Bebop Cola
Posts: 250
Joined: 5/9/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beag
1- Instead of having so many mid-value planets, make it so that resource amounts are more at the extremes (that is, planets with 90% and 10% steel, instead of many with 40-60%). That will make a strategic planet really strategic. However it will only work if the AI can deal with the fact and be as agressive towards resources as the player.
My concern here is that it gives a fairly substantial advantage to any empire that stumbles upon this one huge stockpile. Everyone else is forced to spam mines on dinky little resource nodes, preventing them from building up much of a stockpile. The lucky empire that hits this large node can not only capitalize on it, but also spam those dinky nodes, building up a fairly massive stockpile relatively quickly. When push eventually comes to shove, they are going to have the advantage in any armed attempt to snatch the planet as a result of a large resource stockpile. While this may appear to accomplish the goal of creating high value strategic resource nodes, I'd be concerned that instead it just tips the balance too far in favor of the first empire to grab the node.
However, if we combine this idea with the one I suggested earlier we could have a system where node values are more or less as vanilla, save that some nodes decrease value at a slower rate than others. This means that resource gathering efforts are initially more or less equally productive in the short term, but the really valuable ones are productive in the long term. Those become the ones to fight over using the stockpiles built up from the nodes that deplete faster.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beag
2- Population management could have some depth. As I once suggested, foreign races in a planet should have the potential to cause all kinds of trouble, from more frequent rebellions (specially if at war with their original empire) to easier sabotage of any facility in said planet. That would force the player between having more population and potential for unrest, or less population (either due to forced migration or extermination) and deal with the consequences. Also, the more intelligent and agressive the race, the larger the potential for unrest should be. I am aware that thereis a happiness malus when at war but the effect on gameplay is negligible. So, instead of just spamming bases everywhere, putting bases in precarious situations could lead them to be sabotaged and destroyed easily, unless the player makes an effort to make the population homogeneous, with all the productivity/reputation consequences that those imply.
I would very much like to see more depth in population management as well. I'd like to set migration/enslavement/extermination policies per species, rather than just for my race family then everyone else. Ideally, I'd like to be able to set different tax levels for different species, perhaps even for different sub-factions of species(like those that come from a newly rebelled empire).
I'm in agreement that it would be nice to see more granularity in social pressures on multicultural colony worlds. Certain species already have a coded instinctual dislike of others, so those should be a bit more substantive in regards to the happiness of a planetary population. A world who's population is composed entirely of Gizureans that is controlled by a Human empire should pretty much experience at least mild continued unrest. A world with a mixed population should experience unrest and strife between the two groups. Assimilation only goes so far. A race that depends on a Hive Mind to function should have exceptional difficulty assimilating into a relatively individualistic Democracy. Maybe the dominant race even dislikes them for "pooling" their votes.
I think it would add some spice if the populations of newly rebelling or emerging empires occasionally had different traits than the vanilla race they split from. By that I mean different biases, preferred government types, tech focus, and design priorities. This could just be something random but it would be particularly interesting if they were set up in some way responding to their neighbors. Perhaps a human world bordering the Zenox takes on a technocratic focus and has an increased bias towards the Zenox. Alternatively, if relations between adjacent Human and Zenox empires are especially bad but still peaceful, perhaps any colonies that rebel along that border are especially biased against the opposing empire. In conjunction to the more granularity point above, I might like to encourage migration for a Gizurean sub-faction that is biased towards me while discouraging migration for the sub-faction biased against me. Of course, my own population is still likely biased against all Gizureans so such an effort may end up biting me in the ass.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beag
3- To make other kinds of government more interesting, give a malus to intelligence and counter-espionage to democracies, republics and technocracies, and bonus for the others (is this already resent in the game? It should). As it is research beats all other modifiers. It really doesn´t matter if despotism gives less war weariness if due to inferior tech they lose 10 ships for each of the (technologically superior) enemy.
I tend to agree with this. That said, with the Legends system of acquiring Intelligence agents I've been a little concerned about the whole espionage side of the game in the first place. If your agent gets nabbed, you basically have to wait for chance to spawn a new one. In the meantime you're left with a shortage of agents. It would be nice if the agents who actually do the work are recruitable, and the characters are there to provide them bonuses as heads of departments/agencies(espionage, counter-intelligence, sabotage, etc).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beag
4- Agressive races should be more agressive than they are now, and maybe a balance of power system would be interesting - if someone is becoming too powerful, neighbour empires should renounce treaties and ally with each other. That should work regardless if the powerful empire is AI or player.
While I'm a fan of aggressive races being aggressive, I think they need to do so intelligently. "Mega-Evil Empire" always feels too artificial and irritating to me. In reality, there would be no reason for a weaker empire to break their treaty with a stronger one insofar as they have a good thing going. If the relationship is good it is probably a bonus if their friend is the biggest kid on the block. If the relationship is a little rocky, that bonus might be the only thing holding them together. That said, if the relationship is bad that bonus becomes an almost insurmountable negative modifier. In the end, simply having overwhelming power should not make the Divine Saintly Empire of Good Deeds the enemy of the universe.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Beag
5- In the starting settings, there should be an option for "Assymetrical distribution of power". That is, on the start some empires would be larger than others. It would create interesting scenarios where you would have to try to create a league and defeat the larger power.
While I tend to prefer an equal starting point for my games, I would support this as an option at game creation.
|
Printable Version
Population, construction and resources - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread