resource poor? Not every system should have 40 million people in it, only those that are worth having 40 million people in. At the moment it is being enforced that every system will have that amount of citizens or the progression stops. When you give the players more choices on where to go it will naturally leave behind some relatively empty systems, and some more developed ones. Imagine finding a world with massive resources of every quantity, naturally that will become a huge trade-hub, surrounded by some poorer systems who only have good agriculture or metals, feeding it those resources. You will see humanity spread out in clusters instead of everywhere. Some wasteland, then suddenly a massive population center fed and supplied by the surrounding systems, who have no more than maybe 10 million people.
4 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 224
In response to your edit above about commandos and structures. My thinking was more that I thought the ratio of damage to Ion Cannons and Shields should be greater than that to Forts and Rail Guns. A reason for a raid to precede the orbital bombardment that precedes the invasion.

I understand what you did. What I meant was I don't see how long each hypothetical face off takes, but I was assuming that Commandos only inflict more damage on capital ships than Bombers if that battle goes on for a really, really long time. And time is important to the defender in a siege. The more turns it takes for a siege to grind down the defenses, the more turns a defender has to call for help and negotiate with allies to relive them. The more turns he has for reinforcement to arrive and break the siege. Commandoes may well have a hidden value that I wasn't aware of in resisting a siege.

Time should be on the side of the fleet laying siege if they have it. If the defender with just ground forces doesn't have any resources or relationships that can intervene, game set and match. But the fleet should feel a certain urgency to break through if reinforcements are enroute. The excitement comes from the decision, when do you pull the trigger on the ground invasion. Too soon and they can't beat the defenses. Too late and reinforcemnts arrive.

But that's just how I would like it to work. Battles between ships and ground forces don't last long enough for reinforcemnts to arrive from other planets. That's just how I want it to work.
4 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Leyic1
Leyic1
Posts: 7
My math: Starting from the combat table, put everything at max level (I put ships at max defense), multiply by the number of units you need to have 120 logistics (for equivalency), determine relative damage against different units and divide by the total upkeep.

If you're defending, time isn't too important; either the attacker will be ground to dust, or the attacker will retreat, or someone will intervene, possibly on your behalf. If someone intervenes against you, you have diplomatic problems and determining optimal defense composition won't help you, but this isn't a concern against NPCs. If you're attacking, there's no fog of war so you can optimize composition for that specific battle and choose the time it occurs.

But realistically my analysis is idealized because no one is going to fight without mixed composition or with logistical equivalency. The purpose of my analysis was to find the cheapest general defenders, since I'd want many of them to cover all my facilities, and they'll just be standing around sucking up money most of the time. Commandos, backed by artillery to deal with ground units, are looking to be surprisingly versatile in both a defensive and a retaliatory role.
4 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Hutton
Hutton
Posts: 224
I don't see all of your math, but I'm assuming you mean they are more effective if time is not a factor. And time is an important factor. Commandos aren't going to make a meaningful contribution to a battle that takes ten turns if it takes them 100 turns to take down a ship. The capital ships and bombers on either side are going to finish that battle before the commandos have made a meaningful contribution.

In a situation where it is just a capital ship agaist some solitary engineers, it does kind of make sense that they would be sneaking up in shuttles and planting explosives over a long period of time and not taking much damage back because the capital ship isn't designed with that kind of attack in mind. Bombers, on the other hand, will take those capital ships down much faster but take more casualties because the capital ships were designed with bombers attacks in mind.
4 days ago
Topic:
Assets Page, City expansion, unit balance

Leyic1
Leyic1
Posts: 7
Regarding commandos damaging capital ships: That's a fine explanation for how they do it, but from a balance perspective, should commandos be more cost effective than bombers at taking down capital ships when they are also the most cost effective unit by an order of magnitude at taking down fixed defenses? They're basically a solid anti-ship defense unit and the best anti-structure offense unit, when every other unit in the game seems to be specialized against a certain type of unit, or a jack-of-all-trades.

Edit: Commandos already do plenty of damage against ion cannons and shields. Two commandos would take down a same level cannon or shield in one turn. And if commandos can fight from space, then carriers might not need bombers or escorts to defend them except against dreadnoughts and monoliths.
edited by Leyic1 on 6/20/2017
edited by Leyic1 on 6/20/2017




Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software