Suggest - Features and Improvements
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:28 am
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
The "stellar surge beam" seems lacking in flavor to me, a bit too obvious an imitation of MoO2's stellar converter. "Really big pew" is kind of lacking as an explanation for why this weapon can destroy planets.
The game could use an additional siege size weapon or two so the player doesn't feel driven to the path to stellar surge beam. In addition to singularity torpedoes discussed below, there might be meteor guns (projectiles) or sunbeams (lasers).
I would like to suggest implementing a new planet destroying "ultimate weapon": the singularity torpedo. This creates a small black hole and launches it at a target. If the target is a planet, the planet-destroying mechanism is clear -- the black hole falls into the planet and rapidly starts growing from infalling planetary material until it eventually swallows the whole planet.
If the target is a ship the damage might be scaled to ship size, the gravitational effects having little effect on small destroyers but having much greater effect on large ships like mobile planetoids. This could act as a counter to empires building monolithic fleets of the biggest ships, which would be vulnerable to this effect. The singularity torp might have a damage over time effect as the black hole absorbs some of the target's mass and grows.
If the singularity torpedo is accepted as the game's new ultimate weapon the stellar surge beam could be reduced in importance, losing it's planet destroying capability or maybe just being removed entirely. However, the singularity torpedo should have a large research cost and lots of prerequisites.
The game could use an additional siege size weapon or two so the player doesn't feel driven to the path to stellar surge beam. In addition to singularity torpedoes discussed below, there might be meteor guns (projectiles) or sunbeams (lasers).
I would like to suggest implementing a new planet destroying "ultimate weapon": the singularity torpedo. This creates a small black hole and launches it at a target. If the target is a planet, the planet-destroying mechanism is clear -- the black hole falls into the planet and rapidly starts growing from infalling planetary material until it eventually swallows the whole planet.
If the target is a ship the damage might be scaled to ship size, the gravitational effects having little effect on small destroyers but having much greater effect on large ships like mobile planetoids. This could act as a counter to empires building monolithic fleets of the biggest ships, which would be vulnerable to this effect. The singularity torp might have a damage over time effect as the black hole absorbs some of the target's mass and grows.
If the singularity torpedo is accepted as the game's new ultimate weapon the stellar surge beam could be reduced in importance, losing it's planet destroying capability or maybe just being removed entirely. However, the singularity torpedo should have a large research cost and lots of prerequisites.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
It was mentioned before that late-game tech might get an overhaul at some point as they havent been finetuned as much as early to mid-game tech
The description can indeed be improvied upon a bit at elast as igniting the core is likely not possible withouth oxygen to maintain the reasction
The concept of destroying a planet within in-game technical map would be cool and if was done via torpedo it mcould be intercepted - in case of a beam weapon this mechanism would almost ceartanly lead to planet destruction independently from defenses
Note though that late game tech is very-very rarely used in my opinion. At least wit hthe setting I am using (Ellipse huge map with default settings and normal difficulty) I never make it beyond 220 turns before the game is over. To make late game tech really relevant the game needs to keep on going for around 300 turns with these settigns in my experience
The description can indeed be improvied upon a bit at elast as igniting the core is likely not possible withouth oxygen to maintain the reasction
The concept of destroying a planet within in-game technical map would be cool and if was done via torpedo it mcould be intercepted - in case of a beam weapon this mechanism would almost ceartanly lead to planet destruction independently from defenses
Note though that late game tech is very-very rarely used in my opinion. At least wit hthe setting I am using (Ellipse huge map with default settings and normal difficulty) I never make it beyond 220 turns before the game is over. To make late game tech really relevant the game needs to keep on going for around 300 turns with these settigns in my experience
- PrivateHudson
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
- Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
1. Scavengers revolted the instant I had colonized their planet by building colonization project in another colony in the same system, not giving me chance to transfer tanks at the ready from that colony. Could the order of end-turn events evaluation be slightly altered to place riot checks before colonization? Or implement one-turn delay to revolts for freshly established colonies.
2. It would be convenient to have in population breakdown area of the colony management screen an indication of incoming pop/units in transit in the form of dimmed icons subscribed "2,000,000 Phidi ETA 5 turn(s)".
2. It would be convenient to have in population breakdown area of the colony management screen an indication of incoming pop/units in transit in the form of dimmed icons subscribed "2,000,000 Phidi ETA 5 turn(s)".
- PrivateHudson
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
- Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
There is a window to abuse alliance mechanic. When you attack someone's colony without DoW, the colony owner automatically DoWs you, and you appear to your allies as a victim, while you clearly are aggressor. Suggest to equate attack on a colony (and, possibly, even outpost) to DoW.
-
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:33 am
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
I've had some thoughts about the (excellent) refugee mechanic.
1) First, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be extended to Ashdar splinter colonies as well. I'd expect they'd likewise be somewhat technologically regressed relative to the major star nations, and some time to rebuild their tech base would make sense.
2) Second, I think adapting the refugees mechanic as a simulation element for minor races without significant native technology (and without the Primitives) trait would make them more convincing. Primitives are basic unskilled labor, it seems the amount of 'bringing them up to speed' on modern technologies would be minimal, but other races, such as the Tarib, the Wrem, and the Scavengers have similar economic outputs to spacefaring species but are specifically noted to lack advanced native technology. I think adapting the 'refugees' mechanic to represent the process of developing the local economic infrastructure needed to get them up to modern productivity levels would help make them more convincing.
3) Not directly related to the refugee mechanic, but a note on the AI- it seems to me the AI is quite eager to spread primitives around their planets, even when they only tie for other races in environmental suitability for a biome. I'd think the AI should be significantly more reluctant to use primitives as settlers, given that primitives represent a fairly major reduction in economic capacity compared to races with modern technology.
1) First, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be extended to Ashdar splinter colonies as well. I'd expect they'd likewise be somewhat technologically regressed relative to the major star nations, and some time to rebuild their tech base would make sense.
2) Second, I think adapting the refugees mechanic as a simulation element for minor races without significant native technology (and without the Primitives) trait would make them more convincing. Primitives are basic unskilled labor, it seems the amount of 'bringing them up to speed' on modern technologies would be minimal, but other races, such as the Tarib, the Wrem, and the Scavengers have similar economic outputs to spacefaring species but are specifically noted to lack advanced native technology. I think adapting the 'refugees' mechanic to represent the process of developing the local economic infrastructure needed to get them up to modern productivity levels would help make them more convincing.
3) Not directly related to the refugee mechanic, but a note on the AI- it seems to me the AI is quite eager to spread primitives around their planets, even when they only tie for other races in environmental suitability for a biome. I'd think the AI should be significantly more reluctant to use primitives as settlers, given that primitives represent a fairly major reduction in economic capacity compared to races with modern technology.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Speaking of refugees, an idea: if an empire is getting curbstomped by another, an event could trigger where refugee transports appear in a non-hostile third (but probably not Gremak or Tinker), asking for asylum. You might take a relationship hit with the aggressor if you take them in, though.
- PrivateHudson
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
- Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Suggest to upgrade missile auto-retargeting algorithm (and fighter pilots instructions, for good measure) to ignore disabled ships. Especially if they are mine, peacefully waiting recapture on the battlefield.
- PrivateHudson
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
- Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Why there is diplomatic penalty for "You are trading with our enemies", but not for "Your open ports treaty provides range to our enemies", after all the latter is potentially much more offending? In my current game I maintain uneasy peace with neighbour outrun megaempire, while purposefully giving its hot war opponents access to significant portion of the latter's backyard to both spoil and divert from frontline efforts, and hopefully collect devastated systems.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
I suggest (may have already been)-
Totally minor thing: When I click on components in right side of ship design, part of the display should show energy usage. Or better yet the space that lists the items on the lower left side should simply have: [Labor. Metal. Energy.] required by that component when added.
Totally minor thing: When I click on components in right side of ship design, part of the display should show energy usage. Or better yet the space that lists the items on the lower left side should simply have: [Labor. Metal. Energy.] required by that component when added.
- PrivateHudson
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am
- Location: Chelyabinsk, Russia
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Does it make sense to not end tactical combat while there still are missiles/torpedos/fighters flying to their targets, even if all that side's ships/orbitals/ground installations have been destroyed? Could make battles, especially early ones, more 'fair', allowing loosing side to do more damage to the winners, and limiting chicken tactics to fire missiles in the hope they blow up all enemy targets before their torps arrive. At least do last favour to kamikaze pilots left behind by retreated/destroyed carriers. Or tie this ability to Dauntless Guidance tech. Or new Relentless Guidance.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Potential QoL improvement:
Currently if a fleet contains ships with both standard and long range ships, the entire fleet including the long range ships are limited to the standard range.
If sending any long range ships to a distant location is desired they must be individually selected before the order can be given.
Suggest looking into allowing any long range ships in a fleet to be dispatched to an extended range location by auto-separating them from the fleet and leaving the rest behind when the fleet is given an order to move to such a location.
Currently if a fleet contains ships with both standard and long range ships, the entire fleet including the long range ships are limited to the standard range.
If sending any long range ships to a distant location is desired they must be individually selected before the order can be given.
Suggest looking into allowing any long range ships in a fleet to be dispatched to an extended range location by auto-separating them from the fleet and leaving the rest behind when the fleet is given an order to move to such a location.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
The problem in that case is that you might not notice that ships have been left behind, which could lead to some unfortunate occurrences, especially if you're sending the fleet into combat.Serenitis wrote:Potential QoL improvement:
Currently if a fleet contains ships with both standard and long range ships, the entire fleet including the long range ships are limited to the standard range.
If sending any long range ships to a distant location is desired they must be individually selected before the order can be given.
Suggest looking into allowing any long range ships in a fleet to be dispatched to an extended range location by auto-separating them from the fleet and leaving the rest behind when the fleet is given an order to move to such a location.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
Perhaps a popup screen could be shown in this case, displaying the ships that would go on one side and the ships that would stay on the other, and asking to confirm the order.
Re: Suggest - Features and Improvements
That would be far quicker and easier to deal with than explicity having to select all my long-range ships from the fleet display (which can become somewhat cluttered).gaerzi wrote:Perhaps a popup screen could be shown in this case, displaying the ships that would go on one side and the ships that would stay on the other, and asking to confirm the order.