[DONE][Suggestion] Base Defense Facility Ammunition

[skyhawk]

In vanilla TFTD [And there's an equivalent in EU/UFO I believe] there's a late-game weapon type called the PWT. It requires ammunition that is very expensive in Zrbite.

There's a craft PWT launcher, which likewise requires very Zrbite expensive projectiles.

Then there's a base defense facility, which costs no exotics to build [You've already addressed this], but can also fire at incoming hostiles without a care in the world, because its ammunition is free.

This suggestion will not have any impact at all on vanilla, but allow modders to easily correct this situation:

facilities.rul
  Add two attributes
    ammunitionType: default none
    ammunitionCount: default 0
    [optional] noAmmoMessage: default 'NO AMMO'? # This would allow per-facility type no ammo strings

The logic is very straightforward. During a base defense, this facility cannot fire if the required ammunition is not present [Print a message like 'NO AMMO']. If the facility does fire, subtract the ammunition from stores.

OPTIONAL - Allow reduced damage with incomplete ammo loads. For example - the facility has a defense strength of 1000 and an ammo count of 4 [4 torpedo launchers]. If there's only two torpedoes in stock, the facility will fire for a strength of [(1000/4) * 2]. Some way of communicating to the player that ammunition was insufficient would be a good idea, but I'm not sure the best way to handle that.

This will also require tweaking the UFOPedia to show the required quantity and type of ammunition.

[davide]

+1

there is this thread about them

https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,3513.msg42822.html#msg42822

[Meridian]

Added.

Code: [Select]

facilities:
  - type: STR_MISSILE_DEFENSES
    defense: 500
    hitRatio: 50
    ammoNeeded: 2                       # default 1
    ammoItem: STR_AVALANCHE_MISSILES    # default empty
    fireSound: 5
    hitSound: 10


Code: [Select]

  STR_NO_AMMO: "NO AMMO!"

No partial loads.
No custom messages per facility.

Ufopedia will show the info under the "INFO" button (a.k.a. Stats for Nerds).
Or you can just update the description.

[skyhawk]

Unexpected Necromancy!

Thanks Meridian.

[TBeholder]

Code: [Select]

facilities:
  - type: STR_MISSILE_DEFENSES
    defense: 500
    hitRatio: 50
    ammoNeeded: 2                       # default 1
    ammoItem: STR_AVALANCHE_MISSILES    # default empty
. . .
No partial loads.
No custom messages per facility.

Why not (shots) × (ammo per shot)?
So e.g. for improved pseudo-vanilla: have 9× (as on the map) Avalanches inflicting their nominal 100 damage each, balanced by adjusting Hit ratio as needed.
If done this way, the facility will probably need to add “storage” space adequate for its ammunition… but why not?

[krautbernd]

What would this actually accomplish or how would this improve the game in ways that aren't already possible? Base defense facilities already have a hitRatio, and you can simply create a separate item you want to use as ammunition. You can also modify facilities to add storage space.

That aside, it's quite unlikely that the missiles used would be Avalanches in the first place, given that they are air-based missiles. So I don't really see what the point of this would be.

[TBeholder]

What would this actually accomplish or how would this improve the game in ways that aren't already possible?

Different distributions for damage.

That aside, it's quite unlikely that the missiles used would be Avalanches in the first place, given that they are air-based missiles.

Well, yeah. If SAM batteries (as surface “craft” ambushing enemies in engagement range) will be implemented, however, they may use the same ammunition.
In case of Fusion Ball it might be one and the same, why not.

[krautbernd]

Different distributions for damage.

You're describing how you envision the mechanic should work, not what it actually accomplsihes or adds to the game.

"Different distributions of damage" is already possible with different base defense facilities, given tha they can have different hit propabilities and different hit power. You can also already add storage to any base facility.

What does this actually add, in terms of gameplay?

As far as I can tell it only makes a mechanic with no player engagement and a basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed) longer and more tedious, if it's not skipped outright.

[Juku121]

While I'm not all that enthused about the proposal itself, the last post is not particularly well considered.

• Please demonsrate how 50d5 (sum of 50 uniform distributions from 1 to 5) is "already possible with different base defense facilities". Or even something remotely similar without giving half the base over to defence facilities.
  
• What it adds is modders' options, as always. Once these filter down to the players, it's exactly that, the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences. Whether these are useful or a worthwhile addition to the game will depend on the implementation.
  
• Base defences are not necessarily binary, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' exists. As does the ability to use smaller UFOs for base assaults, meaning different attackers can have different odds vs the same defenses.
  

[krautbernd]

Please demonsrate how 50d5 (sum of 50 uniform distributions from 1 to 5) is "already possible with different base defense facilities". Or even something remotely similar without giving half the base over to defence facilities.

Point is that we already have different base defense facilities with different hit probablilities and damage power. What influence on the outcome do 50 seperate shots have that a single shot does not?

Answer is none, because either UFO get's destroyed or it doesn't. The only difference is how long it takes for the defense to play out. Given that base defenses are fully automatic (unless you count disabling them), defense taking longer isn't a positive let alone meaningful addition to the game. The only reason this even came up is because the facility is modelled as having nine rockets instead of one.

What it adds is modders' options, as always. Once these filter down to the players, it's exactly that, the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences. Whether these are useful or a worthwhile addition to the game will depend on the implementation.

"Modders option" can be (and basically is) used to justify pretty much any request. That alone isn't a good enough reason to implement something. Again, what difference does any of this make in terms of gameplay, and does it add meaningful player interaction?

Answer is - as above - no, it does not. Because it does not influence anything beside presentation, i.e. base defense screen takes longer to play out. That is literally the only difference.

Base defences are not necessarily binary, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' exists.

Which is why I wrote "basically binary outcome". I fucking knew I should have been more specific because of course somebody would use this to sidetrack the issue.

The outcome for the base defense screen is binary. Either the UFO get's destroyed or it doesn't.

Citing lessAliensDuringBaseDefense as justification is quite pointless, because the mechanic works just fine with existing defenses - given that they either hit the UFO or they don't. Again, the only actual difference is how long it takes the base defense screen to play out.

[Juku121]

So, are you going to answer my first question or not?

What influence on the outcome do 50 seperate shots have that a single shot does not?

The same kind of influence a shotgun with 12 pellets has on the tactical game. Could be none if the modder fesses up, could be interesting for (base) weapon variety if not.

Do UFO armour and shields apply to base defences? If so, a 200d5 weapon (something like one of the modern short-range active defence systems which do work kinda like giant shotguns) would be murder on unarmoured UFOs and useless against anything with some armour. Since base size is quite limited, that might make for some interesting tradeoffs... given the modder sets all this up right. Just plonked into the game it's of course quite useless.

Because it does not influence anything beside presentation, i.e. base defense screen takes longer to play out. That is literally the only difference.

Not necessarily. Nobody is saying the 9 or 50 or whatever missiles each need their own line in the defence screen. Shotgun pellets do not fire individually, now do they?

Which is why I wrote "basically binary outcome". I fucking knew I should have been more specific because of course somebody would use this to sidetrack the issue.

No sidetracking, just you being plain wrong. With 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' there is a continuum of possible outcomes (UFO is destroyed, UFO survives and assaults the base with 1 alien, ... , UFO lands unmolested and all the aliens come out to play), different for each type of attacking craft (which is a sadly underused feature).

Why exactly is it so hard for you to understand that vanilla base defences are no longer the only game in town in OXCE?

Citing lessAliensDuringBaseDefense as justification is quite pointless, because the mechanic works just fine with existing defenses - given that they either hit the UFO or they don't.

Yes, but that is not the context where it was used. You said "...basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed)". In that context, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' is an entirely valid counter. Nobody was arguing that 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' somehow introduces grazes, crits or other non-binary ways to model single hits, rather that it makes the entire outcome non-binary. Which it does. It's the whole point of this feature.

"Modders option" can be (and basically is) used to justify pretty much any request. That alone isn't a good enough reason to implement something.

Yes, which is why I'm personally not particularly enthusiastic about this proposal. What I'm doing here is pointing out that you're wrong and arguing in bad faith on top of that.

[krautbernd]

The same kind of influence a shotgun with 12 pellets has on the tactical game.

Stop being obtuse, this is specifically not about the battlescape.

Do UFO armour and shields apply to base defences? If so...

And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?

FYI I did, and as far as I can tell the mechanic is currently bugged.

Not necessarily. Nobody is saying the 9 or 50 or whatever missiles each need their own line in the defence screen. Shotgun pellets do not fire individually, now do they?

The 'do', actually. But, again, this harks back to you equating this to battlescape behaviour, which this simply isn't - on multiple levels. How would this even work in regards to the information presented to the player, either on the base defence or the base information screen?

This seems like a very complicated way to accomplish pretty much nothing, and would probably require a major rewrite of the code for how base defenses work.

No sidetracking, just you being plain wrong. With 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' there is a continuum of possible outcomes

The outcome of the base defense screen is literally either "UFO IS DESTROYED" or " ".

Yes my man, that is a binary outcome. Hint: Binary means two.

There is no "continuum of possible outcomes". The outcome is either "base defense mission happens" or "base defense mission does not happen", and lessAliensDuringBaseDefense has zero impact on this. Nor does the proposed 'idea' impact how lessAliensDuringBaseDefense works.

Why exactly is it so hard for you to understand that vanilla base defences are no longer the only game in town in OXCE?

What you are referring to here has nothing to do with what is being proposed.

You're literally complaining about an "underused" feature that has nothing to do with the changes to base defences OP is requesting, not to mention that you haven't even bothered to check if your proposed "justification" for all of this actually works.

Yes, but that is not the context where it was used. You said "...basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed)". In that context, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' is an entirely valid counter.

It's not, see above.

The outcome remains binary and would not be made any less binary by the inclusion of what is being proposed here. Hence me asking the question what this actually accomplishes and how it would improve the game. Everything you have been trying to bring up in defense is independant of the mechanic being proposed here and it would not add anything meaningful to the game that isn't already possible.

Case in point:

[...]would be murder on unarmoured UFOs and useless against anything with some armour. Since base size is quite limited, that might make for some interesting tradeoffs...

a) you might want to actually try this out yourself before using theorycrafting to push an idea which might not actually work as envisioned (see above)
b) no point in only overkilling unarmored UFOs if your defense can instead kill all UFOs
c) taking a) and b) into account, "interesting tradeoffs" would already be possible
d) still needs to be balanced against crafts&craft weapons which also points back to b)

Again, I see nothing that would justify the time being spent on rewriting base defense mechanics for this because it overcomplicates a mechanic that basically works just fine and which adds no player engangement.

[TBeholder]

Oh! Another idea. In terms of freedom of movement, dog fight, bomb run and attempt to break through defenses to land are different. It would make sense to give UFO different evasion values. Interaction with defenses due to airstrike or troop delivery happens only as a part of specific missions, and as such alien mission profile itself determines which one it is; but dogfight that happens on approach is still a dogfight. Thus, maximum of two distinct situations per UFO.
So, why not avoidBonusDefenses separate from avoidBonus, to be defined for spawned UFO (or even for mission itself, to be applied at the final approach)?

You're describing how you envision the mechanic should work, not what it actually accomplsihes or adds to the game.

Very unlucky salvo is still 0, but it’s very rare. Very lucky salvo is a lot more damage, but it’s also very rare. That’s what it accomplishes. Different distribution.

"Different distributions of damage" is already possible with different base defense facilities,

One roll per facility is not the same, for purpose of meaningful choices.

As far as I can tell it only makes a mechanic with no player engagement and a basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed) longer and more tedious, if it's not skipped outright.

Er… Why would it be longer? They still have opportunities only for 1 + #(grav shields) salvo each.

• What it adds is modders' options, as always. Once these filter down to the players, it's exactly that, the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences. Whether these are useful or a worthwhile addition to the game will depend on the implementation.
  
• Base defences are not necessarily binary, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' exists. As does the ability to use smaller UFOs for base assaults, meaning different attackers can have different odds vs the same defenses.
  

Indeed. And together these two can add up to strategical choices. In that optimums for "reliably weaken a Terror Ship landing party to a limping skeleton crew, but do not outright (we need that loot)”, “best chance to destroy a Battleship” and “best chance to destroy a base-killing missile” (for example) with the same limited resources (costs / space or time to set up on a fresh base) could be very different. Thus different choices for base designs, depending on placement (is it right next to an alien base? in air support range of an existing base?) and threats present at this stage of the game.

[krautbernd]

Oh! Another idea. In terms of freedom of movement[...]

My man, does this have anything to do with the actual topic? Might it not be ab better idea to move those suggestion to a separate thread instead of highjacking this one?

Very unlucky salvo is still 0, but it’s very rare. Very lucky salvo is a lot more damage, but it’s also very rare. That’s what it accomplishes. Different distribution.

Again, you're describing how you envision the mechanic should work, not what it actually accomplishes or adds to the game. What would be the point of this that can not be achieved with existing mechanics? As far as I can tell the only difference here is "very occasionally cause more damage using one facility instead of two". I honestly don't see why that is worth the trouble of implementing it.

One roll per facility is not the same, for purpose of meaningful choices.

Why not? What isn't "meaningful" about the way defense facilities currently work?

Er… Why would it be longer?

Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?

Indeed. And together these two can add up to strategical choices[...]

I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.

You can already "reliably weaken a terror ship", "ensure your best chance to destroy a battleship" and "best chance to destroy a base-killing missile" (hint: something that is going to destroy a battleship will likely also destroy a misisle) based on different stats for defences and UFOs.

And your reasoning is outright contradictory here:

Why would you chose to "weaken a terror ship" in the first place if you're after the loot? Loot is directly proportional to spawned aliens.

How would this even be "reliable" when you are - if anything - more likely to either destroy or fail to sufficiently weaken said terror ship and risk losing your base? What happens when you're not attacked by said terror ship but by a bigger UFO?

Your proposed use-cases don't really add up, let alone do they require your proposed mechanic.

The only way any of this would remotely make sense would be if you were attacked by multiple UFOs/missiles at the same time, which might overwhelm your defences. But you are only ever attacked by one UFO at a time. The whole point of defences is to work *reliably* and to protect your base. Why would you ever go for less than the maximum protection possible, given that you can manually "allow" a UFO to land if you want/need base defence missions?

There is no actual "trade-off" here that you can't already implement with existing mechanics.

[Juku121]

Spoiler" More pointless arguing":

Stop being obtuse, this is specifically not about the battlescape.
...
But, again, this harks back to you equating this to battlescape behaviour, which this simply isn't - on multiple levels.

You seem to have something against analogies, huh? The points I was responding to were 'different damage distributions' and 'takes longer'. These have a direct analogues on the battlescape, ones that aren't in any way controversial that I know. There is exactly zero inherent reason why these could not be ported over to other parts of the game. There may be specific reasons, but you've raised these objections as if they were self-evident and universal, and they are not.

And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?

You asked what this would add to the game. I manufactured a scenario that would be a somewhat interesting addition using this feature. If it needs other code to do so, well, it's a mark against implementing it but not an argument for not considering it at all. Which is what you've been doing with your previous arguments. 'Too much work for too little gain' I entirely agree with.

The 'do', actually.

Not in any sense that would meaningfully prolong the firing animation, the direct analogue of 'takes longer to play out'.

Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?

Yes. Because the software needing another ms to do its work is irrelevant to the user.

How would this even work in regards to the information presented to the player, either on the base defence or the base information screen?

Base defences can just add the total value, same as any other defence facility regardless of hit chance. Defence screen: same as auto-shot in the Pedia? Mock-up in the attachments.

The outcome of the base defense screen is literally either "UFO IS DESTROYED" or " ".

Oh, now we're arguing about the base defence screen, as if it's something quite on its own and not tied to anything else at all?

Yes my man, that is a binary outcome.

You can draw arbitrary lines onto anything that's not binary and call it 'essentially binary'. Doesn't make it so.

Battlescape is also a "Either you win or you lose" 'binary' outcome. Doesn't mean there's not a whole lot of nuance in how.

There is no "continuum of possible outcomes".

Yes, there is. I literally spelled it out for you. Your inability to see things in context is your problem.

The outcome is either "base defense mission happens" or "base defense mission does not happen", and lessAliensDuringBaseDefense has zero impact on this.

No, the actual end result is 'base is defended' or 'base is overrun', and both 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' and if the latter is on, then the actual proceedings in the base defense screen have a massive impact on that.

Nor does the proposed 'idea' impact how lessAliensDuringBaseDefense works.

Not in a technical sense. Very much in the 'how do you defend your base with both facilities and troops' sense.

What you are referring to here has nothing to do with what is being proposed.

You're literally complaining about an "underused" feature that has nothing to do with the changes to base defences OP is requesting, not to mention that you haven't even bothered to check if your proposed "justification" for all of this actually works.

Everything you have been trying to bring up in defense is independant of the mechanic being proposed here and it would not add anything meaningful to the game that isn't already possible.

This is a proposal. If it needs more code and proposals to be meaningful, it's something to discuss, not to dismiss.

And if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, using that underused feature is essential to making my made-up scenario work. No multiple shot defences (the proposal) + different retaliation UFOS (the underused feature) + armour on said UFOs + armour working during defences (probably an additional proposal) means the scenario makes no sense.

FYI, I did not propose it as working. I specifically said "If so...".

a) you might want to actually try this out yourself before using theorycrafting to push an idea which might not actually work

This is a suggestion. It's entirely about theorycrafting new possibilities. I don't know why you think it's some sort of 'gotcha'.

...no point in only overkilling unarmored UFOs if your defense can instead kill all UFOs

But it might not. Facility slots are extremely limited. If one facility (over)killed all weak retaliation UFOs, and that's all you'd have to worry about for a few years or for new bases, that could be a massive space/time/money saver.

Why would you ever go for less than the maximum protection possible, given that you can manually "allow" a UFO to land if you want/need base defence missions?

Base slot tax.

c) taking a) and b) into account, "interesting tradeoffs" would already be possible

The tradeoff right now is 'do I have base defences at all?' and optimising a Battleship-proof scheme with your available tech. Quite close to being 'binary', in fact.

The 'CIWS&light retaliators' scenario would add 'what kind of defences do I want'. Heavy-duty for anything without dedicated troops; only light defences for your strike bases to stave off the tedium of fighting it out on the Battlescape against the 153rd Large Scout trying to take out X-Com HQ without eating the space for the Large Workshop, etc; CIWS first for outposts, etc.

It'd be a not trivial amount of work, both on the code and modding side, of course.

I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.

So, where's my example of a 50d5 base defence setup? Or, more specifically, an example of a single base facility that will 99% kill all Scouts and will do absolutely nothing to anything Medium or above, even if you cover your entire base with them? Another example that will 99% destroy a Battleship yet won't touch any high-evasion scouts and missiles?

Remember, 'all of the above' includes "the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences".

d) still needs to be balanced against crafts&craft weapons

Yes. It'd be difficult and probably not worth all the work. But if someone really wanted to, they could make it work.

Which is why Meridian tends to take such suggestions with a modder raring to go and a specific use case in hand, and I fully agree with that.

Again, I see nothing that would justify the time being spent on rewriting base defense mechanics...

Neither do I. I have not been arguing for the suggestion, rather against your reasoning for it.