Attacker / Defender Balance

[Suicide Junkie]

Is it too easy to attack in SE4? Too easy to defend? Just right?

[geoschmo]

I would have to say the biggest problem isn't one of fairness. In my experience the better side usually wins whether attacker or defender. THe problem is that just a little advantage on either side results in a complete rout for the other side with little or no significant damage to the victor. I haven't noticed a pattern as far as who attacks first, but whoever wins the first major battle, whehter attacker or defender, goes on the attack after that and usually has an easy time of it. Not sure if that is a problem with the game or if it's just that most of us dont have all that clear an idea of tactics and whatnot.

[Deathstalker]

I lean toward the upper hand going to the attackers (once a major/minor fleet battle is won). One of the big problems is (IMO) mines and other defenses, they are not enough to stop a fleet (once a fleet has a few good sweepers, or lots of crappy ones, mines become useless). Sats are still a very MINOR defense and fighters are useless mid-late game (as are missile ships/defenses once good PDC is researched). The only times I have seen the defender come back is with a sudden discovery of the Talisman, then it is a matter of holding out till a fleet can be built. That and planets are waayy to easy to 'glass'. (well, ain't I positive today ).

Don't get me wrong, this is possibly the best 4X game I have seen, just a few things about 'balance' in weapons and defenses need to happen (that and the AI needs to be taught to 'remember' what happened the previous turn )

[Krsqk]

IMO, a partial cause of the problem is the predominance of shields over armor. Shields automatically regenerate after combat; armor doesn't (except for organic, post-next-patch?). If use of armor over shields were encouraged (better hitpoints/kt ratio?), ships would have to repair some damage.

Another part of the problem was posted in another thread. Frequently, ships are destroyed in single combat turns; if ships could Last for an entire battle (higher hitpoints or less damage per weapon), then each ship would have a higher chance of being damaged.

The use of engine- and weapon-damaging weapons greatly increases the odds of crippling your enemy's fleet--except that crippled fleets tend to die in a single combat round. If only they weren't so expensive.

[Ruatha]

I think it's well balanced. Attacking is easy and should be so!
If defences were better the game would never be finished.
Now you must venture forth with a fleet to take or defend your territory.
It's just as easy to defend as it is to attack if you both have the same fleets (Well, almost anyway).
Cheap defences as mines and sats should be weak and only protect against stray ships. A good fleet should be able to sweep away all minor opposition and only be countered by an equal or better fleet.
That is what makes this game great, you have to take an initiative.
You can't sit and wait for the opponent to madly send his ships into overwhelming minefields
(accept some AI:s ofcourse).

I hope this is preserved into SE5.

[PvK]

If ships could be given orders to retreat and/or scatter in some cases (outnumbered, outgunned, or heavily damaged), and not be stopped by the "tactical map edge" , as was more or less possible in SE3 , it would help a lot.

I think some of the changes I made to ship components in Proportions mod also help this. I added cheap and strong "armored structure" components, which give a ship a lot more capacity to absorb damage, but still sustain damage.

In the standard game, I have seen some back-and-forth wars, particularly in the Universe Cup games, which are one-on-one duels. I think though that at the strategic level, there is a big problem with the runaway effects of empire size, due to the fast facility construction rates, low planetary capacities, and additive research facility points. That of course is the main thing I tried to fix in Proportions, so that the largest empire wouldn't quickly out-strip all others. I went farther than most players would like in the "slow development" direction, though.

PvK

[jimbob]

I voted that the Attacker has the advantage/imbalanced to favor the attacker... but I don't think that this is a bad thing. This appears to be the way things really are in warfare, the attacker has the advantage of mobility, whereas the defender is left to try and defend all points equally - which means that he/she/it must distribute a limited number of resources across a larger front (see Sun Tsu, French Maginot Line, etc). And so, one could build up a massive "fleet" of starbases over a planet, and you will have (IMHO) an equally powerful force (kT for kT) vs. a mobile fleet - but you can only defend a single planet with it! The advantages of special base mounts and accuracy are perfect - but it's the disadvantage of immobility that matters.

That said, I think some defensive improvements should be made. Not to make defense stronger, but to make certain things useful:

Satelites are USELESS as things stand. I mean honestly, who besides the computer ever uses these things (ok, maybe to drop as sensor buoyes, but that's it). My suggested change is to introduce a fleet formation for satelites - even if all satelites within the sector must be arranged in a single fleet. Now you can leave 'em in a single clump, two clumps, three or more clumps.. maybe even have some in higher orbits relative to the planet...

Mines shouldn't be thought of as a impenetrable wall, but I do agree that they become useless once sufficient numbers of minesweepers are produced. I think that mines need to be overhauled for SEV (should that ever happen).

Now for my rant. If you wanted clear thinking, the best I can offer is above. Everything from this point on is highly subjective if not incoherant:

As for fighters, yeah, they're fairly useless too. High end PDF will wipe them out, they are not upgradeable, and carriers don't carry enough of them. Because you can't change 2 of the 3 complaints above, I think only solution would be to rebalance by decreasing the accuracy of ALL weapons (including PDF) by 30 to 50%. Then all ships, drones and bases should have their to hit value increased by the same amount (ie. now escorts would have a defensive bonus of only 20% instead of 50%). However, satelite and fighter defensive values should not be changed at all. This would make them weak, but more capable of dodging shots/harder to actually hit (seems realistic to me). Because all weapons have a crappy chance to hit, the attack advantage enjoyed by fighters would also become significant... finally making them worthwhile to research and build.

There's my Looney's worth (1.00 $Cdn, .02 USD).

[Taera]

i vote for depends but balanced. This is how i see the game, theoretically a player could build an unbreachable by any means defense, or build a similarly devastating war fleet. It all depends on style, and when neglecting any you might find a thorn in your back when you're not prepared. But then again, the playstyles of this game are so much varied you cannot claim each side has any benefits upon the other one.

[PvK]

I agree that forcing satellites into a stack is lame, unrealistic, silly, and greatly decreases their ability to protect a position. It would be much nicer to be able to surround a planet or warp point with them.

I disagree that satellites are worthless. A stack of them with long-range weapons and defenses can be pretty tough, and can be a useful addition to a defense, especially because they cost zero maintenance and they take up no cargo space when deployed, and they don't require supplies. Of course, two of those advantages don't make sense.

Fighters are also not useless in the late game, although it's true they can be smashed by PDC as well as main weapons, not to mention the ridiculous and wrong ability of ships to ram entire swarms of them to death. Nonetheless, if you deploy a bunch of them with shields and late-game weapons, they can be a reasonable auxiliary weapon when combined with other weapons. They have the advantages of stupid unit stacking mechanics, no maintenance cost, and stacking damage per group. Large fighter swarms with shields can draw a lot of enemy fire, and can wipe out even large enemy ships if they get within range. This makes them useful in warp point defenses, for example, as well as in combined-forces attacks (with drones and seekers, for instance). If you've reached your empire's maintenance threshold, it will only make you stronger to have some fighters. They can also be used to test for minefields, other light duty, and to keep your enemies placing PDC on their ships. They're rarely decisive in the late-game, and are often slaughtered to no effect, but they are zero-maintenance and do have a few uses.

BTW, I won a major fleet battle in a PBW game against a superior empire, which would have been lost if not for my heavy deployment of satellites and fighters in the battle.

PvK

[Grandpa Kim]

Some excellent and thoughtful observations everyone. I agree the attacker has the advantage and I also think that's the way it should be.

That said, the defense needs a few equalizers. For instance, have you ever had a fleet on defensive duty just waiting for the enemy to open a warp point and send a conquest fleet through? And what do they do when the warp opens and the fleet comes through? Why, nothing at all! They sit there oo-ing and ah-ing at the fireworks display supplied by the enemy. ...And they sit there for a month! Doing nothing!

Surely an "intercept intruders" order wouldn't be too much to ask.

Kim