Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Avoid Base

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 10:11:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I have kept silent about that for a while now because I wanted to see
where it would go on ist own, but enough is enough.

Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can take
apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).
And we don't want to forget the base fighters. Right now they happily
leave the protective circle of the base ion cannons and AA guns to
engage the enemy and get killed. Consequently we'd need a 'stay
inside base fire range' order for the fighters, too. Both for wings
and the base fighters (not formed into wings yet).
Complicated. Absurd. Unnecessary.
And of course that would result into two complete fleets sitting atop
of each other at the same coordinates without fighting each other (one
with avoid base, one with stay inside base firing range). What a mess.

Fortunately there's a simple solution. If you want to not engage a
base in battle, keep your distance from it. Stay 6ly away (or 12ly for
good measure, to not get drawn into a larger combat).That's avoid
base for me. If I want to attack a fleet over a base, or to blockade a
base, or to assimilate it, or to superlaser its planet, or whatever,
than it is implied that I go near enough to the base to get shot at
with ion cannons.
Simple. Stay far enough from the base to not engage it in VCR, or
accept that you have to fight it. The avoid base order is just an
unnecessary over-complification which was never needed in the first
place.

Never needed? Oho. Than where does it come from? Ah, I remember. It was
only implemented to save big ships from getting shot to pieces by ion
cannons because they stopped being pushed away by the cannons. Oh my,
another mess. But this one fortunately has easy solutions, too. For
example, simply differ between shipbased weapons and planetbased
weapons. Big ships are immune versus shipbased push back. Versus
planetbased pushback they behave like in times dear, before this whole
problem of mass related combat behaviour.

I love Planets. I love its complicated construct of possibilities and
rules. But sometimes the simple answer is indeed the best one. Put away
with avoid base, Tim, please.

More about : avoid base

April 11, 2005 11:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The whole troubel only started because of this "push back" thing. The
change was done quickly and without giving much thought about the
consequences. Then the fix needed a fix and so on and so on.
Unfortunately this is more the rule than the exception. :-( Tim, you
should by now realize that most things are related to each other. You
change one and then something else falls down at the end other end of
the bench.

Another example would be the fix for boarding. Now the combat seems to
be 10, but alas as "Completo" recently pointed out at Drewheads, the
"Rebel Groudn Assault" and "Warrior Assault" only work at 10 LYs range.
The solution is not to increase the range of those devices, as e.g. the
Glory device is involved as well, but can not be increased in range as
otherwis ethe stromers get a huge benefit.

To come back to the point:
The "Avoid Base" can not simply be taken away, as the ICs are too
strong and would kill every capital ships within seconds. We do however
need the possibility to attack a base from space.

I see 4 possibilities:
1) Change everything back to the point before the pushback was
implemented
2) Keep everything as it is now
3) As Lord Owl says: Take away the Avoid Ground Base, but add the old
pushback from ground base fire
4) Take away the Avoid Ground Base, but make ICs much weaker - matter
of fact thereby getting the old results just without a pushback

I would currently go for 2, as I fear everything else will either be
difficult or need another series of tests and changes until we get it
working ok. There are already enough games ruined with unbalanced and
untested host changes, if the players shall not be driven away
completely, I would say this needs to stop sooner than later.

The VGAP4 concept is great and it is fun to play. The quality of the
host changes would need improvement though - even though it is still
beta!
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 11:03:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

> I love Planets. I love its complicated construct of possibilities and
> rules. But sometimes the simple answer is indeed the best one. Put
away
> with avoid base, Tim, please.

Uhmm Lord Owl...

with the Host 190
-- there is no Avoid Base button anymore.

However as long as you have Ground Attack off for the ships and with
the fighters even if they are on top of the base they will not be shot
at...

wether that is an improvement or not remains to be seen.
Related resources
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 12:03:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I have to say, I rather enjoy the Avoid Base. Playing in a game as the
Birdman, there is a great advantage. I can slip into orbit, destroy
all ships, ignore the base, and then blow it up with a Super Laser shot
from my Darkwing.

Everyone still think it's a good idea?

I have to agree with Lord Owl. It's great to have this level of
control. I'd much rather see better control over your ships
intentions.

Example, Damn the Base, kill the fleet.

or

Damn the Fleet, kill the base.

I think the whole combat model needs a major over haul.

Greg Bahr
April 11, 2005 2:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Lord Owl wrote:
> I have kept silent about that for a while now because I wanted to see
> where it would go on ist own, but enough is enough.

Funny, isn't it?


> Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can
take
> apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
> get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
> 'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
> similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
> fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
> after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).
> And we don't want to forget the base fighters. Right now they happily
> leave the protective circle of the base ion cannons and AA guns to
> engage the enemy and get killed. Consequently we'd need a 'stay
> inside base fire range' order for the fighters, too.
> Both for wings
> and the base fighters (not formed into wings yet).

No more likely an option for the base fighters to not launch (at least
with an Air Attack Base present, and accessible via the Air Attack
Base).
Which btw should be taken into consideration anyway, regardless of what
happens to some other parts of the combat behaviour and the avoid base
option.

> Complicated. Absurd. Unnecessary.
> And of course that would result into two complete fleets sitting atop
> of each other at the same coordinates without fighting each other
(one
> with avoid base, one with stay inside base firing range). What a
mess.

That I would call a siege. And then you only need superweapons to still
be able to shoot at the enemy fleet. That is if no Aurora is present ,
in which case only the Auroras Superlaser would fire.


> Fortunately there's a simple solution. If you want to not engage a
> base in battle, keep your distance from it. Stay 6ly away (or 12ly
for
> good measure, to not get drawn into a larger combat).That's avoid
> base for me. If I want to attack a fleet over a base, or to blockade
a
> base, or to assimilate it, or to superlaser its planet, or whatever,
> than it is implied that I go near enough to the base to get shot at
> with ion cannons.
> Simple. Stay far enough from the base to not engage it in VCR, or
> accept that you have to fight it. The avoid base order is just an
> unnecessary over-complification which was never needed in the first
> place.

Too simple. Problem is when planets are too near to each other...

> Never needed? Oho. Than where does it come from? Ah, I remember. It
was
> only implemented to save big ships from getting shot to pieces by ion
> cannons because they stopped being pushed away by the cannons. Oh my,
> another mess. But this one fortunately has easy solutions, too. For
> example, simply differ between shipbased weapons and planetbased
> weapons. Big ships are immune versus shipbased push back. Versus
> planetbased pushback they behave like in times dear, before this
whole
> problem of mass related combat behaviour.

Again muuch tooo simple.
April 11, 2005 5:22:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

How about this? Have the VCR consider the "the ion cannon base owner's"
ships ground targets. That way if the enemy fleet doesn't have Fire At
Ground Targets active, then the base-defending fleet can fire at the
enemy but not vice-versa. The defenders would effectively be under the
defensive cloud of the base's ion cannons.

This is an attempt to use in-place game mechanics instead of trying to
invent a new button or page of buttons.

Magik
April 11, 2005 6:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I totally agree with lord owl!
1st ion cannons were strenghtened. now they were too strong and the
avoid ground base switch was invented.
but IMO now the base ion cannons are even more useless than before.
that wasn't the intention of this change.

so lord owls thoughts aren't bad until someone else comes up with
better ideas.

@nameless: did you say anything? everything you said was much tooooooo
simple. do you have any ideas???
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 8:08:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

For once we disagree, Lord Owl.

In VGAP it is not possible to hide your fleet beind planetary defense.
Perhaps, because of athmosphere, short range planetary weapons, whatever.

If you want to protect your base from being blockaded you need a fleet that
can defend the enemy without planetary defense. That is good, because in
late game it can happen that there are masses of mc and supplies (to build
planetary defense), but few minerals. In that case your suggestion would
make planetary defense *way* too strong.

Ion cannons are still very useful when it comes to the next phase of
attacking a base (1st phase: blockading it).
2nd phase: Destroying it from orbit.
You can only destroy a base from orbit, if you can take down the planetary
defense.

What you suggest would also be a solution, but I prefer the current one, as
it supports blockading bases.

What *may* be needed is a CC to prevent fighters to be launched as home
guard, although there is no enemy ship fireing at the base (because they
avoid base).
This is, however, tricky if you think about it a bit.

Lordfire


"Lord Owl" <lord.owl@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1113225106.287446.288490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I have kept silent about that for a while now because I wanted to see
> where it would go on ist own, but enough is enough.
>
> Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can take
> apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
> get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
> 'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
> similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
> fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
> after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).
> And we don't want to forget the base fighters. Right now they happily
> leave the protective circle of the base ion cannons and AA guns to
> engage the enemy and get killed. Consequently we'd need a 'stay
> inside base fire range' order for the fighters, too. Both for wings
> and the base fighters (not formed into wings yet).
> Complicated. Absurd. Unnecessary.
> And of course that would result into two complete fleets sitting atop
> of each other at the same coordinates without fighting each other (one
> with avoid base, one with stay inside base firing range). What a mess.
>
> Fortunately there's a simple solution. If you want to not engage a
> base in battle, keep your distance from it. Stay 6ly away (or 12ly for
> good measure, to not get drawn into a larger combat).That's avoid
> base for me. If I want to attack a fleet over a base, or to blockade a
> base, or to assimilate it, or to superlaser its planet, or whatever,
> than it is implied that I go near enough to the base to get shot at
> with ion cannons.
> Simple. Stay far enough from the base to not engage it in VCR, or
> accept that you have to fight it. The avoid base order is just an
> unnecessary over-complification which was never needed in the first
> place.
>
> Never needed? Oho. Than where does it come from? Ah, I remember. It was
> only implemented to save big ships from getting shot to pieces by ion
> cannons because they stopped being pushed away by the cannons. Oh my,
> another mess. But this one fortunately has easy solutions, too. For
> example, simply differ between shipbased weapons and planetbased
> weapons. Big ships are immune versus shipbased push back. Versus
> planetbased pushback they behave like in times dear, before this whole
> problem of mass related combat behaviour.
>
> I love Planets. I love its complicated construct of possibilities and
> rules. But sometimes the simple answer is indeed the best one. Put away
> with avoid base, Tim, please.
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:40:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

This has nothing to do with Birds. Everybody with a superlaser can do this.
And in my opinion that is what super lasers are for!!

What should be fixed is that Birds can actually blow up the planet even when
then haven't killed the base!

Lordfire

"Greg Bahr" <greg.bahr@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113231808.045517.58900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have to say, I rather enjoy the Avoid Base. Playing in a game as the
> Birdman, there is a great advantage. I can slip into orbit, destroy
> all ships, ignore the base, and then blow it up with a Super Laser shot
> from my Darkwing.
>
> Everyone still think it's a good idea?
>
> I have to agree with Lord Owl. It's great to have this level of
> control. I'd much rather see better control over your ships
> intentions.
>
> Example, Damn the Base, kill the fleet.
>
> or
>
> Damn the Fleet, kill the base.
>
> I think the whole combat model needs a major over haul.
>
> Greg Bahr
>
Anonymous
April 11, 2005 9:42:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I write nonsense.....
What I wanted to write is :) 

"This has nothing to do with Birds. Everybody with a superlaser can do this.
And in my opinion that is what super lasers are for!!

What should be fixed is that Birds can actually blow up the planet even
when
they haven't killed the fleet!"

Lordfire


"Lordfire" <a@b.com> wrote in message news:3bvk3cF6k0vlnU1@uni-berlin.de...
> This has nothing to do with Birds. Everybody with a superlaser can do
> this.
> And in my opinion that is what super lasers are for!!
>
> What should be fixed is that Birds can actually blow up the planet even
> when then haven't killed the base!
>
> Lordfire
>
> "Greg Bahr" <greg.bahr@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113231808.045517.58900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>I have to say, I rather enjoy the Avoid Base. Playing in a game as the
>> Birdman, there is a great advantage. I can slip into orbit, destroy
>> all ships, ignore the base, and then blow it up with a Super Laser shot
>> from my Darkwing.
>>
>> Everyone still think it's a good idea?
>>
>> I have to agree with Lord Owl. It's great to have this level of
>> control. I'd much rather see better control over your ships
>> intentions.
>>
>> Example, Damn the Base, kill the fleet.
>>
>> or
>>
>> Damn the Fleet, kill the base.
>>
>> I think the whole combat model needs a major over haul.
>>
>> Greg Bahr
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 12:21:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Hi Guys,

Let me see if I can shorten this for Tim's sake.
Tim remember when you changed the raffa because it
was an unstoppable attack type and everyone complained
bitterly about that? That condition made you change
the way glory devices work.
Well here we have the same problem only all the nuances
of this problem have not yet been exposed.
So this newsgroup does not yet see this as unstoppable
attack types. But then I did not see the glory device
as an unstoppable attack type either, of course I think
I was the only one that felt that way.
To be honest I have developed several unstoppable attack
methods with several different races with the avoid base
combat logic.
NOT ALL RACES ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THESE UNSTOPPABLE
ATTACKS.
So that in its self makes this unfair.
Why these have not yet come to light? Because the method I have
developed a month ago has not yet had an opportunity to be used
in a real game. It is a very slow process to put these new
complicated rules into maxium use and exploit them.
Something on the order of 6-9 months in fact during a real game.
So the real problems of this will not reach this news group yet
for another 5-8 months.

As Lord Owl, for example is just now discovering. More soon will
follow his lead. Can a player avoid unstoppable attacks?
Yes about as easy as trying to stop a raffa glory device attack.
It can be done but is very hard and requires a lot of preplanning
like 10+ turns.

Is their a way to fix this? Under the current rules I can not see
a fair way to create a fix honest. I believe that in the end we will
scrap this system altogether and go back to the old method
in which you could not avoid a base and it weapons then
enhance the combat algorithims much like for example Gabor suggested
in a different thread.
These different algorithims could be used to limit your exposure or
time over target to defensive fire. Sort of like a bomber strike
over a city exposed to the AA fire. The faster and higher you go the
less exposure to return fire. We need to reflect this strategy
in VGAP. That is missing now.
Like strike through for example.
Allow a ship to accelerate toward a planet and fire a volley and
exit the planet area of defensive fire recharge and go back for
repeated runs. Hold at all costs should keep this ship attacking
the base til it is destroyed or til the base is destroy or combat
tic 5000 is reached. This does not work now by the way.

Strategy and counter strategy needs to be in place inside the combat
vcr commands. That is missing, right now we go from one extreme to
another
extreme. The fine balance is grotesquely missing from this game.
The fine level of detail of this game attracts players that demand
the same level of detail from the combat vcr and several
strategy and counter strategy options that are believable and
work while preserving the integrity and balance of the game.

The current vcr falls way short of these goals.
You will not hear the end of these complaints from these players
until you do a major overhaul of the combat vcr that restores
these elements to this game. Wow what a game this could be if
the combat vcr really worked well!
You have switches for several combat strategies included with the
vcr. Problem is they do not work well nor as expected.
May the force be with you on this Tim.
I think you will need it.

P.S. I gave you all the Ideas that would have worked well in the past
on this newsgroup but they were in fact ignored.
My guess is because they would have forced you to rewrite the entire
combat code. And you somehow think you can just patch the current code
and get it to work. I do not think that is possible now.

Greg Bahr wrote:
> I have to say, I rather enjoy the Avoid Base. Playing in a game as
the
> Birdman, there is a great advantage. I can slip into orbit, destroy
> all ships, ignore the base, and then blow it up with a Super Laser
shot
> from my Darkwing.
>
> Everyone still think it's a good idea?
>
> I have to agree with Lord Owl. It's great to have this level of
> control. I'd much rather see better control over your ships
> intentions.
>
> Example, Damn the Base, kill the fleet.
>
> or
>
> Damn the Fleet, kill the base.
>
> I think the whole combat model needs a major over haul.
>
> Greg Bahr
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 2:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I am looking at important issues that have to be addressed.

1. The avoid base system was a bad idea, it makes ground base ion
cannons almost completely useless. The plan now is to scrap the avoid
base system. ION cannons will be weakened, so that they take down the
shields quickly ( 8 units a hit ) and do minor damage to ship hulls and
a little more to ship systems and can no longer hit a ship's soft spot.
They will also have a small amount of bumping power.

2. Large fighter swarms are out of control, however I think this might
be a side effect of large sums of cash, which is becoming less and less
of an issue as the over the top cash making gimmiks get taken out of
the game.

Tim
April 12, 2005 3:52:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Yes, Tim - 2 Strikes! :-)))

1. This is the first time I see a bad decision (I don't blame you for
having done so, that is part of a devlopment process!) taken back and
reconsidered. This really gives me hope! :-)))
2. It seems there have already been quite some changes to address this
unbalance. One is scaling the contra wins down, the other to need more
bad blood for Liz pris selling. If now the LCs and LMs would work
according to the same logic as the Liz pris selling, then I believe we
are a good way down the road. There will still be overhelming
economies, but that can not be avoided if you want to have many
different ways to make your living from.
April 12, 2005 4:08:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

cocomax wrote:
> I am looking at important issues that have to be addressed.
>
> 1. The avoid base system was a bad idea, it makes ground base ion
> cannons almost completely useless. The plan now is to scrap the avoid
> base system. ION cannons will be weakened, so that they take down the
> shields quickly ( 8 units a hit ) and do minor damage to ship hulls
and
> a little more to ship systems and can no longer hit a ship's soft
spot.
> They will also have a small amount of bumping power.
>

And I take it that ION Cannons will again fire at ships (unlike host
190) if
attack ground targets is off (and Anti Aircraft guns against wings).

> 2. Large fighter swarms are out of control, however I think this
might
> be a side effect of large sums of cash, which is becoming less and
less
> of an issue as the over the top cash making gimmiks get taken out of
> the game.
>

Well in that case why have you not removed the amorphs or the glory
devices from the game? - And even then with increasing game duration,
because of the 20 k object limit, wings will get bigger, since people
will be able to make
more stuff than their rp share would allow to spend in anything but
really big fighter wings.

And then a really strong Centaur fighter wing does not cost more than
100 k mc -
the lower type-1 fighter really reduces the costs of such wings.
Of course there is for them usually no desire to make the wings too big
(at least not bigger than 1200 or 500 - depending on whether the
ShaiShan or the Shariza is used to carry them), because of the low
travel range of the t-1 - but you could use (at about double cost of
the wing) switch the t-1 to the t-2 so that the wing has a travel range
of 120 (per turn).
April 12, 2005 4:12:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

hellion wrote:
> @nameless: did you say anything?

Literally written no.

>everything you said was much tooooooo
> simple. do you have any ideas???

Look at minnie-hammers post in this thread.
This safes my time.
April 12, 2005 5:01:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

That button is in the client!
April 12, 2005 10:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

And in case you come to the conclusion that the combat logic still
needs a major overhaul, you might also consider to remove all Exotic
Techs which give a 100 % immunity against something, and also to look
at all available combat exotics closely.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 10:54:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Lord Owl wrote:

> Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can
take
> apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
> get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
> 'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
> similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
> fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
> after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).

Well, the rebel fleet was on the ground, under a base-shield even,
while it lasted-- perhaps the Star Destroyers were set to attack
ground. speaking of which, why didn't the rebels try to make a boarding
attack, while they had disabled the EE's SD's?

Has anyone considered allowing ships to land & taking cover under base
shield in the Military spaceports?--these must be ground, not orbital,
structures, as they are protected by the shield. such ships might take
damage in bombardments w/o cover of shields?

On the other hand, some (most?) of VGAP's ships are of such size that
they might collapse under their own weight (or drag?), making them
unsuitable for atmospheric travel or landing. but then, the
terrestrial spaceport must be building them by launching the prefab
pieces into orbit, then rapidly assembling them.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 11:29:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Do Ion cannons actually need ord or consume ord?
In my expirience they don't consume ord...

Lordfire

"cocomax" <cocomax@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1113283002.398096.253910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am looking at important issues that have to be addressed.
>
> 1. The avoid base system was a bad idea, it makes ground base ion
> cannons almost completely useless. The plan now is to scrap the avoid
> base system. ION cannons will be weakened, so that they take down the
> shields quickly ( 8 units a hit ) and do minor damage to ship hulls and
> a little more to ship systems and can no longer hit a ship's soft spot.
> They will also have a small amount of bumping power.
>
> 2. Large fighter swarms are out of control, however I think this might
> be a side effect of large sums of cash, which is becoming less and less
> of an issue as the over the top cash making gimmiks get taken out of
> the game.
>
> Tim
>
April 12, 2005 2:41:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

If there is no way to avoid combat with a base, any (base owned) ship can
end a blockade, as attacing the obiting ship will cause combat with the
base. If you don't attack and destroy the ship its presense also ends the
blockade.

> 1. The avoid base system was a bad idea, it makes ground base ion
> cannons almost completely useless. The plan now is to scrap the avoid
> base system. ION cannons will be weakened, so that they take down the
> shields quickly ( 8 units a hit ) and do minor damage to ship hulls and
> a little more to ship systems and can no longer hit a ship's soft spot.
> They will also have a small amount of bumping power.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 4:26:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Why I don't like bases that always engage ships:

It is impossible to just blockade a base.
And that is very important for roleplaying!!

Now I have to destroy every base I want under control - always killing
millions of people.
For all roleplaying games this is very bad news.

Fortunately it can be countered with the Ion Cannon immunity ET - but then
only for fleets without fighters.

Not good at all!

Lordfire

"Sparrow" <e.kueper@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:1113288766.333958.31360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, Tim - 2 Strikes! :-)))
>
> 1. This is the first time I see a bad decision (I don't blame you for
> having done so, that is part of a devlopment process!) taken back and
> reconsidered. This really gives me hope! :-)))
> 2. It seems there have already been quite some changes to address this
> unbalance. One is scaling the contra wins down, the other to need more
> bad blood for Liz pris selling. If now the LCs and LMs would work
> according to the same logic as the Liz pris selling, then I believe we
> are a good way down the road. There will still be overhelming
> economies, but that can not be avoided if you want to have many
> different ways to make your living from.
>
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 8:07:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Try to hide a Gorbie (small moon) under a base shield :) 

Lordfire

<jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113314069.841922.19130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lord Owl wrote:
>
>> Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can
> take
>> apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
>> get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
>> 'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
>> similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
>> fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
>> after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).
>
> Well, the rebel fleet was on the ground, under a base-shield even,
> while it lasted-- perhaps the Star Destroyers were set to attack
> ground. speaking of which, why didn't the rebels try to make a boarding
> attack, while they had disabled the EE's SD's?
>
> Has anyone considered allowing ships to land & taking cover under base
> shield in the Military spaceports?--these must be ground, not orbital,
> structures, as they are protected by the shield. such ships might take
> damage in bombardments w/o cover of shields?
>
> On the other hand, some (most?) of VGAP's ships are of such size that
> they might collapse under their own weight (or drag?), making them
> unsuitable for atmospheric travel or landing. but then, the
> terrestrial spaceport must be building them by launching the prefab
> pieces into orbit, then rapidly assembling them.
>
April 13, 2005 1:31:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

One way to handle it is set up a bonus system with fleets in orbit
around planets that have AA guns, ion guns, and base shields. For
example if a planet has ion guns then all ships get a + to hit based on
# of ion guns and do extra system damage based on the # of ion guns.
With AA guns sand casters and pd do extra fighter damage and have extra
range vs fighters. With base shields ships with a mass less then
something have a shield bonus. This would solve the Avoid ground attack
because the bonus is included with the fleet. Best of all the bonus
could stay even if the fleet is attacking the base. Why, because it
would be considered a coordinated attack/defense, which we need more of
in this game anyway.

Lord Owl wrote:
> I have kept silent about that for a while now because I wanted to see
> where it would go on ist own, but enough is enough.
>
> Right now we have the situation that a fleet, with avoid base, can
take
> apart an enemy fleet over a heavily fortified base without risking to
> get shot at by base ion cannon fire. All for the sake of logic and
> 'keeping their distance from the base'. To be fair we need now a
> similar option for the defending fleet, to stay inside the protective
> fire range of the ion cannons. That's what the cannons are there for
> after all (anyone remembering the evacuation of Hoth?).
> And we don't want to forget the base fighters. Right now they happily
> leave the protective circle of the base ion cannons and AA guns to
> engage the enemy and get killed. Consequently we'd need a 'stay
> inside base fire range' order for the fighters, too. Both for wings
> and the base fighters (not formed into wings yet).
> Complicated. Absurd. Unnecessary.
> And of course that would result into two complete fleets sitting atop
> of each other at the same coordinates without fighting each other
(one
> with avoid base, one with stay inside base firing range). What a
mess.
>
> Fortunately there's a simple solution. If you want to not engage a
> base in battle, keep your distance from it. Stay 6ly away (or 12ly
for
> good measure, to not get drawn into a larger combat).That's avoid
> base for me. If I want to attack a fleet over a base, or to blockade
a
> base, or to assimilate it, or to superlaser its planet, or whatever,
> than it is implied that I go near enough to the base to get shot at
> with ion cannons.
> Simple. Stay far enough from the base to not engage it in VCR, or
> accept that you have to fight it. The avoid base order is just an
> unnecessary over-complification which was never needed in the first
> place.
>
> Never needed? Oho. Than where does it come from? Ah, I remember. It
was
> only implemented to save big ships from getting shot to pieces by ion
> cannons because they stopped being pushed away by the cannons. Oh my,
> another mess. But this one fortunately has easy solutions, too. For
> example, simply differ between shipbased weapons and planetbased
> weapons. Big ships are immune versus shipbased push back. Versus
> planetbased pushback they behave like in times dear, before this
whole
> problem of mass related combat behaviour.
>
> I love Planets. I love its complicated construct of possibilities and
> rules. But sometimes the simple answer is indeed the best one. Put
away
> with avoid base, Tim, please.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 4:09:30 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Good Idea, make the ION Cannons just consume Tons of Ore instead of making
them weaker...

splitted



"Lordfire" <a@b.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3c14lkF6jp61mU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Do Ion cannons actually need ord or consume ord?
> In my expirience they don't consume ord...
>
> Lordfire
>
> "cocomax" <cocomax@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1113283002.398096.253910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I am looking at important issues that have to be addressed.
>>
>> 1. The avoid base system was a bad idea, it makes ground base ion
>> cannons almost completely useless. The plan now is to scrap the avoid
>> base system. ION cannons will be weakened, so that they take down the
>> shields quickly ( 8 units a hit ) and do minor damage to ship hulls and
>> a little more to ship systems and can no longer hit a ship's soft spot.
>> They will also have a small amount of bumping power.
>>
>> 2. Large fighter swarms are out of control, however I think this might
>> be a side effect of large sums of cash, which is becoming less and less
>> of an issue as the over the top cash making gimmiks get taken out of
>> the game.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>
April 13, 2005 7:40:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I agree with Nameless' comments about the ET giving 100% immunities.
It's too much and can throw the game balance right out the window. I
still like the ETs but would like to see some of them toned down a bit.
!