New Logistics & VP System: Fortresses

from AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Currently in Ashes the Logistics system is a very straightforward limitation on the number of units you can have at once, which can be increased simply by building Logistic Arrays. These can be built anywhere without limit, and quite cheaply, with each one increasing your Logistics by +10. This Logistics system clearly needs improvement.
 
Likewise, the victory point system requires capturing "Computronium Points" or VP points using military units. This results in the game ending too quickly, sometimes unpredictably, and is generally not strategically interesting.
 
 
Fortresses
 
Suppose instead that players had to construct a somewhat expensive structure on VP's before they will yield victory points. And that that slot was also the only way to build a structure that would increase your available Logistics. And that this structure, which I will label a "fortress," was also semi-expensive, perhaps about 1,000 metal or so (note: Logistic Arrays are 200 metal).
 
The key decision here is that players will have to choose between a Logistics structure and a VP structure. But this also creates the choice of whether to build a fortress at all, or simply cap and move on. Building a VP fortress doesn't give you any Logistics, so there is a military cost to forgoing the Logistics fortress which you should only pay if you are confident in your military position. Early in the game, players should avoid building VP fortresses because Logistics are vital to increasing their rate of expansion (perhaps VP forts should cost reactives?).
 
Fortresses, although they should be durable, are still a soft, strategically sensitive target that ideally you do not want the enemy to ever engage (unlike troops). They're expensive and strategically valuable, and a valuable target for the enemy to destroy. When raiding, you have to choose between the "easy" target of attacking the region's resource structures, or risk going in for the kill on the fortress.
 
 
Other Changes

Because only a limited number of fortresses can be constructed (equal to the number of regions), each fortress should provide more Logistics than a Logistic Array does. Also, due to the additional expense and time required before building your first fortress, the starting HQ should have its Logistics value increased as well. Perhaps both the HQ and each additional Logistics-providing fortress should give +40 Logistics.
 
Optionally, the Logistic Array could be kept as well, with a limitation that they must be constructed in different regions. Such as only allowing one Logistic Array per region. Research could potentially increase this limit.
 
Note that players might choose not to build on a capped VP point. A capped point might provide small advantages, like giving some vision around itself. But a fortress must be built on a capped point in order for it to provide other benefits, such as Logistics, VP's, and probably also Power, and greater vision around itself.
 
Naturally, the enemy must destroy the fortress before they can cap the point on which it is built. And they must capture the point before they can build their own fortress on it. I think it makes sense to require a fortress in a region for certain structures to be built there. Likely not resources, but base-like features like auxiliary Logistic Arrays, research facilities, factories, and so on.
 
 
More Bases
 
One important side effect of this arrangement is that it encourages players to construct valuable assets out on the map, rather than concentrated in the main base only. First, this creates soft targets that are worth destroying. But second, because players must build these structures for Logistics and VP's, they are also encouraged to defend them.
 
In theory this should encourage players to build forward bases, springing up around fortresses both to protect them and also other to protect other structures which are useful to have in forward positions. Encouraging players to build lots of bases, and not just one "main" is very good. To facilitate base construction, suppose that fortresses could even build Engineers. Either that, or allow fortresses to directly build structures nearby.
 
Allowing fortresses, and potentially even the main HQ, to build structures directly in a radius around themselves (construction drones?) means that Engineers are generally reserved for building structures outside of a base, and for assisting production or construction. Such as sending them outside the base to build resource structures, or new fortresses.
 
On a very large map, whether a single base stands or falls won't decide the game. But it does convey a clear advantage to the side that possesses it, and is a high value target for the other side to destroy. Especially if an enemy base can be taken and held for long enough to construct a base of your own there.
 
 
Siege Gameplay

Forward bases are a critical part of having a large-scale strategy game. Having locally independent bases establishes strategically significant locations out on the map. The positions of those bases has a big impact on where the battle lines are drawn, and will likely differ from game to game.
 
Bases that are far apart from one another relative to units' speed overland also creates the possibility of a siege. A siege arises where a player has insufficient forces to directly assault the base, but still has the ability to cut off a base's reinforcements. Either by completely surrounding the base, or just by cutting off overland and flying routes, possibly by airlifting in defensive and AA units placed along access routes behind the base, or by liberal use of air power.
 
The siege strategy to taking a base takes time. The besieger cuts off the base from reinforcements and proceeds to attack with indirect fire- such as artillery, air strikes, missiles, etc. Eventually the base will be weak enough for a direct assault to succeed. Unless an enemy army arrives to break the siege, the besiegers will eventually grind down the target base until a direct assault becomes an option, but it will take time.
 
 
Conclusion
 
The current Logistics and VP system suffer from critical problems of being strategically uninteresting and forcing the player to do chores. I propose replacing the Logistics and VP systems with a choice that creates a new, soft target structure of strategic significance, with a limited number based on how many points you control. Defending these fortresses will likely encourage players to construct forward bases at key points on the map.
 
This also creates raiding options for the opponent, since lightly defended fortresses are a juicy target. Even well-defended bases are of huge strategic significance, potentially giving a suitable target to justify a large army to engage in a protracted siege to destroy the base.
30,097 views 8 replies
Reply #2 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Its not a bad idea i think it would speedup the early game since constructors take so loong to move out but delay it later on due to the presence of defensive structures.

 

Do bare in mind that if they balance the current victory point system and rework how defences are currently it can achieve the same effect.

+1 Loading…
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

To be honest, I only just started reading your post - but the first few lines I read pushed me to respond immediately:

Logistic Arrays cannot be built without limit.  They require power to construct.  Power cannot be acquired from building infrastructure - power acts as a "supply limit" for buildings and is only acquired by taking and holding territory.  Therefore, assuming you are not using power to construct factories, defensive structures, or tech structures, you can only build 5 logistics arrays per territory you take and hold.  Realistically, you are building multiple 3-power factories and research centers in addition to the requisite logistic arrays.  This makes your held-territory the ultimate constraint on the size of your army.

Sorry, that was my nitpick - now I'll read the rest.

Reply #4 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

While I agree that many types of RTS games don't need formally defined zones, I get the impression that Ashes is going with it as a pretty basic design principle.

 

Inheriting control zones from, say, Company of Heroes is a reasonable choice. But because CoH has a very small and discrete number of control zones, players are always forced to fight over those exact points. Implementing a region system with a LOT of control zones is an extremely different animal.

In fact this system is probably more closely analogous to Dominions (4 is latest), which has provinces which are connected into a network of nodes much like the map in Ashes. Provinces/regions are very different from the CoH model of putting about three VP points at approximately the middle of a small, fixed map.

The biggest difference is that it is possible to control quite a lot of territory in the back field by forming a line of battle on the front. This arrangement is much more efficient than the so-called "communism" strategy of filling every single province with troops. Thus I think it also makes sense to have mechanics that encourage players to claim contiguous blocks rather than scattered patches, or tunnels.

 

In keeping with this type of "province" arrangement, unlike the CoH victory points, provinces are the unit of measurement for how you build things. Controlling more provinces not only secures additional resources, it also claims more spots on which to build things.

If a particular province may only contain one fortress, that is an obvious bottleneck that forces players to expand in order to get Logistics and VP's. But if the number of facilities were also limited in each province, you would need to secure provinces to build other assets as well.

For example, having a limit on the number of each type of base facility that can be constructed in a single province. If your limit is 1 research structure per fortress, then you must expand in order to build more research facilities as well. Techs might increase these limits, allowing for denser infrastructure and higher levels of investment in smaller amounts of map space once higher tech has been completed. And Power might be the resource that makes this dense construction possible, by generating Power from expanding, spread-out bases, and spending Power allows you to build dense infrastructure in a place of your choosing.

 

Then, regarding encouraging players to claim territory in contiguous blocks rather than patches or tunnels, this can be best accomplished by providing some kind of adjacency bonus. By having adjacent provinces interact with one another, each province will benefit from the player controlling as many of its neighbors as possible.

For example, suppose that a fortress on a point generates more Power if you have also capped an adjacent province (even if no fortress there). Rather than expanding in a straight line or tunnel, it makes more sense to capture in a ring, to control all the provinces adjacent to a province containing a fortress. Capturing the adjacent provinces gives you more Power than you would collect if the province were surrounded by uncapped or hostile territory.

This could get even more interesting by having fortresses interact with each other to create inefficiencies. Such as not counting adjacent provinces that also contain fortresses. Building fortresses right next to each other would still increase your Power, but would be much less efficient than spacing them apart.

Reply #5 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Yes  3 resources types its what we need to have a good gameplay.

More then that will be a problem.

 

I have to ask for keep the ideas of TA and FA even with some changes thinking in other games or your own new ideas , with same micro management resources ,that was the cause of all rts revolution/evolution until now.

 

 

 

Reply #6 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Although I do like the idea of reinforced control points because of the currently hurtful simplicity of passing a simple light squad through a thick battery of turrets, I would rather see staged (like DoW) or gradual reinforcement of control points. It would not have much to defend itself, but have enough hp -if left alone long enough- for a mere scout(-ing party) to be unable to capture any control points fast enough, while such attacks would still be perfect for attempting to lure away forces to repel these attackers.

Simply removing the control points altogether and forcing players to build your own "army resource points" for power/logistics is not the worst idea either. I kind of feel like power/logistics heavily overlap right now, with logistics buildings using power just being an indirect way of making units cost power. With logistics buildings being tedious indeed. Just mash it together, hq giving a decent bonus and having a choice either "light/squishy" medium area buildings or expensive large area buildings: fortresses, that allow you to gain your own "army resources". Depending on how much they overlap with other similar buildings they'll only get a percentage of their potential output (like that LotR rts iirc). This way 0 overlap is the most resource effective but hardest to defend, with 100% coverage being the most expensive, but easiest to defend.

Or at the very least, multiply each and every power gain/cost by 5 and let units simply cost power instead of logistics (possibly calling it differently).

Reply #7 from AshesoftheSingularity Forums Top

Quoting tatsujb, reply 4

keep the fortresses, remove the VP points and locations. there's no justification or need for them. there are already five resource types without it (mass, reactives, energy, logistics, research) this is getting ridiculous. 

 

Especially since we're talking here about a resource TO WIN THE GAME. goodby gameplay.

 

research is useless as well, as I stated in another thread it would be much more strategically interesting to "research" through structures either being upgraded, added onto or simply just constructed on the map, unlocking the new things rather than the cumbersome "build tons of research centers to research faster and choose upgrades in a research tree that are unrealistic as they are applied instantaneously to units far from the base at no cost" that has been done to death notably in Supcom 2.

 

The most well praised RTSes in existence (Starcraft, TA, supcom, homeworld) ranged from 1 to 3 resources types, never more. here we're talking 6! And already the problems due to that are cropping up!

So what would be strategically interesting? well fortresses could be fun for sure. I think them needing to be placed on certain points is a needless mechanic in light of their being countless other ways to accomplish them not being spammed : E.G. build radius around one that prevents from building another within it.... just use your brains people.

common let's stop copying everything that's ever been done. (at least if we could please stop copying all the bad ideas and do that for the good ones instead  :rolleyes: )

i think the whole zone concept is absolutely meaningless and should become irrelevant when we're talking about a GOOD rts. It shouldn't depend on this to make the map interactive and have strategical depth. And the worst part is, with this mechanic actually in play right now, it demonstrates that it doesn't do this at all! I mean, you just weave your path through zones always grabbing the computorium generator and resources on the tile. but in the end you're mostly really after the CG and the resources, the actual terrain tile, you couldn't give less of a crap about, you just move onwards to the next CG and resources and when you want to fortify them you build the fortifications at those not at the frontier of the tile.

I really think there's no future in this model and it should be abandoned in favor or more map height and terrain type interaction while it's still in alpha and the time is ripe for these choices and before the game is stuck with something everyone dislikes.

+1  I couldn't agree more