Re: [MAIN] XPiratez - N9.7.7 12-Sep-2024 Second Coming

[Ultimoos]

In what country does Dioxine live?

[Delian]

Hello. Today I would like to complain about how overpowered HARVESTER is.
Firstly, 20 crew would be fine if they were all peasants, but peasants aren't what people put on that craft. They put ubers, armored cars, lokk'naars, everything except peasants lol. Other than some late game transports, nothing comes close. Well, there's CONVOY, but that one's way slower and more dangerous to do missions in.
Secondly, camping in this craft is too easy because no windows.
And lastly, you can block lifts so melee enemies can never reach you.

[Dioxine]

@Delian: Harvester is only available as a part of Peasant Revolution path, and Peasant Revolution is not mandatory.
And yes, you can easily cheat on peasant path by not using peasants, but this is your choice. I only give much better opportunity to make peasants the primary fighting force on this path - for someone who WANTS it.

[Delian]

you can easily cheat on peasant path by not using peasants

First time I hear that that would be considered cheating. For all players know, it's intended behavior that they can put whatever they want on that craft.
Besides, even if we ignore the HARVESTER, Peasant Revolution is already the best path because Revolution HQ is also OP~

You know, if you wanted to, you could easily request a feature that would prevent players from adding non-peasants to the HARVESTER. Where was it... ah, here. Basically, add a "allowedSoldierTypes" property to crafts that would allow you to specify such limitations. But you could also simply prevent players from recruiting any ubers and other OP soldiers when on that path.

[Solarius Scorch]

First time I hear that that would be considered cheating.

Pretty sure it was sarcasm.

You know, if you wanted to, you could easily request a feature that would prevent players from adding non-peasants to the HARVESTER. Where was it... ah, here. Basically, add a "allowedSoldierTypes" property to crafts that would allow you to specify such limitations. But you could also simply prevent players from recruiting any ubers and other OP soldiers when on that path.

But why would ubers not be able to use the Harvester? On what ground? It would only make sense if it was powered by Chryssalid gas, with bad isolation.

While I'm not Dioxine, I have discussed a very similar issue with him recently and he agreed with my point that the only way something can be OP in a single player game is if it makes some other thing redundant (assuming that it was not supposed to be redundant in the first place). This does not apply here, as the Harvester is only available to peasant enjoyers.

[Delian]

if it makes some other thing redundant

My opinion is that, as things stand, "Gals Are Superior" and "We Need Male Touch" are redundant because Peasant Revolution perks are too strong, while its downsides are easily mitigated (ubers and slave soldiers are easy to come by). I'll pick this path even when I'm not peasant enjoyer, because it provides for the strongest early and mid-game bonuses.

But why would ubers not be able to use the Harvester? On what ground?

I'm sure you can think of some sort of lore that would make it possible. For instance, "This craft is a flagship of revolution, so it goes against our principles for other races to use it." or simply "The engineering design of this craft prevents non-peasants from operating it."

[Psyentific]

My opinion is that, as things stand, "Gals Are Superior" and "We Need Male Touch" are redundant because Peasant Revolution perks are too strong, while its downsides are easily mitigated (ubers and slave soldiers are easy to come by). I'll pick this path even when I'm not peasant enjoyer, because it provides for the strongest early and mid-game bonuses.

I've noticed this as well. Even playing PR, it's still fairly easy to come by Uber Gals and Castaways and other such recruits. PR seems like it's best played with a small cadre of Gals acting as shock troops within a large mass of peasants. Operative word 'small', if you're smart about not getting shot you can wind up with a majority-gals away team anyway.

[JustTheDude/CABSHEP]

snip

Then simply restrict yourself from putting too much non-peasants on it. Sure, you can min-max the hell out of it, but the branches are more or less your own choice in playstyle and a bit of roleplay. Might as well say that "Reject the Power" is redundant, because picking any codex is better from powergaming perspectivie.
In my opinion if something is OP, but one could easly either not use it, or restrict himself to use it fairly, then it isn't a problem.

And there really doesn't exist a half-decent reason why gals (or any other race, or just males) couldn't use Harvester. Civilian Agrocultural machine shouldn't be much different in operating than aircar, airbus, or airvan, which gals operate with no problem.
The "principles of revolution" argument also doesn't hold, because of a quote from "Peasant Revolution!" after research sreen:

" ...Whatever number of Gals or assorted adventurers you can raise for your cause, it's not big. Big picture is the peasants. They're everywhere, they're the backbone of Earth's society. After all, they provide food. If only they weren't so passive...! ...But with their bravest girls as the vanguard, and your Gals as the tip of the spear, they can be roused from this slumber... and the world will never be the same! You have communicated your grand ideas to a council of village elders. Most of them said you're insane, but you did manage to rouse a small cadre of idealists. It is enough for now; in time, you believe truly, it'll snowball into an avalanche!..."

Uber Gals are considered a part of this revolution. One could make argument against Lokk'Naars, but what those little goblin girls are any different than your common peasants in terms of joining the revolution? Especially when taking gameplay into consideration, where they are surely weaker on average than gals. And what is the problem with armored cars being transported there?

[Psyentific]

if you're concerned about the lore just say that the harvester has low ceilings on account of being a converted grain hauler, and so the gals won't fit comfortably

[Solarius Scorch]

My opinion is that, as things stand, "Gals Are Superior" and "We Need Male Touch" are redundant because Peasant Revolution perks are too strong

It also feels like pulling teeth, thank you very much.
Even if it is, so what? It's like saying that "Embrace the power" is OP when compared to "Reject the power". You want to play it easier? Be my guest. Who is stopping you?

I'm sure you can think of some sort of lore that would make it possible. For instance, "This craft is a flagship of revolution, so it goes against our principles for other races to use it." or simply "The engineering design of this craft prevents non-peasants from operating it."

What kind of people's revolution would be so racist?

[JustTheDude/CABSHEP]

if you're concerned about the lore just say that the harvester has low ceilings on account of being a converted grain hauler, and so the gals won't fit comfortably

Yet they can fit comfortably in non-converted grain haulers found around the world when they raid those.
Harvester is just too low-tech and gals just enough don't give a damn about stuff for any kind of rule to keep them away.
If this was some high-tech shuttle with some kind of AI that scans the occupants and doesn't allow the lift-off if it detects any non-human, or males onboard. Or if it was only rented to gals by some kind of racist/fanatical "true" pureblood organisation that allows usage only to fellow "true" pureblood females.

All the conversion does is stripping harvesting equipment, adding a bit of hellerium, adding a bit of armor plating and a gun mounts.

The only half-decent reason would be the infamous gal supersitions that say that they simply refuse to board it because its bad omen, or something like that.

[greattuna]

You'd still have 20 guns in your harvester regardless. Possibly more trained than your gals, too, with all these benefits Peasant Revolution provides. You'd also still be able to drive cars and tanks, so I don't really see how cancelling the gals would change much.

Also, where do you find enough gals to fill out harvester? I can do that in second year, but by then I hardly need so many at one place, plus I have a menace or can outfit my convoy enough to feel safe about sending it somewhere.

[Warzameg]

I use the harvester.  I think I'm good at keeping gals alive, but I don't find it easy to get 20 uninjured ubers together to fill out a harvester for some time, and if I could, I wouldn't bother.

I run mixed crews.  Gals and clones and girl guides, mostly, sometimes with gnomes and lokk'naars.  For me, the cool and unique thing on the peasant path is that composite teams like this can work.  On the other paths, gals leave them all behind (except for syns and gnome vehicle drivers).

I like that with the harvester, I feel able to send gnomes to missions in something other than a car or tank or loader suit.  I'd be nervous doing that in trucks or the Fortuna.

I agree the peasant path is extremely powerful, if you know the game well enough to keep your gals alive.  I think the gal route is still better for a new player.  But before the peasant path came out, I played male touch without bothering to hire any SS, just because I preferred gal scarcity.  I don't play the peasant path because it's powerful: I play it because it's the coolest and most fun.  It's a single-player game: if people want a challenge, they can up the difficulty.

[Warface]

Is there a reason to keep a "Catgirl Captive" after I've researched one? Perhaps for a future update?

[Delian]

You produce "Recruit: Outlaw Catgirl" to turn the captive into an Outlaw Catgirl