Atrocities or not in human multiplayer games?

[Earthmichael]

Yitzi, you may have a problem with airpower in general, but the only consistant airpower problem I see discussed by the COMMUNITY is copters.  They are clearly broken, giving the only non-land multi-attack capability at the same cost as a needlejet.

If you have a problem with Needlejet ZOC and other airpower issues, you could consider just banning air units completely. 

There are several cases other than air power where probes are needed to restore techology parity before you get stomped on.

In actual play, air power is rarely a problem as long as the map is at least a medium size, since odds are that even the slower researcher can get airpower before the other player can expand enough to attack.

On a small or tiny map (or just a scenario where you start close together), you probably can't wait for airpower, because there is probably at least one agressive opponent that is going after you with rovers.  That is the case with WFOS, where I started near Sparta and Usurpers, and have had to crank out a load of ground units to defend myself.  No one is even close to Air Power yet.

I find it interesting that a thread I started to see about a consensus rule about attrocities in human multiplayer games has evolved so much!  Very interesting!

[Yitzi]

I wonder about the possibility, since we're imagining extensive .exe modding anyway, of inserting a new screen where one can check off what mods the user wants enabled/disabled...

As mentioned in the other thread, GUIs are way too difficult.  Making it depend on variables in the alpha.txt file, though...that would be quite doable.

Yitzi, you may have a problem with airpower in general, but the only consistant airpower problem I see discussed by the COMMUNITY is copters.

Kirov raised a couple of points that are quite significant.

They are clearly broken, giving the only non-land multi-attack capability at the same cost as a needlejet.

But at half the range (unless you're willing to take 30% damage, or KNOW that you can capture that base this turn.)

If you have a problem with Needlejet ZOC and other airpower issues, you could consider just banning air units completely.

No, air units are an important part of the game and should be available...they just should never be completely unattackable unless there's a huge tech discrepancy.

There are several cases other than air power where probes are needed to restore techology parity before you get stomped on.

Please name them.  I'm honestly interested in hearing what they are.

In actual play, air power is rarely a problem as long as the map is at least a medium size, since odds are that even the slower researcher can get airpower before the other player can expand enough to attack.

Unless they're already at war...

What if one side is beelining for Air Power, and the other doesn't want to?  Can the other still get, say Air Power and all level 3 techs and half the level 4 techs before the first faction attacks?

[Buster's Uncle]

I wonder about the possibility, since we're imagining extensive .exe modding anyway, of inserting a new screen where one can check off what mods the user wants enabled/disabled...

As mentioned in the other thread, GUIs are way too difficult.  Making it depend on variables in the alpha.txt file, though...that would be quite doable.

The G part is ease itself - I imagine anyone who could track down and alter everything involved in making the code changes you want would find organizing some on/off switches to various subroutines finger-painting by comparison.  I can make the graphic part in an hour or less.  Maybe.

I need to go post about the GUI issue in that other thread, in fact - y'all are overlooking an easy workaround...

[Earthmichael]

I had an interesting experience just a few minutes ago with the Nomads scenario.  I was using a Hovertank to attack an enemy base with two moves left.  I had a strong attack advantage, so I figured I would easily have over 50% hit points left to take the base after the attack.  I ended up taking 40% damage (more than I expected, but I thought, OK, still no problem), but then my hovertank would not make another move!  Apparently, 40% damage was enough to reduce the movement.  So though officially ground units may be able to attack multiple times, practically speaking, it seems like it rarely works.

In contrast, my Copter with 90% damage does not lose a single movement point.

I wll be posting an AAR after I finish winning Nomads, which will show very clearly how copters are so devastating.

[Yitzi]

I had an interesting experience just a few minutes ago with the Nomads scenario.  I was using a Hovertank to attack an enemy base with two moves left.  I had a strong attack advantage, so I figured I would easily have over 50% hit points left to take the base after the attack.  I ended up taking 40% damage (more than I expected, but I thought, OK, still no problem), but then my hovertank would not make another move!  Apparently, 40% damage was enough to reduce the movement.  So though officially ground units may be able to attack multiple times, practically speaking, it seems like it rarely works.

I believe the reduction is proportional, so a hovertank will lose one move at 40% and a second at 70%, whereas a speeder will lose one move at 50%.  Sea units work similarly, though they can't attack multiple times anyway.

In contrast, my Copter with 90% damage does not lose a single movement point.

No it doesn't, but if you attack with it there's a serious chance of losing it.

I wll be posting an AAR after I finish winning Nomads, which will show very clearly how copters are so devastating.

Doesn't Nomads give air units bonus movement?  The power of copters depends very much on their movement available, so Nomads will be worse than most, and giving them Antigrav Struts (legitimately or through a bug) also makes them extremely powerful (but of course that's an endgame ability except when bugs are involved).

[Earthmichael]

In contrast, my Copter with 90% damage does not lose a single movement point.

No it doesn't, but if you attack with it there's a serious chance of losing it.

True, but the point is to be able to move back to safety.

I wll be posting an AAR after I finish winning Nomads, which will show very clearly how copters are so devastating.

Doesn't Nomads give air units bonus movement?  The power of copters depends very much on their movement available, so Nomads will be worse than most, and giving them Antigrav Struts (legitimately or through a bug) also makes them extremely powerful (but of course that's an endgame ability except when bugs are involved).

I think someone said that it was not the Nomads scenario, but it was the Fusion reactor that resulted in the speed.  Which may be a bug; I am not sure of the designer intent here.

[Yitzi]

True, but the point is to be able to move back to safety.

And with land units, you can put defensive units in the stack, for a somewhat longer but more efficient seige.

I think someone said that it was not the Nomads scenario, but it was the Fusion reactor that resulted in the speed.  Which may be a bug; I am not sure of the designer intent here.

Even with Fission, it's got speed 10 instead of 8.  The formula is exactly what it should have with antigrav struts, which I find to be suspicious enough that it's almost certainly a bug.  I should be able to check more sometime tomorrow.

[Yitzi]

Well, I checked, and antigrav struts (if enabled for air units) apply on top of the existing reactor-related bonus, so that would strongly imply that it's not a bug, and air movement is supposed to depend on the reactor.

However, 8+2Xreactor is far too much, especially for copters, so I think it will be necessary to reduce air unit speed in order to balance it.  What do people think about reducing needlejets and gravships by 2 (so 8 with fission, 10 with fusion), and copters by 4 (so 6 with fission, 8 with fusion)?

[Kirov]

However, 8+2Xreactor is far too much, especially for copters, so I think it will be necessary to reduce air unit speed in order to balance it.  What do people think about reducing needlejets and gravships by 2 (so 8 with fission, 10 with fusion), and copters by 4 (so 6 with fission, 8 with fusion)?

Cutting movement points seems like the best option to me. You don't have to worry so much about reactors, in many games you'll see only fusion, anyway. And I was thinking about what somebody said that air units enrich the game and so on, and I can't find myself to support such view. Of all the possibilities which the unit workshop gives us, I would use many more options if air was banned or significantly reduced, maybe transports with repair bays, abilities like ECM or Polymorphic Encryption, who knows, maybe even submarines.

[Earthmichael]

In the actual multiplayer games I have played with copters banned, there is a much broader range of forces used.  There are some needlejets, but I would not say that they are the dominant unit.  Without copters, I am much more likely to rely on a balanced attack, with artillery bombardment to soften the defenders, particularly in a city or large stack, some air units to punish those with no air defence or attack, tanks, infantry, probe teams, etc.

I don't think the needlejet range made that much difference; it was the fact that the needlejet could only attack every other turn.  In contrast, a copter can often easily take out 3 units per turn, 6 times as much destructive capability!

Do like I have, play a few games with copters banned, and see if you think air power needs any further reduction.  I personally do not think so.

[Yitzi]

Cutting movement points seems like the best option to me. You don't have to worry so much about reactors, in many games you'll see only fusion, anyway. And I was thinking about what somebody said that air units enrich the game and so on, and I can't find myself to support such view. Of all the possibilities which the unit workshop gives us, I would use many more options if air was banned or significantly reduced, maybe transports with repair bays, abilities like ECM or Polymorphic Encryption, who knows, maybe even submarines.

Air units no doubt will enrich the game, provided it's weakened enough.

In the actual multiplayer games I have played with copters banned, there is a much broader range of forces used.  There are some needlejets, but I would not say that they are the dominant unit.  Without copters, I am much more likely to rely on a balanced attack, with artillery bombardment to soften the defenders, particularly in a city or large stack, some air units to punish those with no air defence or attack, tanks, infantry, probe teams, etc.

Actual multiplayer experience is pretty strong evidence...so it might be sufficient just to strongly reduce copter and maybe gravship range (I still don't like the idea of eliminating copters entirely.)

However, I still feel that in the interests of preventing a race to Air Power or exploits with ZOC and stack protection, there should be a counter to air power that's easier to get than air power itself, which means moving D:AP to require AMA, and moving SAM and AAA down one level.  It ends up the same once everybody has air power (which I presume is when you saw a broad range of forces used), but removes the window in which air power alone is sufficient (well, unless you have a large tech advantage.)

[Earthmichael]

I am OK with making anti-air easier to get, but I don't think we need to make D:AP any more difficult to get.  My suggestion if you feel a need to change this is to make SAM and AAA available at Gene Splicing.  That guarantees counters are available at least two techs before D:AP can be achieved (actually 4 techs if you include D: Flex and D:Mob).

But I do not think you have to make the SAM and AAA cheaper and more effective.

And choppers really have to go; reducing their range is just not enough.  Using choppers on defense does not require much range, and a single chopper can decimate a ground attack singlehandedly.  It never made sense for choppers to be able to make multiple attacks; if there was a way to get rid of the multiple attacks, that would be fine, but I don't think that is possible.  So the unit is just broken.

[Yitzi]

I am OK with making anti-air easier to get, but I don't think we need to make D:AP any more difficult to get.  My suggestion if you feel a need to change this is to make SAM and AAA available at Gene Splicing.  That guarantees counters are available at least two techs before D:AP can be achieved (actually 4 techs if you include D: Flex and D:Mob).

But Gene Splicing doesn't really make sense for either AAA or SAM.

But I do not think you have to make the SAM and AAA cheaper and more effective.

There, I think you're probably right.

And choppers really have to go; reducing their range is just not enough.  Using choppers on defense does not require much range, and a single chopper can decimate a ground attack singlehandedly.

Hardly.  A ground attack with defense units in the stack is already fairly chopper-resistant (a chopper might be able to kill a few units before being destroyed); making those defense units SAM will absolutely devastate chopper attacks.  Give me a bit, and I'll make a scenario that shows just how ineffective choppers are on defense against a properly prepared assault force.  I'll even let the choppers keep their current speed.

[Earthmichael]

I would preference achieving the minimal necessary change for the desired effect rather than worry about whether the tech name made sense.  If you must, just change the tech name to something you feel does make sense.  If you must, instead of Gense Splicing, one could rename the tech "Ground Launched Crop Dusters", or something equally silly.  Do we really think Neural Grafting has anything to do with giving two abilities to mechanical units?  But who cares.  Personally, I would not change the name of the tech; people who use the patch would understand that it is a playability change and ignore the tech name.

Can I ask why you are so insistant on keeping choppers?  What indispensible role do you think they have in the game?

Yes, you may be able to assemble just the perfect anti-chopper force, but so what?  The very fact the choppers made you unbalance your forces in a way that you would not have done for needlejets is half the problem.  For example, with no choppers, I would focus more on SAM than AAA.  With choppers instead of needlejets, the SAM is relatively useless, because the choppers will always retreat back to base.

The other thing you have to consider is initiative.  The choppers get to control the time and place of the engagement.  They pretty much force your attacking stack to be clumped, make you more vulnerable to defensive artillary.

[Yitzi]

I would preference achieving the minimal necessary change for the desired effect rather than worry about whether the tech name made sense.  If you must, just change the tech name to something you feel does make sense.  If you must, instead of Gense Splicing, one could rename the tech "Ground Launched Crop Dusters", or something equally silly.

That's far more of a change than just switching a few prerequisites.  It would make more sense to move SAM down to Synthetic Fossil Fuels and AAA down to optical computers and leave it at that.  The real issue is that air power is still a pretty significant ability, it shouldn't have a level 2 prerequisite.

Can I ask why you are so insistant on keeping choppers?  What indispensible role do you think they have in the game?

They're a midgame unit capable of travelling from one base to another even when there's more than 2Xmove between the bases.  They're good for punishing soft targets near your bases.  And I just don't like making such a huge change like completely removing a chassis type.

Yes, you may be able to assemble just the perfect anti-chopper force, but so what?  The very fact the choppers made you unbalance your forces in a way that you would not have done for needlejets is half the problem.

If one person unbalancing their forces means the other should unbalance their forces to match it, so what?  That's not a problem.  (Although a bit of experimentation suggests that AAA really does need a 150% boost to properly defend an assault force, unless chopper cost is increased substantially.)

For example, with no choppers, I would focus more on SAM than AAA.  With choppers instead of needlejets, the SAM is relatively useless, because the choppers will always retreat back to base.

Well, air SAM (interceptors) are still useful for defense because they can scramble.  But yes, choppers are far weaker against AAA than SAM, what's your point?

The other thing you have to consider is initiative.  The choppers get to control the time and place of the engagement.  They pretty much force your attacking stack to be clumped, make you more vulnerable to defensive artillary.

You only need a clump of 2 (attacker and defender, and the defender won't take that much damage from the artillery anyway), and if you make "super-units" with good attack and defense you don't even need that.  When discussing clumping, you should be far more worried about probe teams.

Controlling time and place of the engagement is significant, but needlejets can do it too.  So clearly existing anti-air measures are enough to deal with that.

Oh, and because I said I'd make a scenario to test choppers as defense, here it is.  Each has 400 minerals' worth of units, you've got a tech advantage, you win if you can destroy the assault force.  It can be done fairly easily with 100% SAM, but is essentially impossible with 150% or if you restrict yourself to using 6 choppers (corresponding to increasing chopper cost to 16).

Perhaps the best changes (other than tech prerequisite changes to prevent beelining for D:AP) would be:
-Needlejet and missile: No change.
-Chopper: 16 cost (up from 8 ), 4 movement (down from 8 )
-Gravship: 4 movement (down from 8 ).

So then needlejets are the fastest (after missiles), choppers can attack multiple times but are very expensive, and gravships are endgame units (still fairly fast at 10 or 12 with quantum or singularity reactor, but not like needlejets.)