View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001184 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - New Unit Ideas - Economic and Utility Units | Nov 8, 2010 11:53 am | Nov 23, 2010 8:41 pm | |
| Reporter | HitmanN | Assigned To | |||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 4.028 | ||||
| Summary | 0001184: Candy Tech idea: Fake/Decoy Command Station | ||||
| Description | Idea for a candy tech, maybe for LotS. 250-500 knowledge to unlock. Could also be used by an AI, but ideally it's more of a human tactic. ;) Advantages: *Looks like a normal command station and sends false signals to enemies, so they can't see if it's fake or not. Stats look like that of normal command station to enemies. *Low-ish build cost, maybe 1000m/1000c *When used by human player, the AI is likely to split their offense between real and decoy stations. *Especially useful in early game, if there's the fear of being attacked by large waves or raid/bomber starships or the like. It's easier to focus on the other half first, then the other. Disadvantages: *Costs some knowledge to unlock, maybe 250-500 *Low ship cap, maybe 2-5. (could also be limited to one per planet.) *Uses some energy (to send the false signals), maybe 2000-5000 *+1AIP if destroyed (if it's human, the AI is alarmed by having been fooled, and if it's AI, then it's just generally alarmed that humans were able to get that far in offense, to destroy a command station, fake or not) *Everything gets a big bonus against this, like 20-100x (but this info is not shown to enemies), so it gets destroyed in an instant, despite having the same stats as a normal station (minus production), no matter what its attacked with. Like a pile of cardboard and duct tape, figuratively speaking. ;p | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Nasty alternative: Decoy Guardian/Guard Post. Cloaks the command station and surrounding units in the system it's in and looks like a command station itself (showing the data of the cloaked original). When attacked it reveals itself and spawns a bunch of autobombs or similar units. |
|
|
Autobomb trap? Nasty indeed. If not too common, and not with too many autobombs, it could be a pretty interesting change of events for a moment. Maybe if there was no cloaking involved at all, but a standard Wormhole Guard Post would occasionally be an autobomb trap instead. The Guard Post just explodes and is replaced by a pile of autobombs. Particularly nasty if you're rushing in with a big fleet, right through a wormhole that has one or two of these traps disguised as wormhole guard posts. Fleet in. BOOM! A hole in the fleet. O_o; They could only react to presence of enough ships in the vicinity too, so scouts or couple of raid starships wouldn't make them release the autobombs. This whole thing could be part of the basic Wormhole Guard Post itself. Maybe in the description it has something like '10% chance of being a trap', so there's no need to make a unique guard post for this. Just change the current. </brainstorming> |
|
|
I love this idea. It's a great way to stall for time. |
|
|
I love this idea, except for the AIP and the dies-instantly parts: - If losing it cost me AIP, I'd feel obligated to defend it fairly heavily, which would have the effect of making me divide up my defenses, defeating the whole purpose of the decoy. - If it dies instantly, it also doesn't really buy me much time, unless it's a trap of some sort (which would be pretty cool). I'd rather pay more for the decoy and have it be more durable. I think coming across an AI system with two command stations, having to guess the real one to strike to take out the system vs a booby trapped one would be an interesting twist/challenge to a system I might otherwise be able to take out with a quick raid. |
|
|
Gnah, this Mantis thing is really buggy. It's like the fifth time I get "invalid security token" when I try to submit a reply, then when I come back the text is gone. *sigh* So, again... (this time I'm gonna copy-paste this thing before posting) Without any sort of penalty, this would be way too cheap way to survive an attack with half the defense. Let's say you have defenses that can handle 400 AI ships. Now, if you had a decoy on that planet, on the opposite side, and half of the enemies went that way, you could survive with defenses that can handle only 200 ships. Then once the decoy is gone, you could handle the other 200. Obviously, this isn't intended to be a front-line solution. If there was no penalty, you'd always want to have one of these on every busy planet, making defense always easy. That's not the purpose of the decoy. The purpose is that when push comes to shove, you're expending 1 AIP to possibly save the entire game, by having decoy on the planets behind the frontline, or at your home world, so that when things go really south and your frontline defenses fail, you'll have a better chance of surviving. It's a very cheap way to save you the game, for a mere 1AIP. Certainly, if you wish to use these on constant basis, you can, but watch for the AIP going up gradually. ;) As for AI, it would be nastier if it was a trap with ships or an explosion, but for humans it would be too advantageous, I think. If it'd cost a lot, you could just as well have turrets and ships for the same amount instead, defeating the purpose of it being a cheap solution divide the AI's attention. |
|
|
Out of scope for now, but possible for later. Possibly good for the community dlc poll suggestions. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 8, 2010 11:53 am | HitmanN | New Issue | |
| Nov 8, 2010 12:39 pm | KDR_11k | Note Added: 0002946 | |
| Nov 8, 2010 12:49 pm | HitmanN | Note Added: 0002949 | |
| Nov 10, 2010 12:32 am | Giegue | Note Added: 0003148 | |
| Nov 10, 2010 1:03 am | LintMan | Note Added: 0003154 | |
| Nov 10, 2010 7:32 am | HitmanN | Note Added: 0003159 | |
| Nov 23, 2010 8:40 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => confirmed |
| Nov 23, 2010 8:40 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0004347 | |
| Nov 23, 2010 8:41 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | confirmed => considering |
