My proposal for the turret problem.

[Produno]

So i read Tynan's quote in another thread.

I actually don't want to add more turret stuff because turrets aren't really helping the game. I'm even on the verge of cutting them. They take the fight away from the characters and make it a tower defense optimization game, which isn't what RW is supposed to be.

You could just make turrets really expensive. say 5k metal for one turret, but up their hp a bit. That means people may only get to have a couple of well placed turrets and thats all. You could also up their power usage or even make them so they have to be manned. That way the person manning them will take damage too. This also makes more sense in a Rimworld type of situation, i mean an auto turret is quite a complex piece of kit! i doubt my oaf and a couple of other random people could build one quite so efficeintly! You could even make them unpredictable, ie they get damaged alot whilst being fired. Lots of tactical advantages could be added for turrets

So i think theirs plenty to change before the need to remove them completely.

This also leads to more research. And i guess the same could be applied to anything in rimworld to create more cheap content. For instance the walls, first set of walls this ragtag bunch can muster is some basic protection from wind and rain (so walls with less hp and need repairing more frequent). After research better walls can be made. These can be the same graphics as the previous walls for now but with more hp.

Before you know it youve added twice as much content, twice as much fun and twice the playabilty pretty easily.


To summarise my suggestion, you could add either or

• make turrets much more expensive but increase HP.
• Limit the amount of turrets that can be built.
• make them unpredictable whilst being fired, or just altogether. (increase repair damage rate)
• Adjust the power needed to operate them.
• Remove the visual range.
• Add a power surge to the rest of your base whilst the turrets in operation, ie nothing else gets powered whilst turret operating.
• Add the need for a capacitor next to the turret to account for more power usage. (a simple battery)
• Make it so they have to be manned, or a colonist within a certain vicinity of the turret, or even assign a colonist to it like the beds.
• Add upgrade paths and make upgrades cost (more) metal. (I currently dont do any research because its pretty pointless)

This means less turrets can be build and maintained hopefully helping with the tower defence, kill zone problems.


I hope you can take this into consideration as i think it will add much more to the game.

[Sundaysmile]

If Tynan wants to do away with the turrets, I think that's fine. 

Just my own opinion though, I think we need better defences which still include the colonists to actively take part in the battle rather than just let expendable turrets do all the work, while the colonists sit pretty inside their homes.

E.G.  You could build a pill box type structure where the colonist can fire, but gains substantial cover bonuses.  Similarly you could build sniper nests, a watch tower that while flimsy, increases range and accuracy of weapons fired from it. 

Just my two cents.

[Produno]

just let expendable turrets do all the work, while the colonists sit pretty inside their homes.

Pretty much everything i stated means turrets would no longer be expendable. Some of them also mean your colonist has to be actively working on the turret for it to even work.

As it stands people can build 8 -15+ turrets and leave them to pummel the raiders. It wouldnt be so easy if you could only build 1 or 2. Then if they needed to be manned or have a colonist near by that would make it even harder. Do you use the turret, or sit back with a m-24, of course this would depend on the type of raiders attacking you. If the turret takes damage whilst being fired (because its been built unreliably by a ragtag bunch of nobodys) do you draft a colonist to stay near by to repair it, or do you issue him a gun and let him fight.
If a turret cost you huge amounts of metal would you leave it in the open for a sniper squad to demolish? In the same breath this would also need to balanced though, you wouldnt want to spend say 5k metal on a turret for it to be blown up by a grenade in the next raid..

[Oranda]

If Tynan wants to do away with the turrets, I think that's fine. 

Just my own opinion though, I think we need better defences which still include the colonists to actively take part in the battle rather than just let expendable turrets do all the work, while the colonists sit pretty inside their homes.

E.G.  You could build a pill box type structure where the colonist can fire, but gains substantial cover bonuses.  Similarly you could build sniper nests, a watch tower that while flimsy, increases range and accuracy of weapons fired from it. 

Just my two cents.

Yes, the basics need to be coverd, guard towers and pillboxes all the way.

[Produno]

Yes, the basics need to be coverd, guard towers and pillboxes all the way.

Im not dismissing adding the basics, but this thread is about offering options to keep the turrets whilst creating more tactical play and enhancing the game.

[Galileus]

Step 1: Keep turrets, de-automate them (man-operated). Make them threat-specific (MG's were always fine to lay covering fire, but needed support to address either armoured or flanking threats) and in need of support.
Step 2: Firepower at a cost of mobility is now pretty much non-existent case. If a settler would be in one of turrets that not only limits their number, but makes you think twice about relying on them alone. Balance with that in mind, add specific counter-turret measures for Raiders.
Step 3: As soon as someone flanks you outside of the cone of fire (that would need 8-way rotation, but would be so worth it!) or - even worse - brings a suppression-immune squad (rush, assault, kamikaze): good bye turret and turret operator! Refine turrets to bring out their pros even more while sneakily loading them with more and more worst-case scenarios that need on-foot support teams to negate.
Step 4: Teach Cassandra how to respond to turrets saturation (squad formation, artillery support?, power sabotage) and formulate tactics working well against it. Make sure she don't deploy them as much or at all when turret saturation is low, make her bring hell on heavily-armoured colonies - as they will be seen as a threat by not only random raider parties, but every minor and major power in the quadrant, wanting to say "Hello, did we meet? We're the though guys".
Step 5: Make sure the underlying mechanic of rising military presence tied in directly to raiders interest and hate is well stated and presented in some kind in game. It may be a slider buried deep in stats or random thoughts of colonists (negative "our militarization scares me" or positive "our strength is surely a sight to behold!" depending on perks and class).
Step 6: Teach Cassandra to laugh maniacally like any good sadistic girl should.

My approach. Was supposed to be simple and tiny, but got... bigger. I wonder how would you feel about such twist?

PS. Approach of balancing through stats is a good one on low scale and in short terms. Risks of power creep and mathematical problems (direct link between cost and efficiency) is huge, and over all this is a balancing best done AFTER the proper balancing in terms of mechanics and rulesets. My approach tries to address that problem and create a perfect imbalance - a situation, when build-in fail-safes prevent players from abusing mechanics, while still keeping them as powerful and usable as they are intended to be. It addresses the problem of turrets abuse without actually nerfing the turrets.

[Zanfib]

snip

I agree with this idea. Make turrets a trade off between firepower and mobility while keeping their numbers limited by the number of people you have.

[starlight]

If Tynan wants to do away with the turrets, I think that's fine. 

Just my own opinion though, I think we need better defences which still include the colonists to actively take part in the battle rather than just let expendable turrets do all the work, while the colonists sit pretty inside their homes.

E.G.  You could build a pill box type structure where the colonist can fire, but gains substantial cover bonuses.  Similarly you could build sniper nests, a watch tower that while flimsy, increases range and accuracy of weapons fired from it. 

Just my two cents.

I like the idea of pill boxes and watch towers. Far more in-simulation.

Further, it also helps with making use of your most precious resource - people.
Meaning you need to have people there to fire.

I would not mind tunnels which could be used to reach the pill boxes / watch towers without attracting enemy fire.
(This is, of course, veering dangerously into 3D territory but here I think the rewards would be worth it.)

[Sky_walker]

So i read Tynan's quote in another thread.

I actually don't want to add more turret stuff because turrets aren't really helping the game. I'm even on the verge of cutting them. They take the fight away from the characters and make it a tower defense optimization game, which isn't what RW is supposed to be.

You could just make turrets really expensive. say 5k metal for one turret, but up their hp a bit. That means people may only get to have a couple of well placed turrets and thats all. You could also up their power usage or even make them so they have to be manned. That way the person manning them will take damage too. This also makes more sense in a Rimworld type of situation, i mean an auto turret is quite a complex piece of kit! i doubt my oaf and a couple of other random people could build one quite so effi

• make turrets much more expensive but increase HP.
• Limit the amount of turrets that can be built.
• make them unpredictable whilst being fired, or just altogether. (increase repair damage rate)
• Adjust the power needed to operate them.
• Remove the visual range.
• Add a power surge to the rest of your base whilst the turrets in operation, ie nothing else gets powered whilst turret operating.
• Add the need for a capacitor next to the turret to account for more power usage. (a simple battery)
• Make it so they have to be manned, or a colonist within a certain vicinity of the turret, or even assign a colonist to it like the beds.
• Add upgrade paths and make upgrades cost (more) metal. (I currently dont do any research because its pretty pointless)

IMHO:
It's too extreme and some of the points don't make any sense (eg. "remove visual range" or "make them unpredictable" or "nothing else gets powered whilst turret operating").

And if there are any manned turrets - they shouldn't consume any power at all, or very little of it. (these are kinda like manned HMGs. In real life they don't consume any power at all)

[Galileus]

And if there are any manned turrets - they shouldn't consume any power at all, or very little of it. (these are kinda like manned HMGs. In real life they don't consume any power at all)

In real life we don't crash on abandoned planets either

But I'm afraid you're wrong on this one - the question is not if in real life HMG nests use power but if they use state of the art technology. And yes, they do. While handguns and small arms of times past are still popular and it's reasonable to assume it won't change, nested guns are a different category - a military one rather than a personal one. This is well enough to excuse turrets being on completely different level than antique firearms - because while in the badlands they would be still very popular, there is a huge gap between personal use (equipment) and military use (building defensive line). So we can safely assume colonists would not be able to quite cut it at constructing fully functional firearms of their own at first, but would be more than able to upgrade their nests with a little plating or aiming systems or anything else, and thus - being forced to run them by mechanical drives, and thus needing electricity for them.

And such an explanation is all you need and more - after all, there is real-life logic and game logic, and game logic works on matters "how to balance the ruleset" and not "how to replicate real life".

[cidjikai]

Sorry Galileus but I don't get your point. While replicating real life is not an obligation, I have trouble accepting the idea of lost colonists being able to build an automated turret from scratch on day one (not to mention solar panels or nutrient paste dispenser, but that's another story) while they have to wait for traders (or dead raiders) to get 20th century personal firearms.

Oh, and BTW, hi everyone ^^ (first post here)

[GenMcMuster]

Yeah, it's not a problem of feasibility within the game world it's just that these turrets just aren't thematically appropriate for the game. At least the early game anyways, maybe they can come back in the endgame along with miner bots and other robotic stuff they may develop sentience and try to kill all humans.

But as the game stands (fledgling frontier colony simulator) the most appropriate defenses for a settlement are ramshackle perimeter walls sand bag pillboxes and watchtowers made out of rough cut wood and corrugated metal. This is based on the assumption that raiders get their shit toned down and/or become more civil and less likely to risk their lives to kill a few refugees, better defensive options(MG nests, field guns) as well as a progression for building materials: sandbag and plywood box fort--> Concrete and sanbag pillbox---> Reinforced concrete bunker (stupidly expensive and likely impractical)

[Sundaysmile]

Yeah, it's not a problem of feasibility within the game world it's just that these turrets just aren't thematically appropriate for the game. At least the early game anyways, maybe they can come back in the endgame along with miner bots and other robotic stuff they may develop sentience and try to kill all humans.

But as the game stands (fledgling frontier colony simulator) the most appropriate defenses for a settlement are ramshackle perimeter walls sand bag pillboxes and watchtowers made out of rough cut wood and corrugated metal. This is based on the assumption that raiders get their shit toned down and/or become more civil and less likely to risk their lives to kill a few refugees, better defensive options(MG nests, field guns) as well as a progression for building materials: sandbag and plywood box fort--> Concrete and sanbag pillbox---> Reinforced concrete bunker (stupidly expensive and likely impractical)

We also need pillow forts.

No Raidurz Allowed!

[Sky_walker]

IMHO that idea got it better: http://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=650.0

[Galileus]

Sorry Galileus but I don't get your point. While replicating real life is not an obligation, I have trouble accepting the idea of lost colonists being able to build an automated turret from scratch on day one (not to mention solar panels or nutrient paste dispenser, but that's another story) while they have to wait for traders (or dead raiders) to get 20th century personal firearms.

Missed my point - my explanation was on how it could be explained why turrets consume power (and they should - it's a clear balancing mechanic and allows for counter-measures). It was all theoretical and working on assumptions future turrets won't be automated but manned, and did not touch the matter of actually building them.

But that's easy enough too. We're talking about escapees in a escape-pod that was clearly designed to survive re-entry. Such a pod would have necessities and tools for survival - and as we're in badlands, it only stands for reason defence would be one of these necessities. But at the same time while there could be a database allowing for building of automated defensive structures (or manned, if the change flies), there definitely won't be no XX/XXI weaponry or even any personal weaponry at all. It also stands to reason a high-grade weaponry would need more complicated facilities to produce than simple and crude survival tools delivered with the drop-pod.