Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Keep the Current Systems

0 (0%)

Change to a Defense in Depth System (<- preferred option)

8 (100%)

Change to a Defense in Width System

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 8

[Ghazkull]

Voidslayer has been contacted. If he doesnt answer till tomorrow morning i will start with the update.

[Ghazkull]

Okay update is in and im almost certain i made some mistakes. If you find something tell me.

Also sorry to Rolepgeek, i really tried to find something to not see you insta-dead, but everything went according to rules and regulations...Congrats to TopHat for that manouver.

In other news i realize that fortresses are definetly too weak.
I tried messing around with battles in width (aka more than five units fighting simultaneously) but that only cost a crapload of mistakes on my side and in the end took MORE time rather than less. (you can see what i mean when you look at the events for the miners collective.

In any case i will suggest two systems for fortresses, depending on your votes we will take one of those or keep the current system.

Defense in Width System: all Garrisoned units fight simultaneously and get simultaneous fortress bonus. This slightly benefits the attacker in comparison to the Depth System.

Defense in Depth System: slightly different. largely benefits the Defender. Instead of one ring of defenses as is the case so far, the larger the fortress the more rings of defense it has.
Example: a Medium Fortress so far had one ring of [3,3,3,3,3] defenses. Each time teh defender took damage it was absorbed by the fortress and that spot in the defenses was reduced by one. Now however a Medium Fortress has THREE of these rings. Each time one is completely reduced to dust aka [0,0,0,0,0] the defenders retreat to the next line of defense.

That gives defenders a better chance at surviving and makes assaults from orbit not as easy. Plus its definetly less work than the Width System.
An Indomitable fortress in this example would have 6 rings of [6,6,6,6,6] defense. Making the ridiculous prices for massive fortresses more worthwhile.

I've put up a poll in regards to this and leave the voting to you folks.
In other other news, the first stage of escalations has hit the deck: you can now produce WMDs, Destroyers and Light Cruisers...tech hasn't yet advvanced however (so still no TSF for the Inner Systems and no upgraded TSF for the Outer Worlds.)

EDIT:
I also left Rolepgeeks stuff intact for the moment until you and topHat have decided how to continue (complete annexation, vassalization etc.)

[Ardas]

Huh, that was a bloody camapign, more exhausting than I had initially assumed.

I have a question though - shouldn't space travel cost more time? Solar system is not that small, inner ring might be quite compact, but past the Beslt, the distances are quite big. Just a thought.

[Ghazkull]

that would be unfair in regards to the expansion of the outer system players so i decided that everything just takes one turn no matter where you travel the other more important reason is that keeping track of fleets flying for five turns is hard.

[Kashyyk]

I'm for depth-defence regardless,  but if you do, would you consider giving certain units advantages vs fortresses (purely whilst the fortifications still exist)?

Otherwise I can invisage an indomitable fortress with automatic defence being an absolute bloodbath to break into (which considering how expensive it is might be what you want).

[Ghazkull]

hmm actually a good idea for tech available down the line.

At the moment when you encounter massive fortresses there is only one choice when marines do not suffice: Nuke the shit out of it. Not very resource friendly but saves you lots of dead soldiers.

Also in the In-Depth scenario automated defenses wouldn't work anymore once you are past the first line of defense (imagine being inside the fortress), simply because fighting down that first line of defense already will cost you around 40-100 Regiments depending on how well you work.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Well my people for now refuse to use nukes for ethical and morale reasons.

[Rolepgeek]

Wait what

What about the Non-Aggression Pact?

Do I not get notified about that getting cancelled?

[Playergamer]

Wait what

What about the Non-Aggression Pact?

Do I not get notified about that getting cancelled?

Yeah, he's right. Rules say that you need to wait two turns after cancelling NAP.

[Rolepgeek]

No, he never made it...I was thinking too many turns ahead to think about what was happening now. I'm just dumb. If I had actually made the alternate set of orders for if he declined my offer, this wouldn't have happened. I hadn't realized you could pretend to make diplomatic arrangements/renege if you put them in the public thread. I'd even planned on making the two sets originally, but I was too trusting.

Go ahead and get rid of my stuff, Ghazkull; he's got no reason to accept an unconditional surrender, and since you didn't give any way for surrendered opponents to get back into the big boy game, I have no reason to offer it. I lost.

I'd offer to take over for anyone if they drop out, but...I don't think that would mean anything, at this point.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

My nation might try to liberate you it's a very in character for them.

[Kashyyk]

I'm flattered that you think I run this Role

[Rolepgeek]

Damnit you guys have similar avatars in my head so I keep mixing you up

[TopHat]

Well, bad luck there Rolepgeek. We all make mistakes (even me, I should have sent you just enough supplies to attack Malea, or at least finish that production run). If it makes you feel any better, everything up until the point where I asked to see your orders was completely genuine.
In any case, were you actually ever going to hand over Noachis as agreed? I couldn't see any reason for you to do so, since you would have had such a marked advantage with both it and Malea under your control.
I was considering some sort of vasselization but, yeah, I'll go with absolute annexation for simplicity's sake.

 I have a few questions now, though:

Spoiler: questions (click to show/hide)

1. WMDs require 200 supplies. Do they have to be built + transported or is that just a cost every time we deploy a WMD?
2. WMDs are listed as destroying 1d1 IC. Is this a mistake?
3. Are Spec-Ops regiments just Marine regiments with combat strength 4?
4. When will the new rules for fortresses come into play, next turn? (I'm for defense in depth, by the way, though it seems a little powerful - maybe have a round or two of fighting with no bonus between each defensive line as the defenders pull back, or have the strength of each successive defensive line reduce by 1?)

[Rolepgeek]

I was planning to, yeah(probably after I got Luna or something so you didn't have an IC advantage over me). I was deathly worried about Kashyyk. If I were you, I would still be worried. Industry is everything

Also, Defense in Depth is a good idea, but I would say either have a falling back round or two, or have it so that the group of defenders in a given layer cannot retreat back to the next layer (the five units that were there fight to the death, and a different group has to be ready to Garrison the next layer).