Superweapons in 4X games? Superunits in 4X games?

[Mr.Kill]

Okay we all know what a nuke does but if we had the chance would we get rid of it? There are some games where people enjoy having superweapons but there are also times when we hate them and remove them by either choosing to turn them off or editing them out of the game.

The definition of a superweapon is a weapon with infinite range (in terms of the scope of the game) where infinite range can refer to strategic or tactical (i.e if battles take place on a map, the superweapon may hit anywhere on the map). A superweapon has a large AOE and does massive damage generally meant to turn the tide of battle (it's also very expensive). Likewise a superunit is a unit that has immense HP, does massive damage usually with AOE and is generally limited due to being expensive.

The discussion I want to have (or at least try to have) is your thoughts on whether superweapons should be in 4X games and what the ideal superweapon would be. There are superweapons you can only fire once (i.e Nuke in C&C, it blows up EVERYTHING in a large radius but once fired cannot be fired again, hope you hit your opponents MCV Edit: C&C is not a 4X surprised no one has called me on this) and there are superweapons you can fire all the time (i.e Civ 4 and nukes unless it gets banned).

There are even superweapons that don't kill people like the culture bomb superweapon the advent have in sins of a solar empire. There are so many kinds that it would be fun to list them all. Thus there's the simple question: Superweapons, when are they fun, when should there be limits and when are they useless?

Likewise should superunits be in 4X games? I mean after a while you're just gonna spam them. Age of wonders 3 had a severe problem with tier 4 units during its initial release (it's been curbed with greater buffs for tier 1 and 2 units as well as rising expenses). Fall of the samurai (Shogun total war 2's expansion) had gatling guns and if you got 12 of those you've effectively won the game. Should there be limits on superunits in certain cases? When do those limits go too far?

Edit: Feel free to talk about regular strategy games too. You don't need to talk solely about 4X games, though it will generally be a focus.

[Arioch]

I think monster weapons like the Doom Star with Stellar Converter in MOO2, or the Giant Death Robot in Civ V can be fun as a sort of "runaway" weapon; things you can only get if you're running away with the game and like to beat your opponents over the head. I personally would rather have mechanisms that allow you to end runaway games (such as MOO2's galactic council), but some players really like to grind their opponents under the heel.

Nukes in Civilization have always been out of place, and in Civ V at least they're mostly ignored in about 95% of the games I've played. I develop them as a deterrent and then forget about them. In the real world, the development of nukes means the end of total war, but that doesn't usually work well in games.

[Tragic]

I would like to see super structures in space 4x.. not so much super weapons. Dyson Spheres, Globus Cassus, Halos, Matrioshka brain, Stella engines and the like. Civilisation goals based on economic stability and civilisation growth leading to vast resources. As people may know from my posts I am a big believer in civilisation building as the main draw for me. I mean who cool would it be to eventually build giant rockets on the moon and fly it off into space as a living mobile colony or something. Just awesome stuff to do for the sake of doing them in a civilisation building kinda way.

[Crunchy]

Yes I think there should be many of them scattered through the tech tree. But so hard to balance.
Super weapons in a 4x should become not super later.

Its the tech advantage. But it yeah it doesnt have to be just hardware tech. it can be an idea and a way to implement it. A new strategy that is nearly unbeatable.

So many storys of history and sci-fi have these things that they can not be forgotten.

Does the ultimate weapon in a sci fi 4x destroy the universe?

[Nasarog]

Originally posted by Jynks:

I would like to see super structures in space 4x.. not so much super weapons. Dyson Spheres, Globus Cassus, Halos, Matrioshka brain, Stella engines and the like. Civilisation goals based on economic stability and civilisation growth leading to vast resources. As people may know from my posts I am a big believer in civilisation building as the main draw for me. I mean who cool would it be to eventually build giant rockets on the moon and fly it off into space as a living mobile colony or something. Just awesome stuff to do for the sake of doing them in a civilisation building kinda way.

Star Ruler 2 has them.

[Mr.Kill]

Originally posted by Nasarog:

Originally posted by Jynks:

I would like to see super structures in space 4x.. not so much super weapons. Dyson Spheres, Globus Cassus, Halos, Matrioshka brain, Stella engines and the like. Civilisation goals based on economic stability and civilisation growth leading to vast resources. As people may know from my posts I am a big believer in civilisation building as the main draw for me. I mean who cool would it be to eventually build giant rockets on the moon and fly it off into space as a living mobile colony or something. Just awesome stuff to do for the sake of doing them in a civilisation building kinda way.

Star Ruler 2 has them.

Star ruler 1 also had ringworlds and of course planetary thrusters so you could make a planetary sphere of death.

[Army Pea]

I personally enjoy playing 4x games with super units towards the end. It really helps the pacing if your going for a domination victory and happen to be ahead on science production.
In fact I often use super units in isolated smash and grab situations when I might lose the game on a totally unrelated victory condition, say culturally.

Giant death robots/xcom units from Civ 5 come to mind but so do unique custom built ships during SD2 campaigns.
I once built a massive bombing ship in SD2 whose only purpose was to irradiate as many undefended planets as possible just to hinder the economy of an enemy.

If I have critism of 4x super units it's that there aren't enough of them.

Moving forward I would love to see a developer make a "super end game unit" specific to each race and have unique characteristics.

[kuraiken]

I think the primary problem I have with superweapons is that they often have nothing balanced against them and can either allow you, or your enemy, to impact the game on a ridiculous scale without much ability to counter it.
An example is the Novalith Cannon in SOASE. You can basically start sniping planets without any consequence except that they're not going to be too attractive as new colonies. It ends up feeling either overpowered if you have it, or an annoyance if the enemy does.

A good example of a superweapon in my opinion is the Nuke in SC/SC2. It does devastating damage and can really change a battle or destroy an opponent, but for it to work, the ghost who's lasering the target location has to remain undiscovered, alive and close by. So if you're quick with spotting him and taking him out, the nuke's gone and you're safe. The power of the nuke is balanced by the fragility of the conditions required for it to work.

In 4x games, I think that really powerful weapons should come with significant diplomatic penalties, and I personally would also prefer to finally see a game where your own population can turn against you if you're overdoing it and stressing the boundaries of their morality. So if you use a "death star" like thing to ruin planet after planet of a peaceful race you used to be friends with, I'd want your own population to get angry at you (which they might not if the enemy is an aggressive race that has seriously harmed your race and caused the people to hate it).

So in general, super weapons are only enjoyable to me if their power is balanced by requirements and conditions aside from being costly in time or credits, because let's be honest, those have always been the two most negligable requirements.

[Arioch]

Originally posted by faijeya:

Superweapons are there for a player, not for an AI.

Or, at least, when the AI shows up with one, the player knows he has lost the game.

[Crunchy]

I was thinking about this some in one of my not well thought out concepts but sounds cool to me.

The idea that the super weapon can be a used as a threat but not actually seen or used.
"We have the galacolider galaxy destroyer and we will use it if you dont stop your attack!" The Bluff. Or is it? Game over with the destruction of the entire galaxy/universe.

Special research project to assess the feasibility of such a device.

that hardcore history podcast i posted starts talking about what makes units so good. Such as the hoplites. This was a super weapon of its time. They were nearly unbeatable but currently we dont really know why. Well trained soldiers with a good tactic and goods? Is that all it is? None of those things are unique.

Not to derail the discussion but what is a super weapon. What could it be. Why could it be. How could it be used. How could it be used diplomatically?
Are games ready for complicated concepts in general? Is it better in general to keep it simple for super weapons? Is even the idea of using a super weapon diplomatically too complex? I am sure having an AI make choices around this kind of obscure logic would not be simple.

[Mr.Kill]

Originally posted by kuraiken:

I think the primary problem I have with superweapons is that they often have nothing balanced against them and can either allow you, or your enemy, to impact the game on a ridiculous scale without much ability to counter it.
An example is the Novalith Cannon in SOASE. You can basically start sniping planets without any consequence except that they're not going to be too attractive as new colonies. It ends up feeling either overpowered if you have it, or an annoyance if the enemy does.

A good example of a superweapon in my opinion is the Nuke in SC/SC2. It does devastating damage and can really change a battle or destroy an opponent, but for it to work, the ghost who's lasering the target location has to remain undiscovered, alive and close by. So if you're quick with spotting him and taking him out, the nuke's gone and you're safe. The power of the nuke is balanced by the fragility of the conditions required for it to work.

In 4x games, I think that really powerful weapons should come with significant diplomatic penalties, and I personally would also prefer to finally see a game where your own population can turn against you if you're overdoing it and stressing the boundaries of their morality. So if you use a "death star" like thing to ruin planet after planet of a peaceful race you used to be friends with, I'd want your own population to get angry at you (which they might not if the enemy is an aggressive race that has seriously harmed your race and caused the people to hate it).

So in general, super weapons are only enjoyable to me if their power is balanced by requirements and conditions aside from being costly in time or credits, because let's be honest, those have always been the two most negligable requirements.

The novalith deals 3500 damage per shot and takes a long while to reload. This means that any developed planet will be able to survive it and even then a starbase with auxilery government or a similar upgrade will make sure the planet survives. A novalith takes up a large number of tactical slots ensuring that any planet that has it will be generally defenseless. The novalith is actually pretty balanced in that respect.

In terms of diplomatic penalities, have you played star wars rebellion? The empire player who owns a death star gains massive reputation in the sector where a deathstar exists, but all other sectors gain immense hatred for the empire. A planet that sufficiently hates the empire will join the rebellion and planets that dislike the empire are more likely to ignore rebel misbehaviour or just need slight coaxing (i.e empire lost its fleets in the sector) to join the rebels.

That said while I think superweapons having diplomatic penalties is nice, all it does is ensure that whoever builds a superweapon is just going to start using it on other people. If building a superweapon makes everyone declare war on me then why should I be worried? I built that superweapon especially because I wanted to be safe if everyone declared war on me.

As for superweapon balancing. Obviously they shouldn't be instant-win buttons. Time and cost shouldn't be the only considerations. They obviously must be worth their cost but they shouldn't just end the game by simply existing. If I'm playing Dawn of war I don't win by getting a baneblade (aka SUPER TANK) on the field. I still have to protect it from EMP, heavy melee walkers and other nasty things that can counter it if I'm not prepared.

Originally posted by faijeya:

Originally posted by Crunchy Gremlin:

Is even the idea of using a super weapon diplomatically too complex?

Mutually assured destruction loses all tension and suspense if one side can save and load on a whim.

Nuclear winter, you say?
It's impossible to destroy enough silos to make the retaliatory strike bearable, you say?
Strategic defense initiative, you say?

Let's quciksave and push that red button and see how it plays out, finally!

Well not entirely, sure you win but at what cost? Surely you can't win a nuclear war without someone on your team dying?

Originally posted by faijeya:

Superweapons or superunits should not have limits as they cease to be super then.

Superweapons or superunits are there to:
1) (wide empire) ease the mop-up (and to make it fun)
2) (tall empire) turn an underdog into a superpower; see point 1

Superweapons are there for a player, not for an AI.

http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF155-Gigaknight.jpg

I respectfully disagree. I often allow the AI to get super weapons and super units to enjoy the large scale slugfest that occurs. It is just as much fun to command a superweapon/unit as it is to fight against one.

[Hans Lemurson]

I think that Superweapons should be used in lieu of passive victory conditions, like a "Science" or "Economic" or "Cultural" victory. Winning that way always struck me as horribly anticlimactic.

If however an "Cultural Victory" were replaced with a project that gave you the power to cause other cities to revolt and join your nation, then the victory would still take place within the normal rules of the game and would allow you to feel your triumph.

Victory = gain a 'Superweapon'

[Martok]

While I can understand their appeal (the " fun factor", makes the mopping-up end-game move more quickly, etc.) I have still never liked super-weapons in strategy games, 4x or otherwise. I always opt to disable them whenever the option is available. I think I have have an instinctual dislike for weapons/units that are ridiculously overly/un-balanced.

[Mr.Kill]

Does stellaris have any superweapons of any description?

[Tragic]

Not that I know of, but the "card system" they use for the research tree, may mean I just have no encountered them.. I do know that beyond the normal weapons and the special weapons there is a class of "advanced weapons".. but not the same thing really.

[Naselus]

Originally posted by Mr.Kill:

Does stellaris have any superweapons of any description?

No, though the combat system is presently imbalanced enough that battleships with Lances more or less fit your description of a 'superunit' (massive damage, tough, expensive).