Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 523 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

What is the answer to life, universe, and everything?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!

Topic Summary

Posted by: The Forbidden
« on: Today at 01:26:04 AM »

Quote from: Bughunter link=topic=9841. msg112281#msg112281 date=1548155527
Quote from: Sirce link=topic=9841. msg112278#msg112278 date=1548122862
Steve, don't get hit by a bus, or something similar, please!

Best suggestion so far, should be on top of the C# priority list  ;D

I'd say that assuming that "Not getting killed, maimed or otherwise injured" is pretty high on Steve's priority list is a rather safe bet.
Posted by: Bughunter
« on: Yesterday at 05:12:07 AM »

Steve, don't get hit by a bus, or something similar, please!

Best suggestion so far, should be on top of the C# priority list  ;D
Posted by: Sirce
« on: January 21, 2019, 08:07:42 PM »

TOO (really too..) many questions..possibility and capability.

THIS is a "One-man-program" u r all crazy by submit overwhelming requests.

Since 2016 "C# project" began..NOW its 2019.

Wtf all wanna?

Am desire 1 thing : play. End.

Well, this is a game for Steve that he graciously allow us to play. Unfortunately, he hogging the C# at this time but that is because he can. All the suggestions are ideas Steve can mine and develop when he wants to. Fortunately, he promises Soon(TM) for us to play on C#. Steve, don't get hit by a bus, or something similar, please!
Posted by: Seolferwulf
« on: January 21, 2019, 11:08:00 AM »

There's nothing wrong with suggesting ideas :p
If Steve likes them but it's too much for the initial launch he can add it later on whenever he wants.
Posted by: waresky
« on: January 21, 2019, 10:28:12 AM »

TOO (really too..) many questions..possibility and capability.

THIS is a "One-man-program" u r all crazy by submit overwhelming requests.

Since 2016 "C# project" began..NOW its 2019.

Wtf all wanna?

Am desire 1 thing : play. End.
Posted by: the obelisk
« on: January 21, 2019, 01:32:41 AM »

I like the idea that units could be captured or forced to surrender, probably as a potential result as a breakthrough (representing something like the formation in question being outmaneuvered, cut off from the larger friendly force, and surrendering as a result), or through whatever method Steve may have planned for ship crews surrendering during a boarding action, since he mentioned that.  I don't know if just automatically having them become forced labor battalions makes sense, though.  Ideally there would be options on how to treat prisoners, but at the bare minimum I figure captured enemy ground soldiers should be treated the same as captured enemy crew picked up from life pods, serving as a potential source of intelligence (particularly regarding the capabilities of the enemy ground forces).

Being able to capture enemy equipment in this way could also be cool.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: January 21, 2019, 12:38:40 AM »

Units that are almost destroyed can surrender if they're significantly outmatched by the enemy (you need to rotate out those damaged units, or maybe if they've been fighting a long time), captured units basically become forced labor batallions, but need watching else they might revolt. Gotta ship them out to prison worlds or something or they might be recaptured.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:30:31 PM »

You know that could be quite cool.  A ground war ends, but you wind up capturing a portion of the surface of the planet, based on whatever bits your forces managed to grab before the fighting ended.
Posted by: the obelisk
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:21:37 PM »

Regarding the conquest discussion:

An attacking unit being able to capture installations definitely makes sense, but I feel like there should also be a chance capture portions of the population, if one exists.

In regards to surrendering, I think it might make sense if there was some chance every set period of time that one side in a ground conflict surrenders, with the chance being based on factors like the current fighting strength of friendly units, on average, (compared to their fighting strength when undamaged, at peak performance, etc.) the current fighting strength of the least damaged friendly units, on average, how many friendly units are present that have little to no damage, etc. while comparing this to a similar analysis of the enemy's strength.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: January 18, 2019, 09:40:30 PM »

Not sure if this has been suggested already, or if maybe its already been added. But It would be nice to be able to recolour jump links so the map can be a little more organized.
When you have a map which contains a lot of criss crossing links it would be nice to colour code links by some system.
Posted by: Happerry
« on: January 18, 2019, 07:54:45 PM »

The new Genetic Enhancement options are making me wish for equivalent cybernetic enhancements, or at least for the Genetic Enhancements to be renamed so they're easier to fluff as cyborg enhancements.  Or fluff as a mix of both.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:36:29 PM »

Why is that system an improvement over the one that Steve currently has? Since it is entirely possible to have combat on bodies with no installations at all.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: January 17, 2019, 01:28:51 PM »

That would make logistics a critical weakness. You burn supplies fast by all appearances, with units carrying enough supplies for 10 rounds (60 hours of combat IIRC) before they run out, and a divisional force in combat can burn several hundred supply per round.

Keep in mind that the largest supply component carries only 500 units of supply.

Outside of the most minor engagements you'd need thousands of units of supply, and as the terrain gets more defensible supply demands per kill skyrocket.

Because of this, the advantage will always lie with the defender because with supply so critical to your chances of forcing surrender a defender will stack massive amounts of supply with his defenses while an attacker has to establish and maintain a steady and sizable supply line or his troops start surrendering. Given that especially early on a single supply run can take months that's... rather punishing and makes planetary assault effectively impossible.
Posted by: Scandinavian
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:59:19 PM »

Makes sense.

Also, rubble should count for capture-able installations equal to its previous size.

Maybe instead of counting by captured landing zones formations that fall out of supply should be given a probability of surrender that goes up for each round they have been in combat but out of supply. If we want to be fancy about it, we could even model PoW camps as temporary installations (so surrendered formations can be liberated if reinforcement and resupply arrives in a timely manner).

This way your logistics units and rear echelon HQs essentially carry your flag while in combat, and if people can wipe them the clock starts ticking for your presence on that planet.
Posted by: King-Salomon
« on: January 17, 2019, 05:53:12 AM »

Suggestion about Conquest in Ground Combat:

I was just thinking about Ground Combat and the "end" of it...

maybe something like this would work (and make it interesting)

- each time there is a "breakthrough" in ground combat, the attacker has a chance to capture some Installations (like factories etc) - they are transferred to him and count for him in all aspects (I guess the game is already be able to do this as ruins can give installations, so it should be the same system - destroying a installation for one race and creating it for an other - instead of a "real transfer"?) The chance for a occupation of installations could depend on the weight of the "loosing formation" in relation to the total weight of it's troops side.

- if one (or all) race does not have any installations at the beginning (like the attacker if he is invading) it get's some kind of "pseudo installation (like Landing Zones etc) - exact numbers are depend on balancing but maybe 1 "landing zone" for each X t of troops as a minimum for both sides

- if a race has lost a % of it's starting installations (not because destroyed by collateral damage but because of conquer/occupation) it (or to make it much more complex: each unit formation; I would suggest total surrender for the beginning) has a chance to surrender (maybe depending on a race specific % in the race setup)

- if a race lost all it's installations/pseudo installations it will surrender

this would mean that an invader has to defend it's landing zones as the defender could force him to surrender just by overrunning the landing zones if he is lucky in breakthroughs

it would also show the progress in a battle - not only by death and blood but by gain and losses of terrain

when the attacker invades with only a small force to build bridgehead, he runs the risk to get "cut off"

the defender has to plan if he wants to dig-in and try to blood the attacker dry in a defence war or try an all-out assault to capture the landing zones (and so destroying the enemy ground forces in total) before more waves arrive on planet

but if the defender is just sitting on defence all the time he can not win - also a attacker that is just attacking might end up loosing his "supply bases/landing zones"


this is not fully thought through but I hope you get the "picture" I have in mind... battles would be won by occupying (most of) the planet (or the important locations of it) - the occupation is simulated by occupying "installations"
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54