Can we make that Dreadnought “guardian” a lot more powerful? As in give it the top of the line armor, shields, generator, and weapons? On brutal mode it seems the AI was able to take it out with 2 carriers and 3 heavy cruisers after about the 30th turn.

Also

What is the Primary Beam Siege weapon for? Force beams seem to have more of a punch than they do.

Edit

User Interface: Local/system time (clock) on one of the corners
On main map screen: Ability to buy the current project from the left column that list of all the planets
In refit screen: The range or weapons updating on the right when the LR option is selected for the mass drivers and rail guns

New minor or upcoming major faction trait: carnivore

Effect: Reduction to pop growth and morale to all non-carnivore pops on planet

Text for moral Penalty: "We are being hunted and eaten"

Rationale: this race should provide substantial benefits (metal mining or repression of rebels: slave driver) but prefer the most common and best climates thus settling them there will bring in also the negatives if other races are also used to maximize planet utility.

They could act as slave drivers like Marauder infantry does but these can rebel themselfes, though having no upkeep costs

AI empires currently do not actively ship population between planets. As an AI issue, this is understandable, but it means that AI empires do not take advantage of the presence of multiple species to boost population caps. I suggest that AI empires, if in possession of a planet that could have increased population capacity by shipping population to it, select one non-primitive population unit that will increase the population capacity (of their default species, if required to choose between their species and another) to that planet, not shipping further population to that planet while the population is in transit.

A happy consequence of this change is that the Gremak Empire, rather than mostly just maintaining slave labor as a vestigial historical remnant on Gremal, will actively ship Enfi all over to their drier planets, making them much more obviously dependent on slave labor.

Suggest to have a magnifying glass icon next to each planet listed in the starvation report, so the player can focus on the location easily on large maps where a lot of war is going on

Workaround: selecting the planet via the hyperlink takes the player to the planet construction menu, but does not focus the camera yet, so click next planet and previous planet to get focus there

Alternatively: The focus could be set automatically on the planet once selected from the starvation report

Give me exact percentage for how much will researching Subspace Networking reduce ship costs.

SmaugTheDragon wrote:Give me exact percentage for how much will researching Subspace Networking reduce ship costs.

The labor cost is cut in half.

When attacking a planet recommend to first pop up the space battle result status screen before jumping over to planetary invasion screen so we can assess the losses if any

Regarding planetary improvement building recommend either:
- A small icon next to each improvement type titled: "Focus". What this would do is auto-build the given improvement on all available slot and close the building queue with the corresponding project if researched. e.g.: Mines end with Mining project, Markets end with Trade project OR:
- Display the same small icons on one side of Automate option. The icons can be in this case identical with the improvement images as that would help identification

Reason:
1. I never use automate as it always stars with factory which is not efficient.
2. Most of the planets are probably specialized by the users with specific buildings and with only one or two other buildings next to them and closed by the corresponding specialization
3. On large maps, this activity takes up the most clicking. Due to wars and constant invasions, the building order needs to be issued several times in each turn (every time a new planet is conquered)
4. The tech which gives additional improvement slot is pain as it arrives usually at a stage where the player has numerous planets, each of which needs to have the current project removed via new building construction issued (which will probably be the same as the existing improvements) and then queue the project again. Even if this is 3 clicks and a scroll (as projects are at the bottom), that is easily: 30*3+30*scroll in single turn without a truly meaningful action

If at least specialized planets could be spared the micro, that would already spare so much clicking from the planets where the focus does not lie and we can concentrate more on battles

Automation is always a tricky subject, because ideally, a mechanic that can be seamlessly automated should probably not be presented to the user as an option in the first place. I try not to design a game that plays itself. However, there are always exceptions to the rule, and the inevitable late game sprawl in 4X games is one of them. But even then, I feel that the best automation is the kind that is rarely used.

The "Automate" option in SIS is there for the times when you literally don't care what the planet produces. It's not supposed to be an optimal colony manager. In SIS you can queue 5 items, which is enough to completely set up most minor colonies in just a few clicks, so I'm not sure that a planetary governor with specialization options is as important as it can be in some more base-micromanagement-intensive games like MOO2 and Civilization. The improvement staffing requirement mechanic means that except in the case of mining specialized planets, the best choice is often not just building one more of the same improvement when you get a new slot. I've heard a number of people complain about having to go through each colony and manually choose a new improvement when a new slot is available, but I don't feel this is always an automatic choice, and (barring terraforming) there are only 4 techs in the game that add new slots or increase the population, so I'm not sure that's really such an outrageous thing to ask.

There are lots of things we can do to make the Automate function smarter, and as the AI improves I dare say we will do a number of them. But the problem with making automation very effective is that what usually happens is that more people start using it... and the automated feature gradually becomes irrelevant. Repeat this across several features, and the game slides step by step into being a simulation that plays itself.

Arioch wrote: There are lots of things we can do to make the Automate function smarter, and as the AI improves I dare say we will do a number of them. But the problem with making automation very effective is that what usually happens is that more people start using it... and the automated feature gradually becomes irrelevant. Repeat this across several features, and the game slides step by step into being a simulation that plays itself.

These are all valid point. The reason I think this would make sense are:
1. The suggested automate options are: build this type of improvement until slots available and then close with project. This is not an optimal arrangement for building up planets and would thus be almost never used in the early-mid game and on small maps. It would be extremely helpful though in the late game, on large maps, and during large-scale wars on both when conqering low-prio planets that can be conquerred back at any time and make up 70% of planets conquered
2. It does not require a dynamic detection of what is optimal (almost no logic at all in fact except for calculating the number of available slots left). The player still sets which "focus" the want implemented.
3. The process it is automating is a no-brainer due to the setting: late-game, and abundance of planets. Thus the task it automates is irrelevant for hte player especially cause the focus of the game lies elsewhere: combat and tech

Thus I think you would not be running into the danger of the game running itself. The use of the function is specific and replaces a monoton player action. It is basically the equivalent of building ships in a loop: setting a "focus" for the planet by the player withouth any AI logic at all

If we would want to make planetary improvements a more interesting game and circumwent the need for automation, we need more things to consider when selecting improvements like:
- Morale penalty for mines (this would mean that we cannnot just simply spam mines all ove a planet withouth considering the pop, make slaves and "harmozied" pop more valuable, markets more relevant, and makes tons of sense as no one like to work in a mine
- Assign staffing requirement also to mines though a low value: more then 2-3 munes would not be effective
- Specialist planet-uniq buildings that elevate above limitations and maybe faction specific: Repair facility for Tinkers, governors palace for Imperials, Slave market for Gremak. These faction specific buildings can mix up the building order of planets by being expensive to build and maintain, but changing up the possiblities of what can be done with the planet

In this scenario: you can invade enemy with Gremak, enslave them, force the to build a governors palace to surpress them, and then continue building mines taht would normally lover non-slave and haronized pop morale.

Should the merc ships for hire not be the ones that are already on the map?

Currently, it seems the pool is gerenated with a logic ditached from the fleet available to the minor faction and they arrive from a random hyperspace origin not from the planet of the minor faction home base

Hiring existing ships would make a lot of sense immersion wise but following needs to be thought of:
1. The available ships for hire need to be ships that are located in the home system (so they are not on a raiding mission) AND are not under attack by the player (AI attack happens right of the bat at the beginning of the turn so that is no issue)
2. Upon purchase, they head towards the nearest player planet or outpost from the home system of the minor faction

This would automatically take care of the supply balance: you can only buy what they were able to produce at the tech level they currently have and if you buy their ships, other factions cannot. This would put Phidi at a clear advantage when utilizing them as they have early access and more money so they can buy the best ships before others (once they actually start doing that).
They would also automatically avoid being raided (which is needed for them being military impaired) as they can leech off the Marauder fleets before the attack them

It would also mean the player would need to consider not just what to buy but also from who as the futher away the home system of the minor faction, the longer it is going to take for the merc ships to get here.
Thus especially on large maps, it becomes more important what the nearest minor faction to the conflict where support is needed has to offer even if it is not state-of-the art - merc ships that are ignored otherwise as they are clearly inferior

Also: Due to this, next time the player sees a Minor faction fleet, they can also think of: "Great, new ragtag merc ships for my fleet"

When several empires of the same race are in game they all use the same faction banner.

Designing several similar but still noticibly different banners is a lot of effort (and most of them rarely used) so how abouth this:
Have a bright white Roman Number with black outline displayed over the banner. As the empires are already referenced as Human 1, nothing else would need to be changed, but identification would be instantly possible

If you do decide to create additional banners, those can be put up for selection by the player when starting a new game so they are utilized and there is more customisation for the faction looks for the player

EDIT: Noticed that we can only use the same faction 4 times maxium on the map: this is then the amount of paint schemas for ships that are set. Can we have these schemas refrecleted in the banner coloring itself? This would also resolve identification issues in diplomacy and would serve as a good alternative for the number display (though identification with number is better as that can directly be referenced in text, whereas a logo with different color not so easily )

Improvement suggestion for tactical AI:
- Keep fighters in bays untill enemy has released ther bombers, fighters, rockets or torpedoes (if they have any) AND if the expected damage done exceeds 60% of the expected loss in HP
- Keep bombers in bays untill enemy PD has fired OR the expected damage done will not exceed 60% of the expected losses
- If overpowered and all small crafts are lost, carriers should retreat
- If carrier cannot launch its small craft due to the above, and is left withouth escort ships, it should retreat from the battle

The above if possible with the current scripts) would make carriers much more effective in combat and harder to counter with PD and passive tactics

Slightly incrrease dodge chance of Frigates and Destroyers when targeted by Heavy Weapon mounts and display the percentage in Heavy Weapons description (preferably as a global variable that can change with advanced engines and tech if these become available later)