How to bring the colonies out into the open again?

[chaotix14]

Also, just throwing this out there: any one of those anti-structure mechs I suggested along with either the spider or the wasp could do marvelously at either suggesting or enforcing open bases, depending on player skill/overconfidence. Especially the crabs, blasting down dummy walls to get at the inner sections.

Just throwing it out there enforcing any playstyle whether that is open, mountainhome, compound(open with large perimeter walls) or something else is not the goal of this thread, nor is going from one playstyle being superior to another playstyle being in that position. The goal is to make people be drawn more to open colonies, instead of hiding in their mountainhomes preparing for waves of doom and destruction to descend on their doors(which was and to a certain degree still is a very real thing and a big motivator to move into a plasteel reinforced mountain bunker).

You've made it quite clear to not be a fan of mountainhomes at all, but there are a lot of people who do like it(even for reasons beyond security, it has a totally different look, feel and structure to it than surface construction). I still don't quite understand why you harbor such an adamant desire to see mountainhomes gone, it's like saying all apples should be destroyed just because you don't like apples. So unless you actually want to contribute to balancing that particular playstyle with the others, I think there is very little purpose for you to be here.

[Alpha393]

I can see how bunkers would be fun for people, and yeah my word choice is never optimal. Let me make this crystal clear: it would only really enforce open playstyle for those who don't know how to counter it, and even then most would try to find a way to counter rather than moving above ground. That is not the purpose of the crabs, just a potential outcome of sub-optimal balancing.

Also, I don't mind mountain bases. My first base started as one until I ran out of mountain. They're cool when done right. Killboxes on the other hand were actually what made me think of the crab and the beetle.

One to flush the colony out, one to outlast it. Both could be balanced by making them either exceptionally weak against targets that shoot back, or only target indoor rooms either containing a colonist or 3+ sentry guns, counting open doors and sandbags as empty space.

And yes I agree all of the mechs I listed are extremely broken on paper. Except maybe the wasp. I never stated or intentionally implied that this would be the only way to encourage open colonies, just that it has the potential of done right.

Edit:

Can someone recommend me a fun surface-building game because Rimworld is clearly not going that route ?

Rimworld definitely can be fun when you build on the surface. It just takes a bit of micromanaging that I seem to excel at in place of a social star above 4.

[b0rsuk]

Can someone recommend me a fun surface-building game because Rimworld is clearly not going that route ?

[SuperCaffeineDude]

I think I've mentioned this before but I'll reiterate my thoughts.

1. Allow the building of towers that can shoot over walls. And can only be placed outside.
2. Have the AI calculate less attractive routes into a base, i.e: when an ai-pawn dies it paints the surrounding area with a "no go" zone
3. Decrease the tigger chance of humans moving across simple traps.
4. Allow for windows, which provide mood boosting "natural light" (and vit.D), and with certain types shooting.
4.5. Allow for greenhouses which provide shelter for plants without using energy.
5. Decrease the quantity of base raids.
6. Increase robustness of crops, don't delete them when they are too cold (they're going in the freezer).
7. Make turrets less nerfed but more fallible, i.e. hackable, require maintenance, require oversight.
8. Make pawns less prone to permanent injury (especially to eyes).
9. Render Electricity much harder to harvest, and sustainable sources not immediately accessible
10. Allow for mining down nodes, like mine shafts, rather than have mining across the X&Y of the map which is necessary for steel.

Those are a few ideas I've had, I'm sure there's more that can be done though.

[Alpha393]

2, 4, 4.5, and 5 would all be awesome, and 4 and 4.5 shouldn't be too difficult to do.

Another quick idea, this one's a carrot: manhunter packs hunt EVERYTHING, not just people, so they'll likely come to you bleeding, wounded, and crippled, making outdoor bases that much easier to pull off.

[Schwartz]

I think it's odd to argue for more ways to screw playstyle X or Y. In my opinion the game is difficult enough and doesn't need anymore hurdles just to make sure you're playing it right. AI exploits should be fixed, but that's about it.

I started out playing Classic once or twice, but the inevitable 'ramp towards death' gets old real quick. All my most enjoyable games were on Randy Random, and they usually lasted until I got bored with a colony, rather than it being taken out. An ending like this is not a *bad thing*. I had more fun staying alive than I had in a constant and unforgiving struggle. And Randy still offers plenty of struggle.

As for colonies.. I build walled towns and I build mountainhomes. Sometimes a mix. And they all work just fine. It's more about what the map offers me. Hell, town raids aren't all 'get your ducks in a row and wait'. Sometimes it's more tactically sound to let the enemy take the town while you wait for 'em out in the hills. Or going out to snipe a preparing raid. Or do urban warfare if they out-range you. It all works, it's just not all as effortless as putting up a killbox and stifling yawns for the rest of the game. There's versatility if you want it.

The one thing I would seriously consider overhauling is the standard mode of an inevitable death-ramp. It doesn't allow the game to shine. And there need to be more things to do beyond survival in late-game. The spaceship thing has zero appeal to me. It doesn't offer anything fun beyond a way to end the game. There's already another way to end the game and it's usually coming like a freight train. Which is why so many people exploit and go for an overly defensive playstyle.

[Alpha393]

Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'

Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.

[SpaceDorf]

Also I find it to be really immersion breaking.
Do the pirates have cloning technologie ?
Are the tribes descendents from the long lost lemming people ?
Where do all those people come from ?
And why do they constantly try to kill a handfull of people who must have less ressources then they have for themselves.

[SpaceDorf]

Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'

Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.

Also the Pawns should be able to fire Handguns, Assault Rifles and Shotguns while Moving.

[Kegereneku]

But you're missing the point, current mortars are literally the same thing you are saying direct fire mortars will be.
[...]
I just don't understand how you can say this is worse, you can't be more wrong. You can't go from highly damaging weapon that ignores all defenses, to direct fire weapon that can be countered, and call it worse.

Let's get facts straight before continuing :
- Mountain-bunker are the only one immune to mortar. They would ALSO be immune to Direct-Fire cannon, first because it's unlikely the AI will be intelligent or fast enough to build it in front of your base, then because you have less ablative wall to build, being you know, a bunker.
- Mortar is powerful against outside-base because you've certainly been packing all your building like one castle/fortress (as the game currently encourage you too), OPEN-BASE (separated building) are better because not everything are within a shell radius.
- Requiring a Perimeter wall IS WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID ! We want to be able to win the game without Perimeter wall !
- And then, captured or Player-built direct-fire cannon would finish the job of killing open-base. You would never build a colonyfortress anymore that would create blind spot for what is basically a "manned bazooka turret".

Note :
A mortar can miss over a SURFACE, that's fire-arc + undershooting + overshooting.
A cannon can only miss over a ARC, that's fire-arc alone, meaning it will hit more easily. I hope you don't need a drawing.

Now let's get our objectives straight :
- We want open-base and even separated building to be more interesting. Open mean no perimeter wall.
- We don't want to be forced to build a perimeter wall, it's a colony-simulator, not a fortress-simulator.
- We want event/weapon/feature that bypass or nullify conventional defense (ex : wall). So that you have equal odds even if you had NO Perimeter-wall and wasn't behind 3 layers of mountain.
- We don't want to make mountain-bunker useless (let's not act as if there was a risk of that), but we don't want them to be superior to open-base in all aspects as it is the case now.
- We don't want to make fortress useless (again, it's not as if there was a risk), but we want tightly-packed building to have some serious drawback versus open base (like suffering more damage if a shell fell directly in it).

If we can't agree on most of the above, I fear it mean you aren't defending open-base and there is no point to this discussion. Frankly, I hope you aren't one of those guys ready to lie his ass off hoping to have cannons for "his wargame".

Finally,
If the arguments above aren't enough, let's try to describe exactly why we think X would work or fail.
If Direct-fire cannon were to replace mortar :
- It's easy for AI to position them badly in a mountain biome, they might not even be able to hit your base without leveling everything in-between. Not so much in plain where open-base would be.
- Assuming they have direct sight : they are less likely to miss. Mortar easily miss a square surface, overshoot even, but Cannon can only fail due to arc, since clearly you don't want any shell to pass above a wall to land further behind.
- Assuming they somehow missed as easily : they would stay muuuch worse against open-base. Why ? Because within the fire-arc an open-base is 80% targets 20% miss, a tightly-packed base is 40% targets 60% miss, and a bunker is 2% targets (the entrances) and 98% natural protection (if not 100%)


That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?

[SpaceDorf]

That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?

I do get it, but I thought more direct fire weapons where a stupid Idea anyway. One Hundred different guns don't generate depth through mass.

And you forgot Range.
Due to the ballistic flightpath of the Ammunition Artillery always has Range over direct fire.
Plus :A  Point which should make both parties happy
Most Artillery Cannons ( well, except mortars ) are also able to fire in line of sight.

So yeah. I still stand by my point, which gets proven right and repeated all the time.

Mortars should generate Damage inside the mountains.

[Kegereneku]

Right now your point is no different from "Let's keep Mortar as they are but let them damage Bunker"

However Direct-Fire cannon is OUT, as said before there's a reason bazooka were made single shot (and limited in range). I'm not against Anti-tank Sniper or single-use guided-missile (someone modded those for anti-mechanoid after I asked) but you need balance mechanic that don't exist (yet?) to prevent a savvy player from abusing them.

Claiming "Cannon are realist" won't work either, we use mortar precisely when it would be too dangerous to be in direct sight (since direct-sight is basically equal to "they can shoot at use with guns"). Yes cannons ALSO include indirect artillery, but I answered Reviire who seem locked on shell never flying above a wall.

[Alpha393]

Hmmm... Ways to improve open bases without hurting bunkers/'mountainhomes'

Here's an idea: improve weapon accuracy, and add hip fire as a thing, about half the warmup and 1/4 the cooldown of current shooting, but half the accuracy, and aimed fire, with slightly longer warmup and cooldown, but much better accuracy. Snipers default to aimed fire, miniguns are an exception and keep current stats, people quickly fire off a hip shot if surprised around a corner up close, etc.

Also the Pawns should be able to fire Handguns, Assault Rifles and Shotguns while Moving.

I was literally on my way to edit that in when I saw this.

Basically just a toggle mode for careful shooter or trigger happy mode, Ofc stacking with regular trigger happy and careful shooter.

Sometimes I want my sniper to quickly wheel around a corner and blast a guy at point blank, but no he takes his sweet time lining up a headshot then misses and gets decapitated.

Ok that was an example but the point stands. I would get combat realism for this, but ammo management just gives more reason to stay inside and let turrets do the work.

[chaotix14]

That's all.
Now, do you get why direct-fire cannon is an horrible idea ?

I do get it, but I thought more direct fire weapons where a stupid Idea anyway. One Hundred different guns don't generate depth through mass.

And you forgot Range.
Due to the ballistic flightpath of the Ammunition Artillery always has Range over direct fire.
Plus :A  Point which should make both parties happy
Most Artillery Cannons ( well, except mortars ) are also able to fire in line of sight.

So yeah. I still stand by my point, which gets proven right and repeated all the time.

Mortars should generate Damage inside the mountains.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about mortars can be used in a direct fire orientation as evident in this video: https://youtu.be/ak_L2cpyGZA?t=65
It actually shows a couple of ways to fire at close range with a mortar.

And yes the mortars should definitely cause damage inside a mountain. It wouldn't be the first time that shockwaves caused by explosions cause a cave-in. It was actually a pretty regular occurrence in the early days of explosive digging, not even per say causing the cave in close to the blast location.

[Peng Qi]

That reason being the labor and planning required being much to high. You can throw up a castle much faster than you could dig one out.

And because caves are extremely easy to siege. Against a castle you need to deal with constant barrage from an elevated position, and your line needs to be extremely long to surround the entire structure. Against a cave you just need to build a big wall in front of it and wait.