Been playing Humankind recently noticed a sleek inplementation of unit EXP: the levle of hte unit being capped at 3
Might be something worth considering here as well (whenever that might be relevant) as its probably much easier to balacne the game (or kep the existing balance) if units can only go so far in being better

One particular example where I noticed EXP being an issue was GalCiv: here I would have a few ships that wipe the map from enemies as with each level up they wouldd get stronger and stronger - which felt a bit off compared to brand new ships rolling fo the production line

Effect can be hull, shield regen rate, accuracy, damage output, speed and range: I woudl go with slight hull bonus and considerable accuracy bonus
Meaning experienced ships would have slightly higher staying power and would miss their shots less often which would be espeically important against cloacked or fleeing ships and for large ships with heavy weapons that tend to miss per default at long range

Shield regen is already OP and speed bonus would get experienced ships killed early as the AI would rush forward with these from the cover of the main fleet

Having only a very limited number of EXP levels also helps with conveying the info visually as no numbering is needed (in case of HK its stars which is very fitting and super easy to read)

zolobolo wrote:... I woudl go with slight hull bonus and considerable accuracy bonus...

IMHO, more important than number of exp. levels is the maximum bonus that's spread between them. Too low, and there's no point in caring about veterancy. I consider Endless Space's max +100% HP, attack, and defence (if memory doesn't fail me) reasonable.

What's this talk of EXP/levels?

PrivateHudson wrote:

zolobolo wrote:... I woudl go with slight hull bonus and considerable accuracy bonus...

IMHO, more important than number of exp. levels is the maximum bonus that's spread between them. Too low, and there's no point in caring about veterancy. I consider Endless Space's max +100% HP, attack, and defence (if memory doesn't fail me) reasonable.

Yes that was also my point on the max level (its automatically limiting the stacking bonus effects)
The hull bonus should definitively not exceed 100% of base hull as that was exactly the issue in GalCiv

emky wrote:What's this talk of EXP/levels?

Apparently, zolobolo is trying to foresee what ship experience system could look like, when it will be added to SiS. But watching recent progress (rather lack of), I'd not bet on it. Is the development of SiS over? Better to know bitter truth.

PrivateHudson wrote:But watching recent progress (rather lack of), I'd not bet on it. Is the development of SiS over? Better to know bitter truth.

Я думаю, что мы увидим новую систему терраформации в игре. Готов поспорить! На желание 8) Просто разработка - это очень и очень времязатратный процесс. А поскольку игра не является основным источником доходов... то темпы закономерно черепашьи 8(

I think: we will see a new terraforming system in the game. I bet! Let us one wish will be a prize 8) Just the software development is a very very time-consuming process. And since the game is not the main source of money incomes... then the speed is naturally like a turtle 8(

Indeed progress has been slow in the past year and the EXP system was only mentioned as a distant goal for DLC 3 or even 4 dont remember exactly
so its not like this is something that would have any chance in the near future to be eveloped (or has a realistic chance of being developed at all when all is said and done) - but I do enjoy theorizing... sorry dont mean to create unrealsitic expctations

Defacto I have to also mentione though that the game has recieved extenesive support for quite some time and almost all of the initial issues have been adressed in the meantime. So it can really not be said the game has not bee supported well. Yes it might have come at the expense of future DLC plans and only one DLC came out through all those years but it was wirth it to have the game shine as it does now

If I understand correctly, player isn't notified about range extension agreements alien races sign between themselves. Moreover, player isn't notified about alliances created and broken if he isn't in contact with their participants, even when these races have already been met. In times of war, this information is of high importance, and the player is forced to check relations chart in Diplomacy -> Intelligence Briefing each turn. Suggest to notify player about every change to the chart, moreso unmet races aren't shown on the chart, and thus will not generate change -> notification.

IMHO, fleet AI could be improved by introducing attacks of opportunity. From time to time AI fleet can be seen arriving to its destination (usually, retreat or recon target) and deeming its task fulfilled, even if there are easy to hit enemy assets at the site. AI scouts not attacking enemy outposts fall into this category.

PrivateHudson wrote:In response to the ultimatum "We will have Xxx, admiral…" said admiral should produce "Come and take it!"

Also, I believe there is place for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time in diplomatic dialog around cease-fire.

Propose to set the minimum number of turns before Ennxation is offered to an ally to 10 turns

I hust had a game where I met a much less developd nation, close alliance with them in turn 1 after meeting them and they offered to annex after 3 turns

Ideally there should be some random variable wait time with some minimal wait time
My proposal: min 10 turns (currently the min time seems to be 3 turns at maxiumum) and 30 turns max - 20 turns in AVG

Triggere for diplomatic incident

Propose to have actual in game diplomatic events to serve as basis for diplamtic icndeitn events where player needs to choose to break contact with a side

Existing events that can serve as basis for incident:
1. One of the sides has ensalved or harmonizied the pops (especially if pop was that of the other factions race)
2. Bought slaves
3. Used forced labor or experimentation on either slaves of harmonized pops
3. Colonised or created outpost within territory of other faction
4. Sent demand for resources (extortion)
5. Canceled any treaty (trading, research, alliance)
6. Denied sending ships away from territory (territory agression)
7. Attacked by Gremak Raiders or Human Priates

The event text can then also reference the soruce vent directly:
"The treatorious Gremak have broken our trade charter..."
"The treatorious Gremak have enlsaved innocent population..."

The random diplomatic incident event could still be used for factions that would normally not be effectd by any of the above but the goal would be to have 1-2 such event type effect all factions over time

Link in war declaration event notifications to the Faction Relationship tab of the diplomacy menu to simply review the overall situation

Would it be possible to have tow factions be placed in the center of the map or have it as a map generation option?

I have mentioned many times that Eclipse form is hands-down the best way to play (should be default ) as it doesnt offer any corners ofr a faction to hide and turle in, helps the AI to overcome range limitations (its achiles heel now) and puts the player into constant diplomatic contact and thus conflict keeps the player engaged preventing the game to get boring at any point

Even within Eclipse map there are two types of starting poistions though:
A: In the middle
B: On the edge

Option "A" is bar far more interesting for the player as there is always some diploamtic confict that needs to be managed, sides to be chosen or wars to get involved in (or trying to stay out of).
My current map below is such a scenario where I started in the middle and is loads of fun: Now the Orthin are not yet visible but they of course are habiting the as of yet unexplored region to the South-West

Now if it was up to me I would constantly play in hte middle like this but its up to random chance if the player is inserted in the middle
So my first request is to have an option to be played at the core

My second suggestion is to have more then one faction placed in the core to even furhter complicate things
This scenario I dont think I have seen yet but would basically place two factions in the core where my current Yoral faction is: marked red and blue
This is partially why I was hoping for new races but looking at the geometry it could be done with the existing faction count already

To have a faction surrounded in the middle we need at min 5 faction right that is obvious?
How many factions do we need to be able to surround 2 factions in the middle? A simple answer would be 2+4=6 but its not that simple as the further away factions are the more area they need to cover

Looking at the above map I believe we could place 2 (and maybe evne more depending on the star count) factions at the core and sorround them with 6 other faction if the map generator would allow for it and the player can trigger that option somehow (or be applied per default)
Like this: Naturally we could define even more layers beside core and periphery but for that we would definitively need more factions then 8 as even if a single faction is at the core it needs to be surrounded by 3 factions at min and the remaining 4 factions are not enough to cover the periphery area they cannot strech out that quickly before second layer factions get there

But the tow layers option would be possible already and only necessitate the below two options:
1. Number of factions in galactic core (ideally 2-3)
2. Starting position for the player: Core, Periphery or Random
This way the player can set some 100+ stars, set 2-3 factions including themselves at the core and the rest goes into the periphery surrounding them and presto we have a perfect petri dish for generating diplomatic shinanigans

Would these two options be possible?

zolobolo wrote:...or have it as a map generation option?

This.
The mapgen option would likely be the preferred way to do this, as then you can achieve this effect in almost any map (present and future) rather than have it be confined to a single one.
Maybe a tri-state toggle/dropdown with the default being 'random', and having 'centre' and 'edge' as alternatives?
Then the Ellipse map with player set @ centre becomes the above.

P. much the only map it wouldn't work for is Ring, since every start location in such a map is technically an edge.
In that case this field could be disabled.

zolobolo wrote:Option "A" is bar far more interesting for the player...

I prefer B
I like starting at the edge of the map. The fewer directions my attention is being pulled in, the more fun I generally have. And vice-versa.
Not a fan of lots of things going on at once.
We're all different etc.