Peoples start preference

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Peoples start preference

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Peoples start preference

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Peoples start preference - 6/22/2020 11:26:11 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

OK what are your preferred start preferences?

Tech Level?

Councils?

Amount of starting zones?

Troop strength?

To those who have tried different starts what settings have been the most enjoyable?

Thanks

< Message edited by wodin -- 6/22/2020 11:27:25 PM >

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

Post #: 1

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/22/2020 11:44:55 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Ok, I roll a planet with large rain and high level life on it Siwa. My preferences are highest tech 3 zones 2 armies each. I choose Meritocracy Enforcement and mind. My planets right now are largest. I start with all councils.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 2

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:04:00 AM

Larac

Posts: 250
Joined: 9/5/2004
Status: offline

I have been doing Medium and Large planets, minimal start, 1 Zone and low tech.

Finding a life filled planet for me has been hard.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 3

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:11:40 AM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

I do low tech, medium planets, unknown planet, slowest speed for epic games, one zone, militia, no councils.

Basically anything to drag the whole game out and slow it down so there are lots of slug it out battles and all tech developments have time to be fully appreciated. I'm only playing on regular difficulty at the moment.

< Message edited by cspringer1234 -- 6/23/2020 12:12:05 AM >

(in reply to Larac)

Post #: 4

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:13:56 AM

LordAldrich

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline

I've tried a whole lot of different conditions. I've found that I do NOT like regular difficulty games on the lowest tech/zone/army settings. It's too volatile, you're basically a minor regime and your success or failure is dependent on too much randomness: what neighbors you have, and especially how much access you have to metal. For "apocalypse tribe growing into a civilization" games I really like the beginner difficulty setting: the guaranteed metal deposit and slightly reduced minor regime aggression are just about right. (regular difficulty with 1 starting army is close, but you still run the risk of never finding any metal and losing around turn 40-50 when you get steamrolled by a major regime that had more luck than you).

Almost any increase to tech/zone/army settings will reduce the relevance of minor regimes (they don't get the same bonuses) and push you into conflict with major regimes much faster.

From a governmental perspective I've found that Meritocracy/Government/Mind is a very powerful combination, excellent leaders (who get good results on many common events) and excellent passive bonuses where they matter most can snowball pretty quickly.

All the different planet conditions are fun. I usually use a small world simply for performance reasons. I often like having a breathable atmosphere simply because it makes a variety of unit equipment (e.g. filters, thermo-gear) relevant. Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 5

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:41:57 AM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordAldrich

I often like having a breathable atmosphere simply because it makes a variety of unit equipment (e.g. filters, thermo-gear) relevant. Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

Start the topic, or find the one that may already be here somewhere. I would really like for the environment to have more of an affect on your troops / city. Make those super freezing / super heated temperatures / toxic air / and especially radiation really suck. Station troops / cities in radiation heavy areas for too long, without anti-radiation buildings in your cities, have some of them die off / spawn mutants.

Might be hard to make an AI that would appreciate the danger though, I could easily see putting cities / troops into locations where in order for the enemy to attack you, they have to sit in a fiery/freezing and irradiated hex of death.

(in reply to LordAldrich)

Post #: 6

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:58:54 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

How much of the planet do you all reveal at start? "Partial"? None? I've been going with the least-revealing option ("none" or something like that).

_____________________________

(in reply to cspringer1234)

Post #: 7

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:08:49 AM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

I reveal none of it. And I wish it was harder to maintain recon / control on it. I want it to revert to fog of war faster if no troops, roads or cities are within a certain distance of the hex.

< Message edited by cspringer1234 -- 6/23/2020 1:09:12 AM >

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 8

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:12:28 AM

LordAldrich

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

How much of the planet do you all reveal at start? "Partial"? None? I've been going with the least-revealing option ("none" or something like that).

I go with "None" and then use spies and recon battalions to scout the map (you can use spies on wilderness areas).

More information than that tends to just make my restart-itis worse.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 9

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:18:49 AM

Lorgath

Posts: 7
Joined: 6/18/2020
Status: offline

I mostly play large sized Siwa planets that had a high pre-collapse population. I have started trying more hostile environments now I know what I am doing better. I play the default city state start with militia, no councils and low tech.

I'd say that there have been three most interesting starts, other than my first couple of games where I had no idea what to expect. My current game is a blisteringly hot Cerberus planet in the early stages of evolving life, giving me utterly toxic, hostile conditions. The planet was a mining hub and spawned at least one megacity that's some 30+ hexes of ruins around a sea of lava. I started in spitting distance of 3 different major factions with raiders everywhere else, but I was lucky in that my capital was on top of what must have been one of the planet's mining colonies, as I got 3 ruin sites with metal and artifact deposits early on. I'm protected on three sides by mountain ranges that are just big enough for the AI to want to ignore, while not being too much of a nightmare to bypass and route logistics networks around. The changes with diplomacy in the beta have let me pacify and vassalise most of the raiders before they became a problem or the Majors started rolling into their territory. The planet also suffered multiple nuclear exchanges, so is an irradiated husk.

The other two most interesting starts for me were a Limos planet that was a little too warm and a needed filters right up until the colonization phase, when much to my pleasure the game informed me that the planet had been seeded with terran plants, raising the amount of oxygen enough to turn it into a garden world. It then had a relatively peaceful collapse and my biggest problem was the total lack of fuel sources. The other fun one was an Unclassified ball of ice that had blue forests clinging to the mountains, but I got overrun by slavers early on.

quote:

Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

I agree with this, at the moment I cant see any reason at all not to use an environment suit at the start, regardless of the conditions.

(in reply to LordAldrich)

Post #: 10

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:24:46 AM

WeaverofBrokenThreads

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline

Unclassified planet, minimal mountains, 500+ rain, water optional (it can happen to have 0% water, but to have rain), no syndicate, low tech, supreme council only, extreme difficulty.

I generally don't really scout the map. I will follow roads to see how my neighbors are, but I will generally return and turtle, scouting only with spies. I don't go for assets, even if they are close. I build my plan of expansion based on reports I get from scouts.

< Message edited by WeaverofBrokenThreads -- 6/23/2020 1:26:29 AM >

(in reply to Lorgath)

Post #: 11

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:29:11 AM

cspringer1234

Posts: 27
Joined: 6/15/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorgath

quote:

Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

I agree with this, at the moment I cant see any reason at all not to use an environment suit at the start, regardless of the conditions.

Make them like masks in real life, have them lower troop morale and performance. Higher the rating of the armor / filtration, the more morale and performance it saps?

People don't even want to wear flimsy paper / cotton masks in real life, let alone full environmental suits.

(in reply to Lorgath)

Post #: 12

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:41:31 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larac
I have been doing Medium and Large planets, minimal start, 1 Zone and low tech.

Finding a life filled planet for me has been hard.

hmmm, this is what I do, but only large Siwas. Life forms out the wazoo, they are overwhelming, can't kill them with the initial tech.

(in reply to Larac)

Post #: 13

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:53:36 AM

diamondspider

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/15/2020
Status: offline

I like:
+normal planet size
+normal difficulty (about to kick it up a notch next game)
+low tech/normal pacing
+zero councils
+less than 10% mountains and oceans
+no life
+high planet tilt for interesting seasons
+no extreme temp... round 20-30 average but with high tilt get a good range
+a good number of ruins, both because they are interesting terrain and they give some early metal... not too many though because it makes the game too easy
+epochs (don't love them, but they add an interesting element).
+meritocracy, commerce, mind.
+See map but full fog of war.

I dislike:
-too much forest, so usually go for either shrubs maximum life or, even better, reroll until I get not much forest.
-cloud forests are zero tolerance
-too much population, so I usually play heavily nuked worlds with lots of radiation
-for now I keep cults, corps, and criminals options off, but will experiment in future.
-to reiterate, I dislike any animal life being on the planet, both because fighting wildlife strikes me as boring and because I believe life will turn out to be extremely rare in reality.

Don't care:
-about oxygen levels and other hazards as they don't have much impact... hopefully this will change in future so they have more impact.

< Message edited by diamondspider -- 6/23/2020 2:45:45 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 14

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 1:56:57 AM

EuchreJack

Posts: 47
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

How much of the planet do you all reveal at start? "Partial"? None? I've been going with the least-revealing option ("none" or something like that).

I've been using complete map, so I can see the world but not the people without spies/recon. I mean, just think of how many maps of our planet and globes exist in a small community. The school alone probably has one per classroom, and many private homes and businesses have at least a map or a globe. So, why wouldn't my regime be able to scrape up at least ONE map of the world they inhabit. It just doesn't make sense to me, so I go with a map of the world. I can at least see the ruins and expand meaningfully. I can however totally understand the wonder of having a whole world to explore, and might go with "none" again in the future, but complete map just makes sense to me currently.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 15

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 2:47:09 AM

diamondspider

Posts: 141
Joined: 5/15/2020
Status: offline

quote:

I've been using complete map

Same. Planning if what I enjoy in these games, and whatever can help me plan I turn on. Of course I have no idea about the enemies and special structures there, so there is still plenty of surprise.

(in reply to EuchreJack)

Post #: 16

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 4:46:06 AM

ramnblam

Posts: 199
Joined: 6/9/2020
From: Australia
Status: offline

Random planet gen, full fog of war, lowest tech start, one city, epic game speed.

(in reply to diamondspider)

Post #: 17

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 5:08:25 AM

lloydster4

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/19/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
hmmm, this is what I do, but only large Siwas. Life forms out the wazoo, they are overwhelming, can't kill them with the initial tech.

What?! You hate fighting creatures with low-tech, but you ONLY roll Siwas with low-tech?

Are you masochistic or just stubborn?

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 18

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 6:39:18 AM

LordAldrich

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline

I've split out a thread in the suggestions sub-forum about how environment suits should be nerfed, feel free to continue that discussion there if you're so inclined!

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4840108

(in reply to lloydster4)

Post #: 19

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 10:32:24 AM

Kamelpov

Posts: 167
Joined: 2/22/2020
Status: offline

I play with wildlife raiders slavers and lot of population all fog of war and epic dev speed tech 3 all cult and no council and things like that to have a minor city start.

(in reply to LordAldrich)

Post #: 20

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 10:52:19 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

OK what are your preferred start preferences?

Tech Level?

Councils?

Amount of starting zones?

Troop strength?

To those who have tried different starts what settings have been the most enjoyable?

Thanks

- TL4. It limits the need for research, gives me plenty of unit options and I start with Truckstop and Scavenger Privatized (higher TL also accelerates your economy)
- Just supreme council.
- 1 Zone
- 1 Army/Zone
- currently I play mostly on planets without atmosphere, so my units at least start with a Ennvirosuit as armor. Oherwise would have to get teh Model council 1st or 2nd.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 21

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 11:15:31 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EuchreJack
I've been using complete map...

Yup, me too, same reasons.

(in reply to EuchreJack)

Post #: 22

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 11:18:55 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
What?! You hate fighting creatures with low-tech, but you ONLY roll Siwas with low-tech?

Well, in one game it was very difficult, but possible, to kill the creatures; in that game I had NO immediate neighbors, so the first 50 turns of the game were devoted SOLELY to killing creatures. That game was actually kind of fun.

In my next game, there were creatures that are impossible to kill, and I'm surrounded by several minors and a major. That was a restart...

quote:

ORIGINAL: lloydster4
Are you masochistic or just stubborn?

Yes!

(in reply to lloydster4)

Post #: 23

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 12:01:11 PM

Fleshbits

Posts: 140
Joined: 5/29/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordAldrich

I've tried a whole lot of different conditions. I've found that I do NOT like regular difficulty games on the lowest tech/zone/army settings. It's too volatile, you're basically a minor regime and your success or failure is dependent on too much randomness: what neighbors you have, and especially how much access you have to metal. For "apocalypse tribe growing into a civilization" games I really like the beginner difficulty setting: the guaranteed metal deposit and slightly reduced minor regime aggression are just about right. (regular difficulty with 1 starting army is close, but you still run the risk of never finding any metal and losing around turn 40-50 when you get steamrolled by a major regime that had more luck than you).

Almost any increase to tech/zone/army settings will reduce the relevance of minor regimes (they don't get the same bonuses) and push you into conflict with major regimes much faster.

From a governmental perspective I've found that Meritocracy/Government/Mind is a very powerful combination, excellent leaders (who get good results on many common events) and excellent passive bonuses where they matter most can snowball pretty quickly.

All the different planet conditions are fun. I usually use a small world simply for performance reasons. I often like having a breathable atmosphere simply because it makes a variety of unit equipment (e.g. filters, thermo-gear) relevant. Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

Same experience.
RNG metal = win
RNG no metal = loss

No strategy, just a three hour game of high card.

(in reply to LordAldrich)

Post #: 24

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 2:00:42 PM

Ekaton

Posts: 254
Joined: 9/30/2013
From: The War Room
Status: offline

Dune-like, very low population. Rebuilding civilisation feels like a huge accomplishment.

_____________________________

I need ten females for each male...

(in reply to Fleshbits)

Post #: 25

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 2:27:25 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fleshbits

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordAldrich

I've tried a whole lot of different conditions. I've found that I do NOT like regular difficulty games on the lowest tech/zone/army settings. It's too volatile, you're basically a minor regime and your success or failure is dependent on too much randomness: what neighbors you have, and especially how much access you have to metal. For "apocalypse tribe growing into a civilization" games I really like the beginner difficulty setting: the guaranteed metal deposit and slightly reduced minor regime aggression are just about right. (regular difficulty with 1 starting army is close, but you still run the risk of never finding any metal and losing around turn 40-50 when you get steamrolled by a major regime that had more luck than you).

Almost any increase to tech/zone/army settings will reduce the relevance of minor regimes (they don't get the same bonuses) and push you into conflict with major regimes much faster.

From a governmental perspective I've found that Meritocracy/Government/Mind is a very powerful combination, excellent leaders (who get good results on many common events) and excellent passive bonuses where they matter most can snowball pretty quickly.

All the different planet conditions are fun. I usually use a small world simply for performance reasons. I often like having a breathable atmosphere simply because it makes a variety of unit equipment (e.g. filters, thermo-gear) relevant. Environment suits are too good, they should be nerfed - but that's a different topic.

Same experience.
RNG metal = win
RNG no metal = loss

No strategy, just a three hour game of high card.

You start with a guruanteed metal spot. Plus Scavenger. And if you need to save metal: Gas Powered Small arms. Good firepower, barely any ammo consumption.

(in reply to Fleshbits)

Post #: 26

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 4:51:40 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I thought the guaranteed metal spot was only on Beginner difficulty. Maybe I remember wrong?

_____________________________

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 27

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 5:38:24 PM

LordAldrich

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline

You're correct, the gaurenteed metal deposit is only on beginner difficulty and (like I discussed in my original post) is a good part of why I enjoy the beginner difficulty for low tech start games.

Scavenging only works if your planet had a high population (and so has lots of ruins), and they run out quickly in any case.

I stand by my point: games where I don't have the starting metal deposit are too random for me to enjoy them.

Which is fine, it's a personal preference and I have the tools (through the difficulty settings) to deal with it.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 28

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 5:42:47 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

seems like it would be reasonable for our regimes to start near a metal deposit not only in beginner mode...after all, people are more likely to settle near important resources, such as water, metal, whatever else. So why should our regimes be missing resources when the game starts?

(in reply to LordAldrich)

Post #: 29

RE: Peoples start preference - 6/23/2020 5:49:20 PM

LordAldrich

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/30/2014
Status: offline

Well TBH that metal deposit is pretty much the only difference between beginner and regular difficultly, per the rulebook. The minor regimes also have slightly reduced aggression, but that seems to be it.

I'm all for more customizable options during setup, so if Vic were to turn all these into checkboxes or sliders I would be quite pleased.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 30