I just loaded an old save game using the last public beta patch 0.3.7 - Riftborn to find out how exactly the overcolonization numbers have been changed.  The save game was actually the last save I had from a Let's Play.

I had 32 colonized systems and 13 was the limit on a large ovoid map.  The overcolonization approval penalty on all of my systems was -44.9.  To round out the numbers I took another system to take me 20 over exactly.  The penalty rose to -47.3.  (I had no bonuses to overcolonization approval).

With the release version each system lowers your approval  by -10 on that map size past the soft cap.  Being 20 over will result in -200 approval.

So from those numbers it's obvious there has been a massive change in this area you are now are getting over four times as much negative approval for expansion as we once were on some maps if not all...  Although I welcome the new system being simpler (the fact the numbers are rounded) the penalty has been way over done and needs immediate balancing!!! 

Maverik wrote:

 

Supporting the player fetish "Empire map painting" shouldn't be a desing goal in my opinion, 

I didn't realize players who want conquest in a 4X game were considered to be so kinky :)

I get where certain people may be coming from, they don't want their preferred way they play the game affected by changes.  Balancing this issue wouldn't stop players from holing up in a corner and going after a dust/science/wonder/score win.  The likes of the AI e.g. Cravers may be more of a threat since they could actually expand without ridiculous issues but beyond that it would be the near exact same.

For people who actually want to possibly win via conquest or actually just have a larger empire without running into tedious, excruciating, time consuming levels of micromanagement past a certain point of expansion some balance changes would be hugely beneficial.  I don't think anyone is saying the anti-expansion mechanics should be done away with just balanced.

Some of the previous examples highlighted suffering over -300 approval issues near to conquest.  Orcamania5 mentioned a dense medium map he played on needs 58 systems for conquest that's nearly -500 approval after overcolonization tech etc on that map and it's a steep drop -10 approval each system on maps around that size as well.  Yes there are lots of ways to mitigate issues to win via conquest/create an empire beyond the planet threshold most been have mentioned but not all are possible every game and there is level of unnecessary tedium and micromanagement that is to be avoided.

I started this thread genuinely seeking others opinions on this though I was pretty confident this was an issue I am now totally convinced this needs to be balanced, not just for people who want solo conquest but just for normal larger expansion and for the AI's sake.

Mavros unlock a law that  gives -50% to the overcolonizatiion penalty, reducing 10 to 5 in a natural way. Another option to take.

Over population can be negated entirely by the Kalgeros (this one never is really that high).

You can check out my post where I bring up information on minor factions that isn't easily accessible knowledge beforehand.

orcamania5 wrote:

Feel like this is cheating but after 100 turns of revolts and protests in huge medium dense galaxy where I had to colonize 58 star systems alone to achieve conquest victory, I had enough with all the micromanagements (moving population with approval bonuses between star systems, constantly reassigning heroes with skill that forces star system to be Esthatic, etc.). So, I just opened SimulationDescriptors[Empire].xml, found this line...

<Modifier       TargetProperty="OverColonizationConstant"     Operation="Addition"             Value="10"       />

and changed the Value to 3.

<Modifier       TargetProperty="OverColonizationConstant"     Operation="Addition"             Value="3"       />

Crushing overcolonization penalty was solved and I was able to play the game without stress.

That's what I'm planning to do/use religious with certain empires until Amplitude realizes this really is not balanced and patches it.

Downer wrote:

Republic Religious makes everyone happy. 

I'd forgotten that, thanks.

Feel like this is cheating but after 100 turns of revolts and protests in huge medium dense galaxy where I had to colonize 58 star systems alone to achieve conquest victory, I had enough with all the micromanagements (moving population with approval bonuses between star systems, constantly reassigning heroes with skill that forces star system to be Esthatic, etc.). So, I just opened SimulationDescriptors[Empire].xml, found this line...

<Modifier       TargetProperty="OverColonizationConstant"     Operation="Addition"             Value="10"       />

and changed the Value to 3.

<Modifier       TargetProperty="OverColonizationConstant"     Operation="Addition"             Value="3"       />

Crushing overcolonization penalty was solved and I was able to play the game without stress.

Macsen wrote:

Ozgwald wrote:

Using horatio...

Ozgwald wrote:

With Horatio...

I think you've missed the point of the thread Ozgwald perhaps I should have made it clearer.  No one is asking how great Horatio is, Horatio is "perfectly" capable of letting us know that already and no advice has been sought on how to cope with the overpopulation.  The point of the thread is to gain opinion on whether there is a balance issue, e.g. like Dictatorships had an approval issue back in early access which was subsequently fixed.

Also to hopefully give suggestions on how it can be fixed if there is an issue (there is) and to bring it to Amplitudes attention so it gets fixed.

@SirBagel - thank you your posts are excellent in highlighting the problem more so than mine.

Maybe you should read the replies better. I confirm the balance is gone and I too feel that -10 is over the top. Having the +2 planet tech bonus being dynamic on map size is an option or having even the penalty deminish as you pick a larger map. However such options are blant and just result in waiting for the right tech. What is different about playing a large map or a small map, when the game just upscales and presents no real difference apart from having more pixels on the screen? In the end it is a strategy game not a rpg.

I give multiple options to deal with it now and try these out for yourself. You dismiss this suggestion, because you are stuck seeing the problem only from your own perspective. It is not impossible as many players are suggesting (not only in this thread), it is just to severe or hard and the options the game give us to combat it are too frigid or limited. 

Maybe if you stopped being such a @^&# (your reply omits my responsibility to remain civil), you would have read my reply as such. I suggest taking a walk outside and let those vitamin D boost you approval rating. Under my bug reports you can see some approval mechanics at work with heroes and planning, that totally invalidate the pictures provided in this post. 

Going for the big empires needs planning, it needs larger systems it needs the right population to do so. I come by with just +2/ +0 approval on population due to bugs, it is totally viable to be around +3 avg for any civilization. You also need to understand how to get heroes, what contributes to unlocking them? It is not gimmicky how you get them and which you get it is all explained by the tutorial. I make sure to get early market access (I am unsure how this works) because early on there are like 4 heroes up for sale, when I tech it later you can buy perhaps 2 or none. Keep checking the market sometimes a hero is for sale for up to 1-5 turns only. 

If you take 20 turns to complete a project and wasted that time not leveling heroes by reassignment that is your loss. All these facets can be planned and maximized, which contribute to unlocking more. Right now you have an unique challenge to get a game in such a map to be won by these conquest conditions. There are other ways to win the game, you can also play on smaller maps, yet this combination gives you an unique challenge that will push your understanding of the game. Having dynamic scaling of penalties by map size would remove such challenges from presenting themselves. 

Here is another strategy: you have an economics law that gives +10 approval per different species within 1 system. You have 16 minor and 8 major factions that makes 24 total so a possible +240 on a system. Yeah population management is too much of hassle and needs to be improved, but getting +100 this way is not hard at all and guess what mr grumpy? It beats the horatio strategy. (It actually is not +10 since often you will have to go down the dictator route and face some penalties with missing representatives, the political landscape balance is still far too favored to militaristic actions) Law: Ecologist, Potent, Power to the People. 

Another law: make love not war. +20 per alliance and +10 per peace, along with the tech: High serenity for +10/ +5. You will need influence for this game of continues war and peace.

You can get like +20 or +40 (in beta 4 wars gave +160) per war, just maintain your wars. 

Cravers got the Cathedral that gives +1 per existing ship in the galaxy. I am sure the other races also got their options.

I rather see improvements to:

1. population management, 

2. instructions & foresight to hero bonuses & acquisition and 

3. influence on the politics/ law accessibility. 

Not achieving these things should also not be deemed unbalanced, perhaps you simply failed. Waged to much war, had a lack of resource to bribe for peace, upgraded your system level too late and your population is a mess? 

Don't simply take away the challenge. Keep the challenge but improve our ways to deal with it. We can play on different map sizes and get different challenges, or we can get the exact same game just with more traveling and more systems to micromanage and end up figuring out: "I could have played a smaller and quicker game." You can't go the grand empire route and dismiss the challenge that should come with this. It is these challenges, perhaps unintentionally designed, that can make single player a lot of fun to play.

I completely forgot about the religious law, thank you dev.

Does anyone else feel the Over-colonization Penalty of -10 Approval per system is too much?  On a large map you only get 8 systems before the penalty kicks in yet there are 50+ systems I think on the map.  Each map size only increases it by 2.  Only two techs actually increase the default map amount by two each, one is bugged (4th era with the +25 approval building) at least in my game and then the Empire Government adds two.

Seems a heck of a bigger penalty than in the last early access build it was no where near near this.

Somewhere between -3 and -5 per system seems more reasonable to me and/or more late game techs to allow more expansion...

thoughts?

I think 10 is fine, it is very easy to get sources of happiness, I never had serious problems with happiness in any of my games. Any anti-snowball mechanic is always well received for me.

Ozgwald wrote:

Using horatio...

Ozgwald wrote:

With Horatio...

I think you've missed the point of the thread Ozgwald perhaps I should have made it clearer.  No one is asking how great Horatio is, Horatio is "perfectly" capable of letting us know that already and no advice has been sought on how to cope with the overpopulation.  The point of the thread is to gain opinion on whether there is a balance issue, e.g. like Dictatorships had an approval issue back in early access which was subsequently fixed.

Also to hopefully give suggestions on how it can be fixed if there is an issue (there is) and to bring it to Amplitudes attention so it gets fixed.

@SirBagel - thank you your posts are excellent in highlighting the problem more so than mine.

Using horatio or the right minor factions work (guardians give +5), horatio is a bit easier, but as I said you might face bugs. Then you also focus on larger systems (bigger planets and more planets (+4). If you have 20 population or more granting +5 or more approval you get a long way. 

Still the penalty is too big, but if you want a way to do it I described a way to do it. Just time your early game and midgame well. Make sure to rush (be fast) with both the academy tech and the market tech to gain or purchase heroes for governors. Also finish your faction quest line, I think most if not all provide you with extra heroes as a reward. You want them ready to contribute at the point you need them in your expansion plans. 

I like the fact you have to think about how you expand your empire, that it is not a thoughtless process. However it definitely needs to be more accessible and there should be less of a difference between races and less dependence on random elements (such as getting the right minor faction spawned and the right luxery resource etc. etc.)

So only content Religious can pretty much take the whole galaxy and not have to worry about unhappiness.

vahouth wrote:

SirBagel wrote:

It certainly seems like colonizing an entire galaxy is a thing of the past. I don't think it's possible to get a Conquest Victory on the largest maps without multiple approval laws, the tier 3 over-colonization luxury, and all late game approval improvements (all at once). Terraforming has become a necessary crutch for removing disapproval too. On a colossal galaxy, sitting on 42 out of 73 star systems needed to win already nets a -105 penalty. Especially painful when the AI colonizes systems with 1 Barren planet and you have to wait out the ownership timer to vacate the system.

I don't see Toys for Boys Law. And that's another 20

20 is nothing. To reach 72 systems, I'd have to go more than 3 times over the colonization limit that I am currently over. If disapproval continues increasing linearly, nothing short of Jingoist Paradise + war with everyone and the over-colonization luxury (that doesn't always spawn in a game) will be sufficient to prevent rebellion. Plus I want to keep my science.

Conquest Victory on a large map requites 45 owned planets (not sure if this is every large map or just some).  You can realistically get the over-colonizing amount from 8 to 14 systems via tech/government.  That's still a 31 system difference.  That is -310 approval!!!  -50 is enough to start causing reasonable problems and that's only 5 systems over.  Yes there is lot of approval in the game but not that much, and you shouldn't have to use literally use every bit remotely possible just to make conquest via actual conquest (and colonizing) vaguely possible imo.

I don't know the exact numbers from the last early access build but it was a lot more balanced -10 per system seems a huge increase possibly the amount of planets was changed as well can't remember.

Yes there are I'm sure ways to create very big empires still with a lot of difficulty and planning e.g. transvine all developments etc. but what I'm asking to clarify is for opinions on if the balance is correct not how to do it.  I think the balance is way off personally , it's possibly stopping the AI colonizing as much as it should and the balance gets much worse the bigger the map size.