Different form of defence against structure killers

[ComradeRob]

My suggestion is this:

A construction which can defend against structure killers. Essentially a form of PDS, or shielding against SKs, and only SKs.

The reasoning behind this is simple: many planets are entirely unable to get defence for the majority of occasions on which they are attacked. It is, of course, worst for solo players - the very type of players who are likely to depend on keeping a good number of amps and blockers in order to compete. Because these planets are less likely to get defence, attackers can send SKs without much fear of losing them.

The current solution to this problem is to give SKs a useless class, and make them very weak and expensive. This has some positive effects, but it also makes SKs useless in wars, or against top planets.

My idea would work something like this:

The attacked planet would have a percentage chance of blocking each SK attempt. 0% for a planet with no defences, rising to perhaps a maximum of 80%. It would work very much like Security Centres do against covert ops, though I don't think it should be possible to have full immunity.

To compensate, structure killers could perhaps be made more affordable or more powerful.

The likely consequence is that low-end planets will be much better defended against SKs, since low-end planets don't bother with Finance Centres. Top planets build lots of FCs and so would probably not build the anti-SK structure. This would make them more vulnerable to SKs. This means that SKs retain (or even increase) their usefulness in major alliance wars, but become much less useful against low-end or solo planets.

Opinions?

[The_Fish]

I like the idea

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

My suggestion is this:

A construction which can defend against structure killers. Essentially a form of PDS, or shielding against SKs, and only SKs.

The reasoning behind this is simple: many planets are entirely unable to get defence for the majority of occasions on which they are attacked. It is, of course, worst for solo players - the very type of players who are likely to depend on keeping a good number of amps and blockers in order to compete. Because these planets are less likely to get defence, attackers can send SKs without much fear of losing them.

The current solution to this problem is to give SKs a useless class, and make them very weak and expensive. This has some positive effects, but it also makes SKs useless in wars, or against top planets.

My idea would work something like this:

The attacked planet would have a percentage chance of blocking each SK attempt. 0% for a planet with no defences, rising to perhaps a maximum of 80%. It would work very much like Security Centres do against covert ops, though I don't think it should be possible to have full immunity.

To compensate, structure killers could perhaps be made more affordable or more powerful.

The likely consequence is that low-end planets will be much better defended against SKs, since low-end planets don't bother with Finance Centres. Top planets build lots of FCs and so would probably not build the anti-SK structure. This would make them more vulnerable to SKs. This means that SKs retain (or even increase) their usefulness in major alliance wars, but become much less useful against low-end or solo planets.

Opinions?

How about this,

Imagine that all SK ships were actually troop carriers, they deliver there troops to the planet where they battle against the defenders SK ships troops (which are always stationed on the defenders planet when they arrive), then some sort of formula would be used to calculate how many structures have been destroyed, based on the troop battle, think of it as fighting in the streets.

So two battles would take place, one in space and one on the ground, with cov ops having the ability to affect both.

And also as well as having engineers, have generals, which perform combat only type of focus.

wow i'm on a roll!!!

[MrLobster]

Also

1) Each SK can only carry a certain number of troops in to battle. To launch all your troops, you must buiild enough SK's.

2) If you lose any SK's in the space battle, you only take home enough to fit in to your remaining SK's, the rest are left behind, which the defender can gain XP/Res, or convert (but this can be left out).

3) By telling your general to order your troops to "dig in" / "fortify" (at home planet), they cant be moved for 24 hours, but gain a substantial increase in ground based defence.

4) and moving on from this you could have mutliple types of ground troops (anti vehlcle, medic, etc) and perhaps even vehicles.

[edit] both ground and space battles do not interact with one another.

[Monroe]

Similar ideas have been suggested a number of times, personally I am for the idea I think it has a lot of merrit, and could add a whole new level of tactics into the game. One note for commanderbob, I suggest whatever you do, don't call it PDS, there are people on these forums who give neg rep just for seeing 'PDS' in a post....

[ComradeRob]

I was thinking of calling it Sub-Orbital Defence System, or SODS for short.

[noah02]

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...ight=structure

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...&highlight=pds

just a few discussions on the same subject......

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I was thinking of calling it Sub-Orbital Defence System, or SODS for short.

and those with out any pds would be called SODS ALL.

I cried so much with that one... ahem.

[Dotatrix]

MrLobsters, have you been playing Master of Orion lately ?

[MrLobster]

I played MOO2, and I did buy MOO3, but never played it more than 10 mins before going back to CS, but back to the point, I think the idea for a troop based combat is well worth a thought, because constructions is seriously lacking, and so is Cov Ops.

[Dotatrix]

Was just thinking since there are transports @ MoO 2 and they work kinda like the same way that you are suggesting

[Lοki]

My opinion?

Delete SK's from the game. They don't give anything. Their SOLE use is bashing a target.

[ComradeRob]

I think SKs have their place, but that place is in major alliance combat, against top planets.

That's why my suggestion would (I hope) benefit the smaller planets whilst making SKs viable against top planets (who would presumably rather be building finance centres or distorters, not anti-SK constructions).

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by MrLobster

Stuff about attacking/defending SKs

Is it just me, or would that idea result in nothing more than massively widespread proliferation of SKs in the universe? As if the best way of defending yourself from SK attack is to build SKs, then there will be more and more and more SKs built to attack, defend, counter attack, retal, etc etc.

If anything, wouldnt that make the situation worsE?

[MrLobster]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Is it just me, or would that idea result in nothing more than massively widespread proliferation of SKs in the universe? As if the best way of defending yourself from SK attack is to build SKs, then there will be more and more and more SKs built to attack, defend, counter attack, retal, etc etc.

If anything, wouldnt that make the situation worsE?

Yep I guess your right ok then maybe make the SK's an alliance only item, and/or make them really expensive (also increase there damage stats accordingly).