Powerplay Fortification triggers - distance to HQ needs to be stopped

[Darth Ender]

The equation used to set fortification triggers takes the distance to HQ into consideration. Unfortunately, it's too much of an oversimplication and it breaks behavior with any reality. It pretends that the sphere of influence derives only from HQ and that's just wrong. Influence derives from the members, the followers, those that believe. Enforcement power is from having a population that is on board as well as proximity to reinforcements.

In other words, you dont police a city relying on the power of one central police station, you have many and more are built as the city grows. The enforcement of laws is somewhat related to the proximity to the police stations, not to the leadership that oversees them. Similarly, a nation would not station all troops and rule from 1 location but have satellite offices to enforce laws as needed.

I believe Control systems are these satellite offices. Fortifying/Undermining them should not be reliant on distance to HQ but rather distance to the nearest control system (and how many within that distance and a max distance).

In this way, powers can grow without hitting a hard limit because HQ is some distance away. This is how it seems the major powers exist. I think powerplay should be treated as more than just a single person's will. Some powers are more than the person who created it. Some powers are an idea and the strength of that idea has no central location and have the power to spread organically.

edit:
Basically, distance to HQ creates a limit due to the logistics of fortifying etc. The calculation that determines the triggers needs to be only based on the ability for the control system to control that system and exploit any systems it's exploiting. This has nothing to do with distance to HQ and everything to do with Gov type of itself and exploited systems, and distance and number of other Control systems. Control system proximity would buff the effectiveness of control systems. Additionally, the lack of any exploited systems would further buff the effectiveness of the Controlling power since all efforts are focused only on the one control system.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

I'd have to disagree here.

With Powers such as Hudson, Patreus, or Lavigny, what you're saying makes sense. We ship 'garrison supplies' from HQ to Control System. It inherently makes sense that these supplies should be capable of being sourced from nearly anywhere, or at least from Control System/military industrial complexes like Facece.

Unfortunately, I believe our method of fortification is an over-simplification due to a lack of available game mechanics. I dream for the day when FDev can bring together ground based combat, combined arms, and more task-driven missions to really enhance the 'combat fortification' aspect of Power Play. What we have right now, is a necessity born out of appeasing the gods of balance.

Torval's Control Systems ship Political Prisoners back to Syntieni. Delaine ships Marked Slaves from Control Systems, which were home to quashed Resistance Pockets. I believe Mahon takes trade packets from Control Systems to HQ. Li likely also has some form of business arrangement which makes fortification challenging. Aisling distributes media reports sourced from her campaign HQ. Winters, I believe, has something similar to Aisling, which, is in essence, similar to Lavigny, Hudson, and Patreus, but actually makes sense to have a single distribution hub for their cargo.

So, yes, I would love a system where fortifying a Control System with over 100% of garrison supplies would not reward any merits, but turn said Control System into a distribution hub of said garrison supplies. That way a pilot could drop off 500 tonnes of merits in Binjia, and another pilot could take them from Binjia to Cerni. That would alter how current gameplay works, and be interesting and believable.

However, it would make ALD's method of fortification appear over-powering compared to the methods used by Delaine, Torval, or Mahon.

 

[Apos]

However, it would make ALD's method of fortification appear over-powering compared to the methods used by Delaine, Torval, or Mahon.

Implying it doesn't already, with outwards fortifications being much more efficient and having the ability of creating much less waste when used from equally competent groups.

 

[Darth Ender]

I'd have to disagree here.

With Powers such as Hudson, Patreus, or Lavigny, what you're saying makes sense. We ship 'garrison supplies' from HQ to Control System. It inherently makes sense that these supplies should be capable of being sourced from nearly anywhere, or at least from Control System/military industrial complexes like Facece.

Unfortunately, I believe our method of fortification is an over-simplification due to a lack of available game mechanics. I dream for the day when FDev can bring together ground based combat, combined arms, and more task-driven missions to really enhance the 'combat fortification' aspect of Power Play. What we have right now, is a necessity born out of appeasing the gods of balance.

Torval's Control Systems ship Political Prisoners back to Syntieni. Delaine ships Marked Slaves from Control Systems, which were home to quashed Resistance Pockets. I believe Mahon takes trade packets from Control Systems to HQ. Li likely also has some form of business arrangement which makes fortification challenging. Aisling distributes media reports sourced from her campaign HQ. Winters, I believe, has something similar to Aisling, which, is in essence, similar to Lavigny, Hudson, and Patreus, but actually makes sense to have a single distribution hub for their cargo.

So, yes, I would love a system where fortifying a Control System with over 100% of garrison supplies would not reward any merits, but turn said Control System into a distribution hub of said garrison supplies. That way a pilot could drop off 500 tonnes of merits in Binjia, and another pilot could take them from Binjia to Cerni. That would alter how current gameplay works, and be interesting and believable.

However, it would make ALD's method of fortification appear over-powering compared to the methods used by Delaine, Torval, or Mahon.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about changing the mechanism of how fortification occurs. I'm talking about changing the formula for the fortification trigger value. The fortification trigger value takes distance to HQ into consideration but I dont believe distance to HQ has any relation to how much fortification would be needed to subdue unrest in a system. That depends entirely on the force existing in the local system and it's proximity to other sources of control - much more than distance to the HQ.

The effectiveness of the local force at that system is dependent on government, number of exploited systems and their government type. And i think previous cycles where undermining has been successful should affect fortification similar to how uncancelled fortification should affect things positively for the trigger with a decay on either.

This doesn't relate at all to what the actual means of fortification is. The trigger is about squelching unrest and buffing control - the how is irrelevant to the formula or why certain things should be factored into the formula.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

The effectiveness of the local force at that system is dependent on government, number of exploited systems and their government type. And i think previous cycles where undermining has been successful should affect fortification similar to how uncancelled fortification should affect things positively for the trigger with a decay on either.

This doesn't relate at all to what the actual means of fortification is. The trigger is about squelching unrest and buffing control - the how is irrelevant to the formula or why certain things should be factored into the formula.

Ah. I did misunderstand. Your idea sounds promising. It should be related to government type, exploited system count, population of control and exploited systems, and history of fortification, cancelation, and undermining.