Metal Spots and Terrain Destruction?

Pitiful human concerns that simply don't apply here. Planets are expendable. Tanks are expendable. Everything is expendable. Do what it takes to win. If it's easier to blow up a planet than to deal with the enemy, that's what you do. No exceptions.

Perhaps metal spots damaged by terrain deformation get "levelled up" to more valuable metal spots? Moho metal extractors are named so because they go down deeper, and if the KEW crater just ripped off the top layer of crust, surely it would have exposed those deep resources for free.

Makes it easier for the player who just got asteroided to recover (if they survives, which is a slight gamble), gives more spoils for the asteroid-attacker to claim as their victory, and gives a further purpose to asteroids (an incentive to crash them, to reveal better resource spots, as well as deny their use to the enemy).

That was kinda my point, that the conversation should never stop. *woosh* right over your head :roll:

Who ever said Extractors only functioned on the surface? I always saw Extractors as basically a big Oil Rig for Metals, it drills down and Extracts the Metal. So with that but does having half a deposit blown away make the Extractors more Efficient?

It's Illogical. Can't we just settle on the fact that if you got hit with an Asteroid it should hurt and have a downside to it?

Mike

Gamers today are conditioned to never feel like anything that they do should be entirely negative, or if it has a positive there should be almost zero consequences for that victory.

If you blew up your Metal Deposits on a conquered world you should have to deal with it. Balancing risk vs reward is an important skill that many gamers today seem to want to forget.

I always imagined that they work that way too, but my 5-second fluff explanation justifies that minor new mechanic, so it has some value.

It's still 95% terrible to get hit with an asteroid. Everything is totally destroyed. The whole planet might even be made unusable. It's just for those edge cases with smaller asteroids on larger planets, where the commander happened to be out of harms way.

If anything this adds a new risk/reward calculation, for the attacking player. "If my enemy survives this, they gain a single very valuable resource spot". In no way does that make the consequences of the victory zero. The victim players economy has been destroyed at that location.

Please do not paint me as someone who hates consequences, I'm merely suggesting mechanics and thinking through their implications.

It should be "If my enemy survives this, I wasted a heap of metal on an Asteroid and I'm at a disadvantage".

Mike

Asteroids are (or will be) good mining sites after all. There's a lot of rare Metals in asteroids... using them as a KEW is literally throwing away resources.

On top of building the needed Engines.

Mike

Agreed. The whole point in using asteroids as weapons is that it is a valuable metal resource which you control that you must decide whether or not you should throw away. Is that metal put to better use being made into more robots over time, or in one gigantic, cataclysmic explosion?

You are already trading some of your relative economic power by using the asteroid in this way - making the impact improve metals sites merely increases the change in your relative economic power. I realise this contradicts my earlier post on this topic, but I have had time to think about it now and this would serve a non-purpose.

Fair enough, good points.