Let's talk turrets

[stefanstr]

In the thread about bringing colonies out into the open, one of the topics that struck a chord with me was turrets. I would like to sum up some of the thoughts from that thread and put them under discussion. I think this is an important enough topic to warrant its own thread.

Problems with turrets:
- they are unrealistic: all other defensive options require direct operation (including mortars). Where would a ragtag band of colonists find the measures to create such elaborate AI systems right upon landing?
- they are anticlimactic: they tend to lead to a passive defense style and killbox galore: the easiest way to defend yourself is to set up a bunch of turrets and hide until the enemies are dead or badly weakened
- they don't sit well with the colony sim theme: they make the game more of a tower defense than a colony sim. Maybe not a minus for everyone, but I find this at odds with basically every other element of the game.

The proposed solution:
- make them a researchable item so they aren't available at the start
- the basic turret should have a console coupled with it (similar to the comms console) that would need a colonist to man it - one console would operate maybe 3-5 turrets max.
- an advanced console could be researched and created with use of an AI persona core, at which point turrets would become automated, as they are now.

Let the discussion begin.

[jaeden25]

In the thread about bringing colonies out into the open, one of the topics that struck a chord with me was turrets. I would like to sum up some of the thoughts from that thread and put them under discussion. I think this is an important enough topic to warrant its own thread.

Problems with turrets:
- they are unrealistic: all other defensive options require direct operation (including mortars). Where would a ragtag band of colonists find the measures to create such elaborate AI systems right upon landing?
- they are anticlimactic: they tend to lead to a passive defense style and killbox galore: the easiest way to defend yourself is to set up a bunch of turrets and hide until the enemies are dead or badly weakened
- they don't sit well with the colony sim theme: they make the game more of a tower defense than a colony sim. Maybe not a minus for everyone, but I find this at odds with basically every other element of the game.

The proposed solution:
- make them a researchable item so they aren't available at the start
- the basic turret should have a console coupled with it (similar to the comms console) that would need a colonist to man it - one console would operate maybe 3-5 turrets max.
- an advanced console could be researched and created with use of an AI persona core, at which point turrets would become automated, as they are now.

Let the discussion begin.

The problem with your argument is it is kind of contradictory, in the sense that you think turrets don't fit into the game, yet it's fine if they are researched.

Personally, I think turret's are a must for outdoor colonies and I think it's a very badly thought out idea to remove them because of those who use them to make killboxes. People have the choice not to make a killbox so what does removing them at the start, or removing them completely actually achieve.
Really it's kind of saying, if you have a drink problem, then ban alcohol for the entire country to stop you from drinking. It doesn't make much sense to do something so drastic when you can solve the problem by stopping yourself.

[litlbear]

I think the turrets should be stationary and would be like mortars, a colonist has to operate them.

[jaeden25]

I think the turrets should be stationary and would be like mortars, a colonist has to operate them.

Turret's are not a problem, I don't see why you think they need changing.

[Mathenaut]

Eh.  There is something to be discussed here, but I think that the approach is off.

1.) 'Realism' is generally a very poor argument to make, much less lead with.

2.) People piling on turrets and making killboxes is a response to the threat of zerg raider parties that kinda require it.  This isn't to say that people won't do it anyways, but having it not 'required' would be a relief to people wanting to explore alternatives.

3.) Arbitrary research requirement doesn't change much.  It just makes turrets the de-facto first thing to research, then back to square one.  Total difference of a few days' time, and now players have a stack of resources to build everything at once instead of pushing out gradually.  If anything, this may make it worse, as it does nothing to address the issue of why they're so heavily used.

[Lechai]

Turrets aren't all bad, but i can see the pro's and con's for them.

My thoughts on how to fix the current game to make it more likely and interesting without removing them altogether.

Break turrets into 3 separate items.

• Manual Hard-point - Must be upgraded with a weapon in your possession, becoming a manually operated turret of that weapons type. (receives bonus to rate of fire and accuracy) Does not require research.
• Automatic Hard-Point - Must be upgraded with a weapon in your possession, becoming an automatically operated turret of that weapons type. Receives bonus to rate of fire and accuracy. Requires Research (Turret Control) and a Turret Control Unit.
• Turret Control Unit - Can be built anywhere but must be connected to the same power grid as the turrets to control them. Can control up to 5 turrets. Requires Research (Turret Control) and an AI Core.

That would make turrets handy, limited, and difficult to obtain. And keep the primary defense of your colony in the hands of the colonists.
To balance this, the size of the attacking raids would have to be reduced to reflect the reduced turret count.

[Johnny Masters]

Not that I think turrets are the root of all evil, I actually like the concept a lot, but they do need some thinking. Lets see

- They are not unrealistic at all, we already have automatic guns, imagine the future. But i do agree they are too early on the tech tree.
- Sentries are awesome, but i guess in that sense they could be anticlimactic. Check this scene in Aliens:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQDy-5IQvuU 
That's one very cool way to handle sentries, not the only, but a really cool one.
This work because :
a) the sentries are cool. They kill stuff fast while they (hamanz) watch on the screen. awesome
b) but they also have limitations, they have ammo which runs out. uh oh
c) in the end, the fight belong to the humans

Should the game need ammo ? Not necessarily, but they need a limitation while still being awesome (in contrary of just nerfing the guns). IMO, It should be awesome against hordes  and sucky against smart enemies, for example. Or should be good to defend mining outposts against monster / feral creatures, small raiding parties, but should fall quickly against an organized force (grenades, rocket launchers...).
Perhaps the sentry should be a haulable object / equipable and the pawn sets it where you want, perhaps it has an operation limit (it works for x amount of time) or needs to be refueled/rearmed from time to time.

Either way, i support that it needs to be a research path and that it needs to be controlled in its number (command console, AI, whatever).

"Personally, I think turret's are a must for outdoor colonies"
Although currently they are a must, I don't think that's the way it should be. Nothing should be a must - everytime - to dictate how you want to build your colony, short of adapting to challenges.

"Arbitrary research requirement doesn't change much.  It just makes turrets the de-facto first thing to research, then back to square one"
Not if the game has - and I'm repeating myself here - more variety.

What is this variety? First the game has to be more defined in its purpose. Is it more of a sim builder or a strategy survival? Does or should it last as long as the player want it or does it have an ending? Should it be a tense or a chill experience?

The directors answers only partially to this, but doesn't define the scope of the game.
Sim city and other similar builders have a clear definition: you select your difficulty, map and you build stuff in it. You might have different scenarios with different resources and, depending on the game you have missions (time sensitive missions, collecting, resource managing, you might even need to defend against barbarians while keeping your pop happy and then there's the obligatory sandbox mode.

In games like command & conquer and similar rts, you have missions with clear win and lose conditions. Every map has its own challenges and design. You might have different resources to deal with, distinct enemies, several map features with varied effects,  so there's usually not a single "win" strategy, and then there's the obligatory skirmish mode.

Right now, in rimworld, i don't think it has a clear scope of what it is (and that's ok, it's still growing up) nor it has enough diversity to allow for multiple strategies neither a secondary game mode experience.

I don't want turrets to go away, I don't want  dwarfing to be nerfed to the point of annoyance. But I want that not every game makes you need to build turrets, nor build a mountain fortress(actually, to punish you more for not building one), or killboxes (actually, to punish you more for not building one) although sometimes it should do. I want the game to challenge me in ways that make me want to adapt in varied ways, but sometimes I might just want to chill down, relax and build happy-garden-town. I guess what i want is more game modes and missions if you want to put that way, and a better defined game goal/end goal.

If you have this, researching turrets might not need to be the obvious research path. If you drop on an arid planet, you might wanna research ways to increase your food production first; if you drop on a jungle world you might want to research into medicine and vaccines first; if you suffer from earthquakes you might want to keep of from mountains; if you have bloodsucking mosquitoes  you might want to dwarf, at least until you research some kind of repellent. Etcetera.
-
Someone would care, in another thread, to discuss endgame, goals and game modes or is too soon to talk about it again?

tl;dr:  the game needs more variety, be it endgame goals, game modes and/or events.

[kingtyris]

The thing about kill boxes is that they're expensive. A few large raids can knock out a lot if not most or all of your turrets before breaking, and rebuilding the entire setup can take more resources than you have to spare. I've adjusted my play style to focus less on kill boxes and more on sandbagged positions with turrets supporting my colonists.

I agree that turrets in this alpha stage of the game feel incomplete and need work, though. I like the idea of requiring base-weapons to build turrets, but that could make the balance of the game funky.

[Varnhagen]

Turrets fulfill a dual purpose in the game: Spray bullets and suck up damage. They aren't particularly good at either one, thus players build ever more of them trying to overcome their weaknesses.
My current colony is a flat forest 400x400 map and I'm roughly 18 months in. Enemy hords range from 20 to 35 heads depending on the faction, up to ten if they are mechanoids. I usually dispatch them with a crew of 5 (2 Sniper, 1 Minigun, 1 LMG, 1 R4) and an optional Brawler. It's working pretty good without any turrets, but has a huge disadvantage that dominates the gameplay: All the damage the turrets would absorb is sunk into my peeps. Most of them are heavily cyborged by now, with at least 3 bionic parts each. Recently I had to put down my LMG (15 building and 15 crafting) because his shoulder got torn off and a bionic arm needs somewhere to attach to.
A turret defense relies on a constant supply of metal. A colonist defense on a supply of limbs and organs. Metal you get for free. Limbs are pretty expensive and need time to heal. In the first six months of the colony, I had to use lot of the time between the attacks to get my peeps back in shape, leaving not much time for much else. Now that the colony has grown, only half the population sleeps all day.

Turrets aren't a must have. It's a choice between two distinct ways to play this game. But once you've gone down the turret path, it's a oneway street that takes you to kill-box central.

So my 2 cents on the mater:

• Turrets are high tech: A game shouldn't start with them, because they are really anticlimactic. Especially in the first few weeks/couple months most threats can be easily overcome by the colonists. A rampaging squirrel is no match for a single turret as are the first enemy waves. Turrets reduce the hardships of the start, demoting threats to turret fodder and teach the average player, that turrets are the only way to defend, sending them up the killbox escalation. Plus, I doubt that a ragtag band of three finds enough rare materials, let alone the knowledge to build a solar plant, some batteries and turrets out of thin air/in their crashed escape pods. A modern photovoltaics engineer crashlanded in the Andes wouldn't be able to construct some solar panels either.
  A turret techtree comprised of several models with distinct features and several upgrades would demand an investment from players, improve base defense options and offer strategic choices for the mid-game. Plus a couple low tech defenses like traps, as mentioned elsewhere on this board.
• 
  Turrets are too weak and don't scale well: Turrets can never have the same combat value as a colonist. They lack proper cover and can easily be overrun. But that could be compensated if they were to some degree mobile. A problem of open colonies is, that the player has to guard all sides at once. Spreading some turrets evenly around the base will see in most scenarios a large part of your defense idle while the attack will be scaled for the entire base worth including the useless turrets. The only way to mitigate that, would be to create a chokepoint on which all turrets could come to bear. The killbox. Basically a mountain in the open.
  If it were possible, that colonists could reseat a turret, they would be engaged in the combat preparations or, during a drop or rush there would be a suspense of "Do they make it in time to shift the defenses?".
• 
  Turrets are too cheap: The colonists demand a steady upkeep of food and housekeeping. Turrets are a fire and forget kind of thing. Ammo would be great, regular maintenance would be great, too. Perhaps turret HP could decay over time, requiring some colonist to come by and do repairs?
• 
  Turrets are disposable: The greatest difference between turrets and colonists is the emotional investment. A lot of players still have dedicated graveyards for their peeps. A destroyed turret is nothing. The lost metal can be recuperated in a heart-beat by mining or selling off guns. Increase the cost of a turret to the point that a loss is unacceptable early-game. Turrets wouldn't be the first but the last line of a defense.
• 
  Turrets go boom: Because they are so cheap and hassle-free turrets need to have a drawback gameplay-wise. If destroyed they take everything in the vicinity with them. To try to protect the turrets, players will build more of them to support each other. An exploding turret takes the surrounding defenses with it, thus a fight of turrets and colonists in the same trench is mostly avoided. What if a turret didn't go doomsday but instead would be just shut off, to be repaired later?

Expanding on the last point: The player could be offered a choice to either scuttle the turret for some measly slag or a new workbench to repair 'Ye old trusty, rusty tincan could be used to have the colonists repair them. This would increase the players engagement with the turret part of his defense. With colonists you need to lick your wounds, turrets are just rebuild right now. Why not re-furbish them for a small amount of resources?

TL;DR: The (My) ideal turret would be more expensive , wouldn't self-destruct, would require ammo and maintenance and could be re-deployed by colonists. A workbench to maintain and repair destroyed turrets could enhance the players engagement with them.

-agreed-

[Mathenaut]

"What is this variety? First the game has to be more defined in its purpose. Is it more of a sim builder or a strategy survival? Does or should it last as long as the player want it or does it have an ending? Should it be a tense or a chill experience? "

That is dictated by the AI Storyteller and your difficulty.  Regardless, the first choice on research is still to build turrets, to reduce the risk to your colonists.

"Turrets aren't a must have."
The alternative is a problem.  As stated yourself, advanced weapons and heavily cyborged colonists.  If turrets don't perform as a colonist does, they shouldn't be costing what a colonist does.  Making them more annoying to use won't reduce their use.

[stefanstr]

Some very good points, people.

I like the idea of removing the turret explosions. Currently, an exploding turret tends to take a few enemies with it. I tend to build a chain of killboxes with a single turret in everyone. Every explosion = 10 enemies less.

This one change alone would make turrets less of an automatic choice.

I agree that "the alternative is a problem". However, weakening turrets or moving them to mid-game would make it possible to further limit the sizes of enemy bands. It could be easily balanced out.

[jaeden25]

Changing turrets doesn't solve any problem in the game. Stop trying to change turrets because of killboxes, people won't stop making them even if you remove turrets and so what if they make them, why do you care? You don't have to make them.

There is literally nothing to discuss on turrets, they are not broken so stop ignoring this and stop trying to think how to change them.

[keylocke]

i think all gun-related "problems" can be solved with the inclusion of ammo, inventory, and item degradation systems, and weapon/armor manufacturing. since the turrets (or guns in general) tends to feel like it's still an "incomplete" system.

or maybe i'm just trolling by throwing those long controversial topics into this mix. i'm not sure anymore. discuss.

[Varnhagen]

If turrets don't perform as a colonist does, they shouldn't be costing what a colonist does.  Making them more annoying to use won't reduce their use.

I don't aim for reducing their use, but to better define them and give players options beyond turret-spamming. Kingtyris pointed out, that late-game kill-boxes are expensive to rebuild, but a player doesn't have the choice to abandon the kill-box defense at a later stage because his entire setup his geared towards it.
Just got a band of 40 tribals stomping the grounds. 18 dead, 7 incapped, the rest is fleeing. For the prize of a bionic arm. That's a great trade. I could easily decide to build turrets now - my stockpile is full of metal.
But I won't do that, because my game is pretty varied. Peeps are scurrying about the map, with no fortifications hindering their movements. Every fight is different and offers unique challenges, because, believe it or not, open terrain warfare is what the AI is good at.¹ Players are locked into a state of heavily repetitive gameplay (build, rebuild) with the killbox defense - I know, at least for myself that was true.
And part of the problem are the turrets in their current iteration. And I agree, the future mustn't be annoying. Annoying players is never a wise design decision.

Not if the game has - and I'm repeating myself here - more variety. [..] I want the game to challenge me in ways that make me want to adapt in varied ways, but sometimes I might just want to chill down, relax and build happy-garden-town.

I think that's the crucial point. Variety offers meaningful strategic choices and allows the player to adapt to new situations. And I'm all for choice. I'm glad, that alot of this variety can be brought into the game via some of the outstanding mods, this community has made, and I think that Vanilla-Rimworld can and has to learn from them.

I get that turrets are placeholders for now, and that the devs are focusing on expanding game-play mechanics instead of content - that's what the mods excel at, after all. But I think that this thread can contribute to how the turret system could be fleshed out in future game iterations.
Saying, that all is shiny and demanding a stop to a fruitful discussion is besides the point.²

+1 for ammo and inventory. That's an exciting avenue to take.

¹ Having the AI come for a chokepoint and to 'let 'em have it' is transforming the very distinct threat each faction poses into a bland AI dumbness, that players complain about afterwards. The tactics of all factions differ due to the different weapons they use. Heaving said that, leaving the AI with the room to maneuver allows it to try to outflank your position which is met by repositioning and ambushing the flanking forces. That's a great dynamic. Mid-battle events are also more common. In a kill-box the enemy has to make it or break it. On open field you'll see parts of the frontline panicking, a stalemate might be met with an abduction plan. Most battles with an entrenched setup were only getting fun for me (were only registered as a non-nuisance), once my killbox was breached.
² What about tanks? Ranging between remotely operated Light tank drones and manned machine-gun mounted buggies, players could employ combined arms tactics and take the firepower of their turrets with them into battle, easing the toll it takes. Several pawns could be required to operate the different systems on these devices making them rare.

[Mikhail Reign]

I could handle turrets being entirely removed and replaced with more defensive options manned and performed by colonists - Emplaced MG's and Energy weapons, a more effective 'cover' (trench line?), a way to reposition people with less threat (limited time cloaking?) - as well as more 'effective' enemies eg: they dont always choose the path of least resistance, will split into smaller groups and flank, make breaches in wall to force and entry.

By having the enemy NOT go straight into a killblock, limits a kill boxes usefulness and makes it a less attractive option.

I'm currently enjoying a map in which I purposely built very few torrents, and gave the enemy multiple places to attack from (while still coming through chock points). Basically they come thought a hole in the wall opposite which is a gun line with snipers on the far flank, grenadiers hard up against the wall either side of the opening (and able to fall back into the wall) covered by brawlers, with only 2 turrets either side of the gunline ever so slightly closer the the hole then they are. Raiders come in, the first few are blown to pieces by grenades and the ones that aren't are shredded by the fire that was directed at the dead. Only then do they return fire which is mostly directed at the 2 turrets - they are normally killed long before they do any damage. Have so far lasted 3 years with only one casualty. If my colonist were just able to soak up a little more damage, or I was able to repair some of the more serious injury's (UGGGH! shoulders) I would remove the turrets entirely. It has been the most enjoyable play thought of the game so far - previously everything way 'build into a moutain and put lots of turrets between me and them and never worry about raids.'