Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Bump.

Fixed some scripting calculations glitches caused with speeding them up in v1.05 (mostly related to some Stratagems giving weird 0 results)

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

best wishes,
Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

Never say that you asume a bug fixed. You know they feel challenged by that.

They might even give a variant of the "he tasks me" speech. Not sure, I do not speak computer bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Destragon
I would actually say that the "annexation" card is currently underpowered, because who would ever want to play that when there's a risk of losing everything you worked for diplomatically and dropping right down to a war status?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

And I think i might very well have fixed the long standing history-orange units bug as well as the 8-9-keys Guard-bug.

Never say that you asume a bug fixed. You know they feel challenged by that.

They might even give a variant of the "he tasks me" speech. Not sure, I do not speak computer bug.

Well... i said before that i fixed, when i didnt so :) well better not to claim full victory immediately...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine
Does it still hit you with the usual penalties for declaring war? If yes, I agree. If not, failing is not as big of a penalty, since you'll get the zone anyway in the end if you planned things properly, whereas if Unification fails you just wasted PP for no effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Destragon

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford
Here's my reasoning: this is a wargame, and if taking Minors at the start is a matter of just saving a couple of turns of PP and playing a card, then you're essentially removing any incentive to engage in the game's strongest feature: combat.

It's not quite as easy as you put it. First, you're gonna need a foreign affairs council. You need a good diplomat or some shadow diplomat stratagems. You need to make the regime a protectorate, then a vassal to reduce difficulty. Hopefully with critical successes to improve your relation with them. If you fail those and reduce your relation, you're gonna make the unification harder, and I think you can't really increase your relation with them, unless you have that one political faction that gifits you relation boosting stratagems. It also depends a lot on the tradition value from the minor, which as far as I can tell, can be a +200 modifier for the difficulty at max tradition.

When you do succeed though, you're immediately getting access to their city with ecstatic population happiness and all their militia units, which both are really powerful effects.

I would actually say that the "annexation" card is currently underpowered, because who would ever want to play that when there's a risk of losing everything you worked for diplomatically and dropping right down to a war status?

It doesn't really make sense for unification to have -50 difficulty, when it has no negative downside for failing it. The -50 difficulty should maybe be moved over to annexation.

I'm okay with increasing PP costs, since the game feels like it needs more PP drains in general.

There's currently no effect for critical successes/failures with these cards. The annexation war declaration should probably be moved to critical failure since a normal failure could be seen as the minor faction challenging your threat and it still being your choice if you really want to declare war or not. Normal failure should still be a big drop in relation between you and them though.
Maybe the ecstatic population happiness after unifying should be an effect of a critical unification success. Normal unification success should be 50% happiness or something like that.

quote:


although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?

The game is parts roleplaying game, so having two different options for unification/annexation, one for intimidating with threats and the other for being diplomatic, is good I think.
The cards could be made more different from each other for sure though.

quote:

One of the guys on our discord has already shown us how he's easily taken large amounts of territory and thinks it's overpowered.

That was me. It's very powerful and it does need some tweaking, but I don't share the worry of it potentially being game ruining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

quote:

ORIGINAL: KingHalford

quote:

ORIGINAL: ramnblam

I think it will take a little bit of balancing to achieve the desired result. You want players to be experience a spectrum of potential minor/major regime relations, from the friendliest cuddly bears to the most obnoxious aggressive warmonger, the stratagems should be there to give the player a way to influence and maneuver politically without being a binary "OH positive relations play the x card". The character skill rolls already come into play here which is good but I think being able to not cheese any one area of the game to make the rest trivial is really important.

My worry here is that if you get a very strong diplomat then 30 PP is rather trivial to obtain, especially if you play for this strategy from the start. I like the cards (although I do wonder if just one of them might do since they're both very similar?) I can just see the potential for abuse, particularly in multiplayer.

Mate I'm not trying to be an arsehole, but my comment was explicitly I want options available to the player in regards to the RNG they come up against but it shouldn't be something that is potentially reliably or practicably cheesed. Sorry if If I've misread you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydmatrix2

For the open beta branch, I'd be happy to have an auto-save *at the start* of a turn - it will be easier to check/reproduce/report some issues. Otherwise it requires to start from the end of the previous turn (and I don't know how deterministic the end-turn results are).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

V6 gives a warning when I download it that it is possibly a virus or will change system. I had to load it from the downlaod window it wouldn't go to my system the usual way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

For the record, I've mildly suggested that Political Points balance should not roll over each turn and that unused stratagem cards should be discarded as well. The purpose would be to stress a defined period of opportunity and a limit on cached political power. Both these elements have a time component not stressed.

I don't suggested those changes to make the game harder or easier, but because I think it fits the intent of the resources given my experiences with game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

V6 gives a warning when I download it that it is possibly a virus or will change system. I had to load it from the downlaod window it wouldn't go to my system the usual way.

Correct way of saying it:
Your Virus scanner gives you a warning for this file.
Someone had similar issues with beta 4 or 5.

If it is only one Virus scanner that does that, asume a false-positive. Propably some overly agressive heuristic got tripped.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydmatrix2

For the open beta branch, I'd be happy to have an auto-save *at the start* of a turn - it will be easier to check/reproduce/report some issues. Otherwise it requires to start from the end of the previous turn (and I don't know how deterministic the end-turn results are).

I am honestly still a bit confused why this is on default with Strategy games. At least for me it seems a "Start of Turn" save makes a lot more sense. Because, we can still do stuff at the start of the turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydmatrix2

For the open beta branch, I'd be happy to have an auto-save *at the start* of a turn - it will be easier to check/reproduce/report some issues. Otherwise it requires to start from the end of the previous turn (and I don't know how deterministic the end-turn results are).

I am honestly still a bit confused why this is on default with Strategy games. At least for me it seems a "Start of Turn" save makes a lot more sense. Because, we can still do stuff at the start of the turn.

Because the game is more likely to CTD during the automated phases. You want a save to record all your decisions before you run the functions and it starts thrashing the data associated with all your actions. Your decisions and the associated data should be immutable, but you will appreciate the safety net nonetheless.

If you savescum, it also provides the ability to go back--if you realize you missed something important and the AI took advantage of you. That's very much like other games where you hit a save point before a boss fight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ydmatrix2

I do like the end-of-turn save for the gameplay in general.

For the beta-branch, I'd also like (an option for?) a start of turn save.

My reasoning - for example, there an uncommon but consistent issue where making a decision on an event doesn't show the outcome popup (although the effects do take place). After it happens - I have nothing to show to report it, and I'm not going back to end of last turn for the hope of getting the same decision with the reproducible problem again.
It would be very easy to reproduce with a start-of-turn save, but I'm not going to save each start of turn manually for the hopes of catching that one time - trying to play a game after all...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Number of minor fixes. And an musical surprise :)

Please give it a spin.

Hoping to make this one the next official v1.04.

best wishes,
Vic

quote:

-You can no longer build HS Rail Station and Rail Station in the same Hex *

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Sorry there. Fixed in v1.03-beta7b :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cornuthaum

quote:

-You can no longer build HS Rail Station and Rail Station in the same Hex *

I'm sorry, what? Am I supposed to cripple my entire, already-existing railway logistics infrastructure for 12 turns (because that's how long it takes for an asset to be removed jfc), only to then have to wait for at least another 2 turns before I can build and start using HS rail stations?

HS rail is already a pretty late-game tech on the opposite path of the tech tree from the most important economic ones (robotization) and all preceding techs to HS rail are useless on a lot of planets and as such very low priority in the first place. It does not come early enough for there not to already be a regular rail network. If there was a conversion project (replacing an existing Rail station with a similarly-levelled HS rail station) this wouldn't be quite so bad.