Planets

[Edgecrusher]

Well, the way I think conquering an enemy's planet gal should work is that you first take out the support planets and then the lander. So support planets should always be easier than the lander.

You're saying they are too easy to bust, but where does that conclusion come from? Last round, CoD busted some WS planets, but as far as that was easy it was because we rampaged through their minefield before. This round, no fully built support planet has been busted. We talked about busting being too easy before, and all the arguments given there hold here as well. Bust me a fully built support planet protected by an alliance-size minefield, and then let's continue this discussion, because right now I don't feel we know exactly what the strengths and weaknesses are.

[Infinity]

We think in the same way when it comes to busting planets Edge and I do agree support planets should be easier. WS last round wasn't really a good example as they stopped building... we all had HUGE ships while their planets were still small. Being good with numbers, I just see what ships a fleet can get and how would a bust of say drone planet go (I think these are biggest among support planets), wouldn't be extra fast cause of the number of shields, but it can be pulled out without pods (ofc, in case you have a silly miner opping in a small ship ).

So... what do you suggest? I let you in my galaxy, lol, for testing? Ya know I don't like the idea

[Edgecrusher]

I am suggesting that busting a support planet would take you 5 pods, and busting a lander should take 10-20 pods, this of course assuming a large enough player base to bring together alliance-sized fleets.

Why would drone planets be the biggest? Shields planets are equally big.

[Page]

Drone planets can have more drones than shield planets? At least I think they can, and that would make them more likely to kill (although probably quicker to bust)

[Infinity]

Cough, cough, they're same, Edge is right. For some reason I thought drone planet is bigger, but only difference between them is main building and lander support structures, defenses are exactly the same.

Seeing the lander with 24.4k shields and about 16 to 20 shots to go thru shields (I took logs from busting Edge's planet this round as a comparison reference)... yep, that's 10 to 20 pods, depending on ships brought to the bust (and ofc if you make Mammoth smaller, otherwise it would probably be less).

Shield/drone planets have 14.4k shields, 12 turrets and 2.4k CDs. Top racials are easily made to have defense of about /33-35, not to mention that Mammoth gets /40 with ease... I see here only alliance miner dying in his Prometheus, or some extremely unlucky guy who takes 4-5 turrets and drones.

Now, 4 additional turrets and another 20 reserve hangars would bring these planets to 16 turrets and 2.8k CDs, making them slightly more deadly (remember we took only one pod to Edge's lander with 20 turrets and 3160 CDs, cough, cough, make Mammoth smaller, please).

They're not deadly, really.

[Infinity]

Bump!

Reminder - we doing this or not?

[Edgecrusher]

Well, could you summarize what 'this' is? If it is removing some planet types, then I am fine with it as long as we still plan on developing those other types later. If it is about strengthening planets, I think that if we get a cap, which is very likely, there is no need for this.

[Infinity]

Removing/simplifying.

Not the strength. I'm thinking when/if orb defense is in, it will all fall into place.