View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryLast Update
0000926AI War 1 / ClassicSuggestion - Balance TweaksOct 27, 2010 10:43 pm
Reporterorzelek Assigned Tokeith.lamothe  
Severityminor 
Status resolvedResolutionfixed 
Product Version4.000 
Summary0000926: Military command station attack usefulness
DescriptionCurrently all the military command stations seem to have some token missile attack. There are two main problems with it:
- small attack value - it gets eaten by armor
- command station is always under forcefield (who builds them without?) which means that it's attack is always affected by forcefield and it's 3/4 th of stated value
TagsNo tags attached.
Internal Weight

Activities

Lancefighter

Oct 27, 2010 3:34 pm

reporter   ~0002237

well, it does give the attack power boost for turrets, which might make up for it..
 but really its nowhere near as obviously useful as having a logistics station is useful, which I think is the main issue.

eRe4s3r

Oct 27, 2010 8:56 pm

reporter   ~0002271

Would agree with the assessment that is not really useful at all the attack and HP boost alone that is - given the cost and losses of resources over time (which is probably 300k or more resources over an average game PER mil station instead of log/eco station)) that building a MIL station compared to a ECO or LOG station nets you.

Generally would like to see about 2/3 of a fortress kind of effectivity for MK1 - Fortress level for MK2 and 2*Fortress level for MK3 station (of course, it can't move so that should be ok) and of course - a forcefield should be included, one that does not reduce its damage ;p

Usually that station should be the "can defend a planet against nearly all low-progress threats ALONE" kind of thing. Seems to be only logical given that everyone puts turrets and forcefields around stations anyway so a MIL MK1 station would have to be somewhat more powerful than say, 20 mixed MK1 turrets (5xFlak,5xLaser,5xMissile,5xBasic).

Toll

Oct 27, 2010 9:00 pm

reporter   ~0002273

Personally I only ever use the Mk. III Mil. station for its tachyon effect and attack boost, and only then in choke points. Never once built a Mk. I or II. Would be nice to see them buffed a little.

keith.lamothe

Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm

administrator   ~0002274

Well, it's not intended to be a fortress unto itself, though I agree that such a thing would be very cool. A fortress with gigantic beam cannons of doom, preferably. But that's not this unit.

For this unit, for 4.021:

* Military Command Stations now have 5x normal health instead of 2x, and have twice the attack power they used to.

* Turrets can now receive a munitions boost of up to 1.0x, up from 0.4x. This lets them get full benefit from the MkII and MkIII Military Command Stations (mil stations provide 0.2x, 0.5x, and 1.0x planet-wide munitions boosts).

keith.lamothe

Oct 27, 2010 9:19 pm

administrator   ~0002276

Just saw the bit about the always-under-a-forcefield thing, that's an extremely good point. I've changed it from 2x attack power to 8x :)

This might conceivably make it OP (though I doubt it, considering the economic costs), but I'm sure someone would let me know if that were the case. Our darling little players wouldn't keep something like that a secret, now would they?

orzelek

Oct 27, 2010 9:54 pm

reporter   ~0002278

It maybe powerful if you don't hide it under force filed... but I guess considering risks involved it won't be to OP.

eRe4s3r

Oct 27, 2010 10:42 pm

reporter   ~0002282

I for one would definitely keep it secret UNLESS i finally get my eons ago suggested super shield beam fortress of doom that spans 25% of the sector and can shot super wide and long range *super* lasers with *super* charging animation and *super* sound effects!

hah!

5x hp is always good. Makes them a hardened target which is (i assume) what their role is, plop them down in the middle of the AI regions where the ADV factory is, and put all your turrets there.... you get boost and a station that doesn't suddenly and randomly die from some rampant neinzul thingy ;)

keith.lamothe

Oct 27, 2010 10:43 pm

administrator   ~0002283

Don't worry, I've never forgotten the Iserlohn suggestion ;)

I doubt we could actually use that name legally, btw.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
Oct 27, 2010 8:37 am orzelek New Issue
Oct 27, 2010 8:38 am orzelek Product Version => 4.000
Oct 27, 2010 3:34 pm Lancefighter Note Added: 0002237
Oct 27, 2010 8:56 pm eRe4s3r Note Added: 0002271
Oct 27, 2010 9:00 pm Toll Note Added: 0002273
Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm keith.lamothe Note Added: 0002274
Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm keith.lamothe Status new => resolved
Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm keith.lamothe Resolution open => fixed
Oct 27, 2010 9:13 pm keith.lamothe Assigned To => keith.lamothe
Oct 27, 2010 9:19 pm keith.lamothe Note Added: 0002276
Oct 27, 2010 9:54 pm orzelek Note Added: 0002278
Oct 27, 2010 10:42 pm eRe4s3r Note Added: 0002282
Oct 27, 2010 10:43 pm keith.lamothe Note Added: 0002283