Robot free fighter FIX amount per nest per turn SUGGESTION

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

Robot free fighter per nest per turn.

20 type 1 (worth 100mc)
3 type II (worth 90mc)
1 typeII (worth 100mc)

+290 mc worth of fighters per nest
(to regain a bit of their free fighter abilities that they had in vgap 3)

I know Tim made a try for free fighters, but the amount was way too high.

So instead of just let this idea die.

I suggest the little amount above.

Do you think it's enought ?

Do you think it's too much ?

Would be nice to have input from Robot players, and from players fighting
the Robot.
15 answers Last reply
More about robot free fighter amount nest turn suggestion
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    It's good to see the new players dusting up the old forum. =)

    Unfortunately, I see very little use for free fighters for robots.
    I'd rather have insectoid nests use 5000mc turn to build 1000 t1's
    (micromanagemetn reasons). Or referring to your post above, I'd rather
    take 3 t3's. .. which is hardly anything, so why bother? Well, if
    that was nest, it would be something. Overkill to be exact. 100 nests
    would produce 2000,500,100 fighters per turn and a nest would pay it
    self back in no time.

    Actually many of the robot functions are already insectoid related.
    It's interesting AND should be like that but when do we reach a point
    where we rename the race Insectoids? =)

    But to be honest, every half experienced robot player knows how to
    build billions of fighters. To make them a bit more dynamic without
    breaking the rule of the most slowest race in universe is the only bot
    challenge. (Like Golem Network =).

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

    Instead of haggling over the numbers, I would rather like to understand
    the goal behind it first. An argument like "They had free fighters in
    VGAP3" is not enough in my opinion. Shall those fighters be able to
    defend the base against attacks? Then those numbers are probably only
    enough in early game. To have a real defense against orbital attacks,
    one would need to connect it with the number of turns played, similiar
    to the nest range. Actually that doesn't need to be depending on the
    number of nests, but could be done for a base which has any number of
    (active!?) nests >= 1.

    In my opinion Bots don't have a cash problem. If you want defenses,
    build them yourself. As the number of free fighters needs to be low
    enough not to unbalance the game, the gain is very questionable.

    Just my 0.02$
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    or

    20
    5
    1

    for a total of 350mc worth of figthers per nest, per turn.

    maybe a minimum amount of robot colonist must be present.
    1000 colonist ?


    "Lord Lancelot" <lordlancelot@Nospamthankyou.com> a écrit dans le message de
    news: ufLbe.6327$BW6.721788@news20.bellglobal.com...
    > Robot free fighter per nest per turn.
    >
    > 20 type 1 (worth 100mc)
    > 3 type II (worth 90mc)
    > 1 typeII (worth 100mc)
    >
    > +290 mc worth of fighters per nest
    > (to regain a bit of their free fighter abilities that they had in vgap 3)
    >
    > I know Tim made a try for free fighters, but the amount was way too high.
    >
    > So instead of just let this idea die.
    >
    > I suggest the little amount above.
    >
    > Do you think it's enought ?
    >
    > Do you think it's too much ?
    >
    > Would be nice to have input from Robot players, and from players fighting
    > the Robot.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Skies wrote:
    > It's good to see the new players dusting up the old forum. =)

    At least he is no longer trying to have this group getting his turns
    done for him.

    >... To make them a bit more dynamic without
    > breaking the rule of the most slowest race in universe is the only
    bot
    > challenge. (Like Golem Network =).

    Well maybe the players who want to see the bots augmented should focus
    on the Jumpgates first, before even thinking to bring in any new
    gimmicks (like Golem Network).
    The advantage of that would be that all JG races could be augmented by
    that. Granted the privs do not need that, but it is different for some
    other races like Dracs,RCS,UA etc.
    As an example the visibility of the JG codes etc. and the
    disadvantageous of the JGs.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    The problem with Jump Gates now are few players will build them because they
    have to be heavily defended for the rest of the game. (I'ld like to hear
    others experiences.)

    Besides an Anti-Matter Maul super weapon is there any other way of getting
    rid of a JumpGate?

    I think more Jump Gate races would build Jump Games if they could be
    disassembled. Perhaps it takes 3 or 4 turns to dissassemble the Gate and
    you must have the Jump Gate Builder device and a command code (or add a Jump
    Gate Dissassembler as a device). That way there will be more JumpGates in
    the game and they would be difficult to capture (assuming the Jump Gate
    races don't just leave them arround) but not too bad if you can capture the
    Jump Gate ship or destroy it before it finishes dissassembly.

    Mike


    "Nameless" <unknown_ai@web.de> wrote in message
    news:1114617366.230288.87750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Skies wrote:
    > > It's good to see the new players dusting up the old forum. =)
    >
    > At least he is no longer trying to have this group getting his turns
    > done for him.
    >
    > >... To make them a bit more dynamic without
    > > breaking the rule of the most slowest race in universe is the only
    > bot
    > > challenge. (Like Golem Network =).
    >
    > Well maybe the players who want to see the bots augmented should focus
    > on the Jumpgates first, before even thinking to bring in any new
    > gimmicks (like Golem Network).
    > The advantage of that would be that all JG races could be augmented by
    > that. Granted the privs do not need that, but it is different for some
    > other races like Dracs,RCS,UA etc.
    > As an example the visibility of the JG codes etc. and the
    > disadvantageous of the JGs.
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Mike wrote:
    > The problem with Jump Gates now are few players will build them
    because they
    > have to be heavily defended for the rest of the game. (I'ld like to
    hear
    > others experiences.)

    Maybe you care to elaborate as to why the JGs need to be heavily
    defended for the rest of the game.

    >
    > Besides an Anti-Matter Maul super weapon is there any other way of
    getting
    > rid of a JumpGate?

    So far no (excpet maybe a certain old bug resurfaces or a new one has
    the ability to delete objects).

    > I think more Jump Gate races would build Jump Games if they could be
    > disassembled. Perhaps it takes 3 or 4 turns to dissassemble the Gate
    and
    > you must have the Jump Gate Builder device and a command code (or add
    a Jump
    > Gate Dissassembler as a device). That way there will be more
    JumpGates in
    > the game and they would be difficult to capture (assuming the Jump
    Gate
    > races don't just leave them arround) but not too bad if you can
    capture the
    > Jump Gate ship or destroy it before it finishes dissassembly.

    Well I do not see a reason why any race which did not build the JG
    should have the possibility to destroy the JG, by any other means then
    an AntiMatterHaul -
    of course the owner (the one who build the JG) should not get anything
    back from its investment in the JG if he does destroy it.
    The conditions under which the owner is allowed to destroy such a JG
    would need to be discused.

    Ie. the JGs could be getting the race who build the JG as owner (for
    any old JGs or scripted ones the owner would stll be race 255) -
    ownership of the JG cannot change.
    Furthermore the owner of a JG should know when someone else uses his or
    her JGs, maybe by a log message or normal message.
    Also we could greatly reduce the visibility of the JG, to range zero,
    meaning you need to be at the location of the JG (maybe at the end of
    turn) to be allowed to read the JG code, that is if you are not the
    owner (the owner should always know it).
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    nospam wrote:
    > I say the same if I see enemy JG, but I use them too in most off my
    > games if I can build them.

    Oh if the privs use them right, they have nothing to fear from the JGs,
    just the poor fellows which are near the JGs, otherwise they build the
    JG outside of the planets boundary somewhere in deep space.
    For the races who need them to increase their mobility it is slightly
    different.

    > There are ways to use them on a relativ save way that an enemy have
    > nearly no change to use my against me.

    You are not safe if the enemy has the JG code and knows what he is
    doing.
    Of course their is not much risk if you are by far the strongest
    empire, even
    if you are a little bit careless with the JG building.

    And maybe you should consider if that is true (the relatively safe
    ways) for all races, especially for all races which can naturally build
    JGs.

    > But to do this is costly and
    > needs many time and some knowledge. So for me is no reason to change
    > anything to the JG behaviour.
    >

    You are probably not building too many JGs in your own territory.
    And in most cases you build them to have a possibilty to use enemy JGs.
    And I guess you are in most cases not the first to have build one, but
    rather wait until quiet a few are present.
    And you have probably never build a JG with a Binary, which was not
    constructed in space...
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    The point is actually to not decrease the sensor image, as long as it
    is >0 it will not do to much anyway, let the enmies see that there are
    JGs. Just to make it more difficult for them, the enemies, to obtain
    the code, without the code they cannot use the JG.


    Eric wrote:
    > I can tell you that I rarely build jumpgates, as there is rarely a
    location
    > I deem safe enough for one to be. When I see a jumpgate in someone's
    > territory my reaction is always: Ooooo, you build me a portal to
    attack you
    > through, thank you. Where there's one jumpgate there's always a few.
    > Decreasing their sensor image greatly would make them more viable i
    think.
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Exactly. Maybe a setup similar to minerals and natives on planets.

    Let them see the JG, but make them have to come within a certain
    distance (50-100ly?) to be able to scan the code.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    If the JG code scan range was 5LY (like mineral and native scan range),
    then I suspect you would see a lot more JGs, as the code could then be
    readily defended. You could still discover an enemy JG code, but you
    would likely have to work for it. In return, the JG itself (but not
    the code) might be made more visible than it is now.

    In terms of overall game balance, the JG races could use a little
    boost. (Yes, the Privs perhaps not, but with their MCBR, maybe JGs are
    not as big a factor for them anyway.)

    -- Karnak Prime
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    I can tell you that I rarely build jumpgates, as there is rarely a location
    I deem safe enough for one to be. When I see a jumpgate in someone's
    territory my reaction is always: Ooooo, you build me a portal to attack you
    through, thank you. Where there's one jumpgate there's always a few.
    Decreasing their sensor image greatly would make them more viable i think.


    "Nameless" <unknown_ai@web.de> wrote in message
    news:1114696787.929721.96910@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    >
    > Mike wrote:
    > > The problem with Jump Gates now are few players will build them
    > because they
    > > have to be heavily defended for the rest of the game. (I'ld like to
    > hear
    > > others experiences.)
    >
    > Maybe you care to elaborate as to why the JGs need to be heavily
    > defended for the rest of the game.
    >
    > >
    > > Besides an Anti-Matter Maul super weapon is there any other way of
    > getting
    > > rid of a JumpGate?
    >
    > So far no (excpet maybe a certain old bug resurfaces or a new one has
    > the ability to delete objects).
    >
    > > I think more Jump Gate races would build Jump Games if they could be
    > > disassembled. Perhaps it takes 3 or 4 turns to dissassemble the Gate
    > and
    > > you must have the Jump Gate Builder device and a command code (or add
    > a Jump
    > > Gate Dissassembler as a device). That way there will be more
    > JumpGates in
    > > the game and they would be difficult to capture (assuming the Jump
    > Gate
    > > races don't just leave them arround) but not too bad if you can
    > capture the
    > > Jump Gate ship or destroy it before it finishes dissassembly.
    >
    > Well I do not see a reason why any race which did not build the JG
    > should have the possibility to destroy the JG, by any other means then
    > an AntiMatterHaul -
    > of course the owner (the one who build the JG) should not get anything
    > back from its investment in the JG if he does destroy it.
    > The conditions under which the owner is allowed to destroy such a JG
    > would need to be discused.
    >
    > Ie. the JGs could be getting the race who build the JG as owner (for
    > any old JGs or scripted ones the owner would stll be race 255) -
    > ownership of the JG cannot change.
    > Furthermore the owner of a JG should know when someone else uses his or
    > her JGs, maybe by a log message or normal message.
    > Also we could greatly reduce the visibility of the JG, to range zero,
    > meaning you need to be at the location of the JG (maybe at the end of
    > turn) to be allowed to read the JG code, that is if you are not the
    > owner (the owner should always know it).
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Eric schrieb:
    > I can tell you that I rarely build jumpgates, as there is rarely a location
    > I deem safe enough for one to be. When I see a jumpgate in someone's
    > territory my reaction is always: Ooooo, you build me a portal to attack you
    > through, thank you. Where there's one jumpgate there's always a few.
    > Decreasing their sensor image greatly would make them more viable i think.

    I say the same if I see enemy JG, but I use them too in most off my
    games if I can build them.
    There are ways to use them on a relativ save way that an enemy have
    nearly no change to use my against me. But to do this is costly and
    needs many time and some knowledge. So for me is no reason to change
    anything to the JG behaviour.

    Bye-Bye JoSch.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    > Exactly. Maybe a setup similar to minerals and natives on planets.
    >
    > Let them see the JG, but make them have to come within a certain
    > distance (50-100ly?) to be able to scan the code.


    Good Idea. I like it. But a closer range like 10 to 15 ly.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Nameless schrieb:
    > nospam wrote:
    >
    >>I say the same if I see enemy JG, but I use them too in most off my
    >>games if I can build them.
    >
    > Oh if the privs use them right, they have nothing to fear from the JGs,
    > just the poor fellows which are near the JGs, otherwise they build the
    > JG outside of the planets boundary somewhere in deep space.
    > For the races who need them to increase their mobility it is slightly
    > different.

    You can now say the Privs don't know how to play, but I used JGs to come
    to my enemies (an Priv, Peep, Rebel alliance) and attack them. Only that
    the game ended by VPs stops me eleminating them at their home clusters.

    >>There are ways to use them on a relativ save way that an enemy have
    >>nearly no change to use my against me.
    >
    > You are not safe if the enemy has the JG code and knows what he is
    > doing.
    > Of course their is not much risk if you are by far the strongest
    > empire, even
    > if you are a little bit careless with the JG building.
    >
    > And maybe you should consider if that is true (the relatively safe
    > ways) for all races, especially for all races which can naturally build
    > JGs.

    I'm nearly save I wrote and I did it with different races. Very seldom I
    had build JGs in Deep Space, most times over planets, IIRR every of them
    are over planets.

    >>But to do this is costly and
    >>needs many time and some knowledge. So for me is no reason to change
    >>anything to the JG behaviour.
    >
    > You are probably not building too many JGs in your own territory.
    > And in most cases you build them to have a possibilty to use enemy JGs.
    > And I guess you are in most cases not the first to have build one, but
    > rather wait until quiet a few are present.
    > And you have probably never build a JG with a Binary, which was not
    > constructed in space...

    I tried it one time with a Binary (get thep plan from the RCS). But
    could not build it as to build the Binary need one of the special ground
    structures of the RCS what I and the RCS player not know at that time.
    What's bad is at on the Binary is, that the can not be used agressive
    and you need one for each JG.
    As I wrote above most of my JGs are build over my worlds but you are
    right, that are not much.
    In one bigger game (10K*10K map size) it was around all 4-500 LYs in my
    secure home space and at each of my "clusters" to connect them. So I had
    around 15-20 JGs at the end of game. And I used the enemy JGs or the
    starting ones (was a scripted game with some JGs) to attack the enemies.
    In my now running game as RCS I think I will build JGs in some turns (as
    it need some time to be well prepared ;-) ).
    IMHO most people I saw in my games using JGs don't know how to handle
    them to minimize the risk through them or don't want spent the
    ressources to do so. So the players are riskier then the JGs is my
    conclusion from that what I saw in my games with JGs.

    Bye-Bye JoSch.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

    Decreasing the sensor image is just a suggestion as to a way to keep folks
    from learning the code. The other suggestions made where one would have to
    come close to the jumpgate to learn the code is better I think. I just hope
    Tim reads this and agrees.

    Eric

    "Nameless" <unknown_ai@web.de> wrote in message
    news:1114725570.396982.243440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > The point is actually to not decrease the sensor image, as long as it
    > is >0 it will not do to much anyway, let the enmies see that there are
    > JGs. Just to make it more difficult for them, the enemies, to obtain
    > the code, without the code they cannot use the JG.
    >
    >
    > Eric wrote:
    > > I can tell you that I rarely build jumpgates, as there is rarely a
    > location
    > > I deem safe enough for one to be. When I see a jumpgate in someone's
    > > territory my reaction is always: Ooooo, you build me a portal to
    > attack you
    > > through, thank you. Where there's one jumpgate there's always a few.
    > > Decreasing their sensor image greatly would make them more viable i
    > think.
    > >
    > >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games