"Der Motor des Panzers ist ebenso seine Waffe wie die Kanone". (The engine of the Panzer is a weapon just as the main-gun.) The quote is not mine (obviously), it belongs to Heinz Guderian, a pioneer of motorized tactics. I think it is pretty obvious that Guderian did not mean you could use the engine to beat someone over the head with, rather, he was referring to the fact that mobility, speed and range were just as important as firepower. I cannot stress enough how much this holds true in a tbs 4x game and how vital it is to balance it correctly. Many games of the genre allow a player to increase the strategic (star map) range of their units as well as their speed. Ultimately this can culminate in a situation where a player has both unlimited range and instantaneous (single turn) speed. Unfortunately now that this has been included in some games there will always be a section of players that will demand its presence while ignoring all the negative effects that it causes. Think about it for a second. Why bother with outposts or colonies whose sole purpose may be to extend range when you can instead quickly research your way to the same goal. Why bother to defend and station garrisons at your vital colonies when you can react with your entire fleet in a single turn. The combination of these two factors taken to the extreme means you can keep your forces in a single stack and ignore a portion of the game without suffering any consequences... how exciting. The map will also quickly feel "too small" regardless of its actual size. But the worst effect is what it can do to even the cleverest AI. How can any AI defend itself against a human opponent that can strike anywhere on the board in a single turn with overwhelming force? Obviously players have different styles when playing these games, some like the exploration more while others like to build up their Empire. But one thing that most players have in common is the desire to win. Eventually that means strategy, tactics and combat. If any game can't put up a challenge here it will be mediocre, offer minimal re-play value and be consigned to the dust bin. It will be forgotten. The obvious solution would be to ensure that the player never has the ability to achieve unlimited range and instantaneous speed... but we can't do that because there is no logic in dis-pleasing the percentage of players that feel having these capabilities is a must. We could use some cheats to bolster AI defenses or the warp interdictors of MoO2 but cheats would seem like a lazy solution whereas the warp interdictors favor the defense too much. Perhaps then the best solution is to offer these capabilities but pace them correctly. Range should be looked at first. Allow the player the technology for the first incremental increase early, it may be needed. After that however, all further range extension increases should be a considerable effort and not available quickly. Unlimited range should be a very late tech and very expensive, this would ensure that any player attempting to gain this tech early will need to balance the benefit by the fact that he /she could fall behind in other areas. It would be one more "important" decision the player is faced with. Speed should also be carefully balanced. When you have a situation where hired leaders increase speed as does tech research, it becomes too easy to achieve "ludicrous speed" A game would be rewarded in making sure that speed increases are tiny increments only and are spaced out well on the research tree. Consideration could also be given to ensuring that instantaneous travel is only achieved by star gate technology. This would mean you can only achieve "one turn" speed on your own colonies, not outside of them, it would re-enforce the need for outposts and colonies rather than eliminate it. One thing that can turn me off quickly to any game is the ability to beat it quickly and easily by following a certain strategy. These adjustments would not basically change a game, instead they would ensure that far more of the choices available in it are important. They would also slow down the pace a bit. I am curious, does anyone have any feelings about this?
The question is: "How can any AI defend itself against a human opponent that can strike anywhere on the board in a single turn with overwhelming force?" My answer is in agreement with yours, it can't. My solution however is slightly different in that I don't think range is the real problem. Speed in my mind is the bigger factor. While having unlimited range is undoubtedly powerful, speed is what determines how much time both the aggressor and defender have to react. To take this a step further, speed plus visibility (scanning?) is what really allows both sides to make strategic decisions. Here are my initial thoughts on the matter: An aggressor flying halfway across the galaxy to strike a distant planet should have limited visibility into the type of opposition he should expect to see there. Ships themselves should have somewhat short range scanners, and immobile objects such as stationed fleets should have a significantly reduced profile that is hard to detect at a great distance. In contrast, the defender, who has a terrestrial colony or outpost, should have access to superior scanning capability and visibility to nearby objects and especially to comparatively "noisy" fleet movements. This allows the defender time to react while the aggressor is in flight. The aggressor is somewhat blind to what the defender is doing putting the defender at a distinct advantage. Speed is key here because it doesn't matter if the defender has superior scanning if the aggressor is going to arrive within a couple turns of being detected. The defender has no time to react and can't be expected to have full deployments everywhere at all times. How much time is "enough" time is difficult to say, but I have an idea on how to figure out when ships are detected. As far as how easy ships are to detect, that should be dependent on ship size. I'd consider having a "noise" level for each ship size and perhaps even configuration. As the number of ships increases it should be easier to detect, but I think a scaling should be applied as numbers increase. I don't for instance think 50 ships would be that much easier to detect than 25 since 25 would already be pretty noticeable unless they were all very small ships. I wouldn't provide complete info on the incoming fleet either. You shouldn't know exactly what ships are in the incoming fleet until it is relatively close. As an aside, this concept allows a lot of technology and ship design choices to really come to light. For example: Stealth technology could be used to reduce the "noise" produced by a ship and thus how far away it could be detected. As a fleet comes into view, you may initially only see a few ships but then realize a few turns later that it's actually a dozen because many of them were stealthed. They should not be "invisible" to your scans for the entire trip, but they should remain hidden for longer. This is a crafty decision by the aggressor perhaps, but the stealth would come at a cost to the ship's capabilities. Another example: An artificial generator could be used to create the appearance of more incoming or defending fleets than actually exist. At this distance the exact fleet composition would not be known. This would create an opportunity for players (and AI) to analyze the situation and determine whether or not the opponent might be bluffing. You might move a ton of ships to a system in response to one very large fleet, realize it was a bit of a ruse, and than realize the smaller fleet you had coming in to another part of your empire is much larger than expected due to the presence of stealthed ships.
Outstanding post aRM! Have you considered the role of communications in this? Sometime past mid game it is usual to give orders to ships while their FTLs are engaged thus altering their destination in mid flight. If only the player is proficient at this it would unbalance the game. If both were proficient it’s a wash in a way as whichever side is on the offensive and has the upper hand will benefit the most. I would love to know how you feel communications should be dealt with as it too becomes a vital aspect of strategic maneuver on the map. P.S. how embarrassing, my apologies, I got reckless and did not do my research as I should have, relying on faulty memory instead.
Thanks Chris, I'm glad you enjoyed the post. Yes, in-flight communication is indeed a vital part of this. If the attacker can instantly shift targets again and again it becomes very difficult for the defender to react. There are probably a myriad of ways to solve this problem. I've not thought about them too much though. I certainly don't know which approach is best, but one I'd consider is providing the defender with additional tools which allow it to shift things back into its favor. Physical tools could be things like: - subspace inhibitors that slow down enemy travel once they get near your outer systems. This allows the defender time to combine defensive fleets and sally out to "greet" them. - minefields that force the aggressor to dramatically slow down (to reduce damage) or plow through (and take massive damage). Mines would be difficult to detect until you are nearly on-top of them. Aggressors might have an option to tech against mines somewhat with the use of a special system that reduces damage to the ship but takes space and reduces their combat prowess (so the defender still benefits). Alternatively, or in addition, leaders might have a navigation skill that allows them to quickly move their fleet through mines. Other options that use new mechanics could be things like: - Allow in-battle reinforcements. If the player chooses to do so, they could request that ships within a certain reinforcement range of the battlefield join into the combat. The number of turns before they arrive would be dependent on their distance from the battle. Once added to the battle they should be moved to that location after-combat regardless of the result (unless they are blown up!). Defenders will often have fleets nearby, aggressors not so much, so this allows defenders to better cover their systems. If the aggressor wins before defenders reinforce, the battle ends. The defending fleets still continue to move to that location on the galaxy map, but the aggressor now has a chance to retreat or move elsewhere. (the system is somewhat reminiscent of how Total War reinforces, only it is in real-time. In that vain, in Total War the aggressor can get a "lightning strike" skill that allows them to attack so quickly that the defender can't reinforce. In PSS this would likely be a leader skill if included).
I like this idea, it's even better then "interception" mechanic I've been thinking about. In Civ 4+ air superiority planes can be tasked with guarding an area so every time an opponent tries fly over the area there is a chance that interceptor will engage it in combat. This way you don't have to anticipate where 10 movement point bombarder will strike and move your interceptor one tile at the time. It's a great mechanic for utilizing units which move very fast without introducing some sort of "in between" turns. Your idea ties in very nicely, all stationary ships are space superiority candidates, late game attackers with high end engines make 1 turn hop from their world to yours but then you open reinforcement menu and pick which ships you warp in. Under certain circumstances I'd allow for instant reinforcements on the first combat turn for instance if your sensors would give you 2/3 turns "advance" warning then you can instantly call in ships close enough to arrive in 2/3 turns. It may seam as a bit of overcomplication but it would make sensors more useful late game when enemy can strike you without giving you a chance to see them in flight (when their colony is 1 turn away from yours due to insane travel speed). This idea is so good, I'm adding it to my Stareater to do list
It also makes me think of ZOC in Total War. You can't move into a certain range of an enemy army without attacking it. And attacking anything in the ZOC (like a city or another army) means that army will be in the fight too. I can see this translate in a space 4X. Other fleets can reinforce engaged fleets or come to the defense of systems they are not in. Though you're going to start at the edge of the system and not at the planet/starbase.
Wow, some excellent feedback here. I could see where a studio could start with the easier adjustments first .Adjustments to speed and range could be the first step and done easily, this gets a partial solution in place. New scanning mechanics and Zone of Control/Reaction would be my immediate next step. This alone could make enough difference to effect the right balance while also enhancing any overall game experience. After that I would adjust as needed by introducing elements I did not specifically mention from the great feedback here, this could be a very effective approach.
There is only so much you can do by adjusting the numbers. Movement range alone, even when infinite, doesn't break the game, speed is the most volatile factor and sensor range is dependent on minimal enemy distance and their speed, so speed again. Speed is problematic because it determines how much reaction time the other side has, with greater speed there is less time and there is only so much you can decrease that number. One it reaches zero you start to play a game of guessing instead of knowing. That's why I think something else should be done instead of tweaking numbers. In MoO 2 jump gate and stargate were nice way to moderate speed in defender's advantage.
I agree with you that only so much can be done as regards speed which is the major issue here, however that does not negate the fact that it should be looked at first prior to other actions being taken. I include range as it is a contributing factor to the direct issue and affects game play in other areas such as the need for forward supply bases, this need is non existent with unlimited range. You then have a situation where there are fewer targets to attack and defend and no need to consider allocating and dispersing forces. That can and usually does lead to single battle wars in a tbs 4x game with the rest being mopping up. This is neither fun or original for me. A game that I still enjoy tremendously has the player start with a speed of 6 and can be maxed out at 16. At the same time full range never becomes possible. In this game I had to maintain fleets not a single stack. As my empire grew there was no way for a single stack to defend it. The AI benefited as I could not steam-roll it or do a decapitation strike, I actually had to fight a war with it consisting of multiple battles in order to move the front closer to their core worlds. I benefited as it was a hell of a lot of fun. Again, I understand that adjusting the numbers will only get you so far but I still strongly believe that one must start there before moving to more intricate solutions. I do not say that adjusting the numbers only will fix the problem but rather that it is the correct place to start.
To the OP: Yes! This is the biggest mistake that Pdox made in Stellaris. It could be so much better. *Note* Re: Guderian's quote. I've not personally read that one before, but as it is written here he stated "The motor of the tank is your weapon, even as the main gun." The use of "ebenso" denotes he is giving equal weight to both. I guess he was teaching a class when he said it...??? Nonetheless, you make a great argument!
One way to distinguish the different races might be to have different FTL methods. That is what Star Ruler 2, SOTS, and a few other games do. They have different types of FTL, which in turn allows them to have different strengths and weaknesses.
A good suggestion, but I think that might stray too far away from the MoO II vision they are striving for. If I'm wrong on that, than that's great as I'm a big fan of varied FTL systems myself, but I think that would require re-designing too many of the game's core systems.
Another option then might be to give individual races advantages (Ex: one race can go fast, but not far, while another can go far, but slowly).
