Cash for Destoyed Troops


#1

When Capturing Stars with Economy the Attacker gets Cash for those buildings.

I wondered if Shipwracks should be acounted with some little cash as well, lets say 1 Credit per Ship destroyed in the battle for the winning fraction (maybe less).
It came to me in one of my last games, when two of my neighbours suicided hundreds of units into my defence before they broke me.
I think this would change some early game tactics in a good way.

What do you think about that?


#2

so you are suggesting
the winning player earns cash for salvaging wreckage ?


#3

I like the idea of earning cash for destroyed ships. Salvaging and recycling material sounds feasible, so long as no anitmatter weapons are involved.

Could be an eventual mechanic, though prefer it if ships didn’t individually give out large bonuses. It should be something like every ten or so. Set a number, you see, so that those excessive ship numbers would be important, versus a defensive player actually making money off his opponents attacking him every turn with just ten or twenty ships. That’d be waaay too helpful for the defensive player. We already have enough helping them along, especially with the AIs growing more vicious and competent. It’d get too depressing to attack and stall things.

But a hundred ships or a thousand being salvageable? That I could get down with.

Also, one day, should this ever be implemented, it’d be nice to actually incorporate the weapons tech level into it all, whereby your superior tech level would decrease the funds. That way, someone with less weapons tech defending would benefit while someone with the superior weapons defending wouldn’t. That would keep things more even.


#4

Carriers cost $ 25 to purchase.

So a similar idea would be to salvage $ 2 or $ 3 per carrier destroyed, regardless whether it was enemy or friendly.

Maybe the salvage income could be increased if that carrier was constructed using higher Manufacturing or Weapons tech.


#5

In the early game you get about 200 creadits per round, with 2$ per ship you would get a whole cycles income for the first attacks, which is to much IMHO. At least in my games its not unusual to have 30 ships crashing onto 20.
Another Idea than to just get credits would be to boost the Industry on this planet by lets say (shipcount / 50 (min 1)) for some ticks maybe 8. I gues some calculation is in order to get the right numbers.


#6

My suggestion is that only destroyed carriers would earn salvage, not the destroyed ships.


#7

Oh jea i missunderstood you there, sry.
I don’t think that enough carriers die to make a change with that rule.


#8

Was just thinking about this some more, if the winner of the combat were to receive some kind of cash bonus for every ship, I think you would find the defender fleeing away if they know they are going to lose. There would be more incentive to hold off attacking until you know you are going to win. I think the game would result in fewer, larger battles.

I think this would ultimately give more advantage to the “larger” player who would be in a position to dictate when these larger battles occur.

If anything I would prefer to give smaller players a way to take greater risks for a chance to turn things around. In other words, if you are losing, do something crazy that will have a small chance of putting you ahead, but most likely just finish you off quickly.

PS: @DamKoVosh - Please backstab Lelouch Lamparouge in 4709019571716096


#9

Hmm jea it is also an advantage for the attacker. But I’m not sure if it would really benefit the stronger players more than the defending one.
But one possibility to solfe that would be to only give this bonus to succesful defenders. Attackers have other things to to but to collect all that stuff ;).

PS: @ JayKyburz - I never backstab alliance partners.


#10

I am against the idea as a whole. However, one solution to the above problem “the defender fleeing away” is to only give bonuses if the defender wins the battle. The story argument being either they are fighting for their homes so fight to the death thus atomising all ships, or that because it’s their home system they can retrieve scraps where as new owners would have civil disobedience shortly after taking over the system and thus cannot spare time gathering scraps.


#11

well thats what I tried to say as well :wink:


#12

Sorry, I seem to have completely blanked over your reply when reading this :stuck_out_tongue:

In your original post you say something along the lines of “suicide tactics are bad/not-fun and giving rewards for ships destroyed would stop suicide tactics”. Correct me if this is wrong. However, suiciding already costs $25 for each carrier destroyed and gives a brutal early game advantage through bonus Weapon level. I believe both of these are designed to stop suiciding early game.

One other possibility to stop this would be to allow custom games to increase carrier cost. A carrier cost of $100-200 would completely stop early game suicides I believe. I think a game like this could be quite fun.


#13

Well I had one game a week back, where my first neighbour just startet an all out attack as soon as he got weapons 2. I could defend against him but was so low on ships afterwards, that another neighbour of him got his stars, and just when I finished the last of his ships in my territory off the next neighbour made an all out attack on me as well. I could defend against him as well, but after tht i was so low on ships that the third neighbour could just collect my stars. If I would have gotten something out of the whole defending against 2 players, other than feeling quite good I may have been able to get back into the game.
The fact that I destroyed about twice as many ships as I had by defending against those attacks made me open this thread. I don’t think such games happen often, but I also don’t think that increasing the carrier cost would have stoped them from suiciding into me. I gues those player just thought they would win it.


#14

I believe a similar topic was discussed a long time ago and Jay said something along the lines of “If everyone near you is attacking, you have already lost the game.”. Hopefully this is not a hugely erroneous misquote! The main point of the discussion was the importance of using diplomacy to make allies at every stage of the game and avoid fighting on multiple fronts. Even with very expensive carriers and insane scrap rewards you will still lose if you are bad at diplomacy or just plain unlucky.


#15

jea well i had 2 allys, they took the stars of the first 2 neighbours, that failed and then didn’t help with the third one. But well I gues I chose the wrong allys in this game. But thats not the topic of this thread


#16

NP2 gives the defender a home field advantage . The defender has bonus Weapons +1 .


#17

well I know the Defender Bonus, the problem for my first enemy was, that he didnt expect me to get weapons 2 hours before he arives at my planet. The second player did just have no vision, so he didn’t know, that I was already setting up defence against him.


#18

Why dont make a tech out of it(u can never have too many techs)?

  • Salvage Efficiency with a base per destroyed Unit and a % per tech level,
  • or self-destruction efficiency(researched by the attacker), so that the salvage efficiency starts at 100% and weakens over the course of the game.

The second option would cause a defender to be punished less for the mistakes of his attackers during earlygame, while the first option would have a lot of impact in the lategame.

My intuitution, prefers the second option, lets say:

x as salvage efficiency:
y = x % of destroyed ship-hulls (rounded down) are captured useable by the planets tractor beams (z = z+y = number stored at planet) thus creating ships from these hulls needs only m% of the time usually needed with m being a balancing number, maybe 50%?

Part-ideas:

  • Captured ships are destroyed when planet is taken over?
  • industry required to store ship hulls?

these ideas just came while looking at the discussion, but my experience ith the game is small(at the moment playing the beginner game) so you will have to evaluate them with your game experience :wink:


#19

Do you think the game would be improved if there were like 20 different techs, each one affecting a small area of the game. I think it could be a cool variation.


#20

yes, but thats for me, I love when games get complicated.

It might be a new challenge for experienced players.

And as long as it would be possible to lock the new technologies at level 1 I dont see any major arguments against giving it a try. If there is something that proves to have a negative impact it would still be possible to remove it.