|
Hyena Grin -> Playing with fewer habitable worlds (11/9/2013 2:05:41 PM)
|
Does anyone play with scarce or rare habitable worlds? This has a huge effect on the game, where colony worlds are much more valuable and prized, but the outcome of games tends to get skewed toward those lucky enough to start with good worlds nearby. Also the AI can get a little confused if they have to go very far to colonize.
This also means a lot more systems with lots of mining stations but no colonies. Which also means lower income due to lower taxes, and a higher reliance on trade for income, which I don't think the AI handles very well. And it means that many vital resources that can only be found on habitable worlds become quite scarce. Which is problematic for this type of game.
Colony techs and commerce techs become absolutely crucial to advancement, and a failure to explore rapidly and colonize can cripple your empire seemingly irreversibly.
Overall the games tend to feel less predictable (more circumstantial to your starting situation) but also provide for better 'stories' in that every colony is valuable and the wars that occur over them are pretty epic. It's easy to grow attached to colonies when you have fewer of them.
I like the idea of fewer habitable worlds, because I feel like space should feel relatively inhospitable. I just wish there were more uninhabitable worlds that weren't barren rocks, as those get a bit repetitive when playing this way (with the lowest setting, a system will tend to be about 80% barren rock planets). It'd be interesting to see a handful more world types that can't be colonized (by anyone) but provide some resources you'd normally see on colonizable worlds (to fill the resource gap). Surely there must be some conditions that just can't be managed. Worlds that rain acid or whose atmospheres are filled with toxic and corrosive gasses.
|
|
|
|
