Defence economy balance

[Stargateur]

After ... 7000 hours on factorio... OMG, ok that probably a wrong number cause game is often running in background haha. Anyway, I really feel player get punished using gun turret. The difference of cost between them and laser is stupidly high. My problem is laser turret is just better if you are low on resource, energy in factorio is basically free once you hit solar panel. you just need space. And flame turret are... completely op I don't even want to compare them to gun tower but let's say flame turret is special (aoe and stuff) I think the comparison is more about gun versus laser turret (mono target turret)

The worst is the speed fire upgrade make them cost more if you didn't update the damage instead BUT fun fact... the gun turret late gun is completely OP, that because the technology both increase ammo damage AND gun turret damage. While the laser one only increase laser damage. What does that change well the two upgrade are multiplicative. That why late game gun turret and tank turret feel so strong so here a tips ALWAYS give priority to damage. And notice I DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS. I think using ammo should be rewarded. Gun turret are harder to use and yet mid game they sux.

And why their range is less than laser... just why. It should be the opposite to reward player doing logistic to feed ammo to a turret.

These conclusion are based on vanilla bitter and rampant mod (try defend rampant with gun turret GL all your factory will be producing ammo and it will still not be enough)

[Koub]

These conclusion are based on vanilla bitter and rampant mod (try defend rampant with gun turret GL all your factory will be producing ammo and it will still not be enough)

Vanilla turrets are probably balanced for vanilla biters, not rampant biters. And for vanilla, I think the two current single target turrets give interesting trade offs. The no logistics, easy to use, better have a beefy excess power production laser on the one hand, the high logistics, low(er) range, extremely high DPS gun turret on the other. And the flame thrower to complete them with devastating delayed AOE.

[Belter]

Love Factorio not a big fun of enemies. Just to talk against myself, flamethrower IS overpowered in the normal game.

My suggestions are:
- nerf the range/damage of flamethrower (I like the upgrade to the current level idea)
- make enemy attack smarter and walk around the flames. Not just stupidly walk into death in huge groups. E.g. handle fire as an obstacle (?)
- I'd keep turrets going w/o electricicy - as a last resport to have the "put a turret and give it ammo quickly" to clean up an enemy base far from your base
- I'd keep turret range under spitters: would make turrets OP

Once you can do wall+Roboports to repair, you're done, only expansion of your base needs manual work. I use turrets to minimize repairs basically. W/burner inserters no electricity needed even.

Actually I tend to just build a piece of wall into an enemy base - loose some const bots, needs some attention to let oil flow during the building yes...

So I'm the "slow" type of player, my suggestion is based on my style / how I enjoy this game.

PS: The upper wall on my screesnhot shows the turret's range.

12-14-2025, 18-17-35.png (280.72 KiB) Viewed 637 times

[jodokus31]

Love Factorio not a big fun of enemies. Just to talk against myself, flamethrower IS overpowered in the normal game.

I would increase oil consumption of stationary flamethrowers. I think, the handheld and vehicle one use considerable more oil for the same impact.
It's also quite effective against big groups with it's AOE. Maybe something could be tweaked, that you would rather have to point exactly to one biter at a time, without directly clearing the whole group around at that rate, a bit AOE should stay, though.
Burning/on-fire damage also lasts super long. like 30sec? iirc. You can set a green biter on fire and it will almost die over time without doing anything else.

[fpx007]

I do beleve flame throwers are completely fine, as they are the specialized solution for nauvis. It is completely useless on vulcanus and extremely ineffective on gleba due to the difficulty to gain oil there. If a nerf must be applied, they should be add the ability to burn other liquid fuels that are easily available there, e.g. lubricant. (Although lubricant us not typically used as fuel.)
edit: I also forget to mention they can't even be built on space platforms at all!

[BlakeMW]

extremely ineffective on gleba

.

Flamethrowers are actually incredible on Gleba, much better than rocket turrets, you have to use a lot of them, but they're very cheap to build and fuel, difficulty of provisioning oil is exaggerated, before you can make it in-situ rocket in some coal or heavy oil barrels, they sip fuel, a single rocket load will last ages. Once you can make it in-situ it takes only the most minimal coal-liq setup to provision all the flamethrower turrets you could possibly wish to run, it is an order of magnitude less work than rocket turrets (which actually require the same tech level to provision sustainably on Gleba).

However with the Gleba nerfs unless you have modified settings to "Gleba Deathworld" kind of thing the natives are so tame you hardly ever need to consider defenses.

[fpx007]

extremely ineffective on gleba

.

Flamethrowers are actually incredible on Gleba, much better than rocket turrets, you have to use a lot of them, but they're very cheap to build and fuel, difficulty of provisioning oil is exaggerated, before you can make it in-situ rocket in some coal or heavy oil barrels, they sip fuel, a single rocket load will last ages. Once you can make it in-situ it takes only the most minimal coal-liq setup to provision all the flamethrower turrets you could possibly wish to run, it is an order of magnitude less work than rocket turrets (which actually require the same tech level to provision sustainably on Gleba).

However with the Gleba nerfs unless you have modified settings to "Gleba Deathworld" kind of thing the natives are so tame you hardly ever need to consider defenses.

Please, you forget some facts.

First, coal liquefaction is a vulcanus tech. If I have that, I've already conquered vulcanus. So why don't I use the even more powerful artillery?

Second, I don't actually see rocket turrets as intended defensive turrets against arthropods. Their primary utility is for breaking large asteroids. I also believe few people use railgun turrets against arthropod swarms. But does that mean rocket/railgun turrets are underpowered? Of course not.

Every turret has its position. Gun turrets are for early game defense and breaking small/medium asteroids; laser turrets are for sniping elite targets behind the arthropod swarms; artillery turrets are for claiming new territories; tesla towers are for tough multi-segmented enemies. So what is wrong with flame throwers for crowd control? If flamethrowers are nerfed to a situation being less effective against enemy crowds than other turrets, then the game balance actually breaks. Everything have its unique position, that is what a healthy game balance should be.

[jodokus31]

extremely ineffective on gleba

.

Flamethrowers are actually incredible on Gleba, much better than rocket turrets, you have to use a lot of them, but they're very cheap to build and fuel, difficulty of provisioning oil is exaggerated, before you can make it in-situ rocket in some coal or heavy oil barrels, they sip fuel, a single rocket load will last ages. Once you can make it in-situ it takes only the most minimal coal-liq setup to provision all the flamethrower turrets you could possibly wish to run, it is an order of magnitude less work than rocket turrets (which actually require the same tech level to provision sustainably on Gleba).

However with the Gleba nerfs unless you have modified settings to "Gleba Deathworld" kind of thing the natives are so tame you hardly ever need to consider defenses.

Please, you forget some facts.

First, coal liquefaction is a vulcanus tech. If I have that, I've already conquered vulcanus. So why don't I use the even more powerful artillery?

Second, I don't actually see rocket turrets as intended defensive turrets against arthropods. Their primary utility is for breaking large asteroids. I also believe few people use railgun turrets against arthropod swarms. But does that mean rocket/railgun turrets are underpowered? Of course not.

Every turret has its position. Gun turrets are for early game defense and breaking small/medium asteroids; laser turrets are for sniping elite targets behind the arthropod swarms; artillery turrets are for claiming new territories; tesla towers are for tough multi-segmented enemies. So what is wrong with flame throwers for crowd control? If flamethrowers are nerfed to a situation being less effective against enemy crowds than other turrets, then the game balance actually breaks. Everything have its unique position, that is what a healthy game balance should be.

"First, coal liquefaction is a vulcanus tech. If I have that, I've already conquered vulcanus. So why don't I use the even more powerful artillery?"
Not necessarily. Simple coal liquefaction is an almost free start tech from vulcanues and you don't have to setup much. Of course, you might as well complete vulcanus before moving to gleba.
That's said, you can always ship barrels of light-oil from nauvis. Maybe a bit expensive, but since you need so little oil, probably one shipment goes a long way.

[fpx007]

extremely ineffective on gleba

.

Flamethrowers are actually incredible on Gleba, much better than rocket turrets, you have to use a lot of them, but they're very cheap to build and fuel, difficulty of provisioning oil is exaggerated, before you can make it in-situ rocket in some coal or heavy oil barrels, they sip fuel, a single rocket load will last ages. Once you can make it in-situ it takes only the most minimal coal-liq setup to provision all the flamethrower turrets you could possibly wish to run, it is an order of magnitude less work than rocket turrets (which actually require the same tech level to provision sustainably on Gleba).

However with the Gleba nerfs unless you have modified settings to "Gleba Deathworld" kind of thing the natives are so tame you hardly ever need to consider defenses.

Please, you forget some facts.

First, coal liquefaction is a vulcanus tech. If I have that, I've already conquered vulcanus. So why don't I use the even more powerful artillery?

Second, I don't actually see rocket turrets as intended defensive turrets against arthropods. Their primary utility is for breaking large asteroids. I also believe few people use railgun turrets against arthropod swarms. But does that mean rocket/railgun turrets are underpowered? Of course not.

Every turret has its position. Gun turrets are for early game defense and breaking small/medium asteroids; laser turrets are for sniping elite targets behind the arthropod swarms; artillery turrets are for claiming new territories; tesla towers are for tough multi-segmented enemies. So what is wrong with flame throwers for crowd control? If flamethrowers are nerfed to a situation being less effective against enemy crowds than other turrets, then the game balance actually breaks. Everything have its unique position, that is what a healthy game balance should be.

"First, coal liquefaction is a vulcanus tech. If I have that, I've already conquered vulcanus. So why don't I use the even more powerful artillery?"
Not necessarily. Simple coal liquefaction is an almost free start tech from vulcanues and you don't have to setup much. Of course, you might as well complete vulcanus before moving to gleba.
That's said, you can always ship barrels of light-oil from nauvis. Maybe a bit expensive, but since you need so little oil, probably one shipment goes a long way.

Since the topic is about the economy of defense, I believe it is fair to call it ineffective because it is expensive, as you said.

Besides, even if you don't fully conquer vulcanus, you should still make a proper trip there. That is to say, the trip is not free, as the minimal cost to unlock simple coal liquefaction is " reach vulcanus, build a silo and set up power supply, build a rocket, and finally escape. That still a lot of work, to only unlock some "free techs". And even after that, you still need regular shipment of calcite, which is also interstellar logistic. And even with all of these, I haven't accounting the extra effort to synthesize coal yet. So it is fair to say it is more ineffective to apply flame throwers on gleba. That is why I call it fine as a specialized solution for nauvis.

[Tertius]

I haven't accounting the extra effort to synthesize coal yet. So it is fair to say it is more ineffective to apply flame throwers on gleba. That is why I call it fine as a specialized solution for nauvis.

You can just ship a rocket load full of crude oil barrels (100 barrels = 5000 crude oil) and directly feed this crude oil to your flamethrower pipe. Lasts very log, since every shoot only consumes 3 oil units or something like that. The pipe will probably stay empty, but 100 barrels are enough oil to fill the fluid buffers of 50 flamethrower turrets. A second rocket and the supply will probably last for the lifetime of this map as long as you keep the egg rafts outside of the spore cloud.

[fpx007]

as long as you keep the egg rafts outside of the spore cloud.

First, ignoring hatched eggs, if you can keep egg rafts outside of spore cloud (or spawners outside of pollution cloud on nauvis), no defense is required, which is not only limited to flame throwers but ALL types of turrets, and then it is pointless to talk about defense economy because you just don't need any form of it at all!

Second, if you try to do the job of "keep the egg rafts outside of the spore cloud", flame throwers are actually bad options. Usually, the autonomous way to do this job is to apply artillery towers/trains. Even if you choose to apply this manually on frontline, flame throwers are still a bad choice as they are difficult to set up. Not only because the limited attack angle, but also the need to apply both ammo and frontline power. (You do need not only oil barrels, but also assembler(s) to pour the barrels, which need proper power supply. In contrast, gun turrets only need manually insert magazines and need no power; laser turret needs only power but no ammo; etc.)

Last, the former discussion excluded hatched eggs, but since this is also one important application of base defense, let us see what will happen if we apply flame throwers there. Flame throwers deal area of damage, which means not only enemies but also friendly structures in its attack area take fire damage. This is usually not an issue in frontline defense because the only exposed friendly structures there, i.e. walls and/or gates, are immune to fire. But most of your base structures are not immune to fire. If you use them against hatched eggs, probably the friendly flame deals more damage to your structures than enemies.

So in conclusion, as a defense structure that only suits nauvis frontline crowd control, I believe it is completely fine to make flame thrower efficient in defense economy as the current status. To apply them properly on gleba, you need either VULCANUS tech or set up an interstellar logistic to supply oil barrels. Remember, it can't be applies on space platforms against asteroids, can't deal damage to demolishers, is difficult to be applied to expansion operations, and probably deals friendly fire when used against hatched eggs. With so many restrictions, if they are made inefficient in crowd control defense economy, why people even bother using it?