vahouth wrote:

1) Colonize only a single planet when the Ark is anchored, not all available at once. This combined with Alms for dust is HUGE!

Alms for dust is actually something you have to use when you cannot leech, and it´s not huge at all. It is indeed very very slow and painful.

vahouth wrote:

2) Leechers that are engaged in space combat, should not be able to continue leeching that turn.

That would not have any big impact whatsoever. Besides if they were engaged by a competent fleet they will either die or retreat. So I don´t see much of a point in this restriction.

vahouth wrote:

3) Arks should move at half the speed of every other ship.

Sorry but no, they are already really slow. As speed shares a slot with their eco modules, you always put the eco modules. I think this would only work as balance on smaller maps. As maps get bigger you would have Arks stuck in space forever.

vahouth wrote:

4) I'm not sure yet about this, but I think that the anchoring of an Ark should take more than one turn. Like creating an outpost but at twice the speed.

Instant Actions on the Ark are fine. If it were like creating an outpost the Vodyani would not be viable. Also considering all current factors - it would just take a few enemy ships to kill the Vodyani in this case.

I understand that I sound very negative, I just do not agree with your points. I think there are a few very valid suggestions in this thread. Now if those were to be implemented - after such implementation has happened and the faction is still too strong compared to the others then your list would be something to look at - except for the second point. So I think there might be some potential just not at this stage.

vahouth wrote:

Sorry I made a mistake. I meant the improvement Holy Proliferation, not Alms for Dust. Oops!

I've already had an Ark anchor itself on a 5 planet system where I could colonize 4 at once. 1 turn later that system had 8 pop thanks to Holy Proliferation!

Why isn't this huge? I haven't seen any other race expand that quickly.

Right at the start? I´ve never seen that - getting all those early colonization planets in one place you must have been extremely lucky.

I don´t think Holy Proliferation is worth it until a lot later in the game. Early you need every resource you can get to get your next Ark out. As with any 4x game you need to get the snowball rolling. Most of the FIDS come from improvements to a system, which take time to build. So the earlier you can pump out that second Ark the better. Sure in the short-term you will have a couple more fids if you boost your pop instead of breaking out another Ark - but in the longterm you will lose out big time.

It´s the exact same phenomenon in the Civ series for example. While it may seem like you are winning the game for a very long time when you are pumping out all those wonders in 1 big city - you will eventually lose, because your enemies are making more cities, and they do not pay off until much much later in the game. Exception if you are getting military rush and that extra production pays off right away - I meant in terms of Science production in particular, and other related things.

After the clarifications here and in our PM exchange, I would like to say publicly that I feel like many of these issues may actually not be working as designed.

Sir-Rogers wrote:

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Suggestion #1

As far as arks are concerned: Disabling their ability to attack would be a solution,  but may be a little to drastic. If blockades work like they did in ES1, without any requirement for fleet power, a single scout could blockade a whole ark ship. I think it would be better to simply reduce their ability to actually deal damage to enemy fleets. Floating around with 6000 hitpoints would matter a lot less if they didn't have the guns to kill anything other than a lone scout. Reducing the number of weapon slots to, say, one twin broadside mount for kinetics, could actually open up additional design space: Granting arks more module slots by upgrading their system level, granting them more slots and access to weapon types through a "combat ark" research in era 3, etc.

The hitpoints do not matter that much if they face a fleet with enough damage potential. Of course I cannot make two humans fleets and test-face them as you can only play on side in Early Access - but I do believe that a full Cravers fleet at the start of the game will defeat your initial Ark. Which is not hard for the Cravers to produce, so you might get wiped before being able to push out a second Ark - thus already nerfing the current version I think is not a great idea for this reason. They need to be strong to protect you from defeat, but they should just do that - protect, not be on the offensive. Unless of course there could be a later Era tech that would allow them to do so. Though at this stage other options are preferable. Such as an actual fleet.

Well, I was exaggerating a bit for effect here. Of course, an arc needs to be able to defend itself against more than just a scout, but I don't think it should be able to wipe out a full fleet. Survive against it for several turns, but not easily wipe it out.

In any case, the whole issue of the ark being able to defend itself is moot when said craver fleet can just hit "ground invasion" the instant it enters the system, and wipe out your ark that way. That actually happened to me live on camera during my release day stream, and I was less than pleased that this was a viable action.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Suggestion #2

I completely agree. While the ark's space combat abilities are overpowering in the early eras, their defensive ground combat abilities are a joke. I do not see how a few transports ships can invade an ark that could wipe down an entire combat fleet. Similarly, starting a ground invasion is completely pointless as the Vodyani.

Yes as I said one should not be able to ground invade them. On the offensive though Ark make for great invaders - due to their size they reduce enemy manpower by an alarm rate per turn. So it´s actually a fabulous idea to start a ground invasion as the Vodyani ... once the enemy manpower has been reduced to nothing. Which on normal speed takes 2-3 turns.

I certainly didn't mean that it isn't feasible to invade as Vodyani. They can be quite good at it with the strategy you describe. But they do not gain anything out of it. The only time they benefit more from invading than from leeching is when there is no better system to attach an ark to.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Suggestion #3

I'm not sure this is a problem that needs to be fixed on the Vodyani side.

Suggestion #4

See the beginning of my post.

Yes after some careful consideration I´m not so sure about #4 ... however the approval does feel too strong for the Voldyani. At a certain point I always have all my systems guaranteed on Ecstatic unless there are some really bad anomalies on them. That just as a gut feeling feels to strong as you can expand endlessly. Especially if we determine the size of the game universe to be big and not small. Beyond your starting area of maybe 3-5 decent systems expanding without penalties becomes too strong. As every other faction is limited as this point. As you mentioned there are only limited ways to deal with approval, but that really hits the other factions hard and not the Vodyani at all.

As I mentioned in the PM to you, I am not sure this is working as intended. Perhaps I am overlooking something, but I can not find anything in any of the Vodyani descriptions or traits that indicates they should be immune to Overpopulation Malus and Over Colonization Malus to Approval. This may very well be a weird bug caused by their Ark Ships not being exactly the same as Colonies. I'll try to find time to look into the xml files to see if this is intentional.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Suggestion #5

Another issue where I think the fix should be in larger gameplay than specifically for the Vodyani. If both diversity or uniformity in political ideologies and population types offered different advantages, then the other empires would not be inherently disadvantaged by the Vodyani tendency to be ruled by a powerful religious party.

It´s not the fact that they do not become diverse. I think there is an issue with Pacifists at this stage which I have not posted about yet as it requires more careful examination and testing - Midgame I always have the pacifists take over after having defeated a number of enemies. Now I do not know whether this is due to forced truces, finished conquests ( resulting in peace - ironically, since the oponent has been wiped out ) or the massively increased dust production. Nevertheless having a majority of your population root for pacifism after you just caused a few massive genocides does not seem right.

My point was that ... no matter what political faction they are taken over does not affect them at all. The Religious party has the weakest bonus in the game ... you want the militarists to take over as soon as possible, to get you into full ecstatic. Now by the time the Pacifists get to take over - you have all the buildings to keep you at ecstatic without the need for laws, and then the pacifists laws will boost the eco bonus you get even more. It´s like each new party just helps the snowballing. The political system works 300% in the Vodyani´s favour. Let´s put this in perspective:

Sophons

In most games in the first election the Pacifists take over and you lose your really precious tech-ahead ability. This ability is crucial to keep the Sophons competitive with the other races. I´m not sure I have actually ever managed to not have Pacifists take over? My memory is not the best so I´m not sure here. But this hurts them really badly.

Cravers

Elections... that time of the year when your approval hits bottom line. Elections hurt the Cravers the most of all, resulting in huge approval penalties. This is their weakspot, and this approval penalty can really kill your empire with the current consequences for your populace being unhappy and/or in a rebellion against you.

Lumeris

Alright the Lumeris have no real issue with politics, they work well for the Lumeris just as it does for the Vodyani. However it is my personal opinion that with the current game mechanics in place they are by far the weakest faction - so they kind of need it. But that´s something for another topic. Once the marketplace gets in the game this will change I guess.

You seem to be playing the political game very well.

Regarding the Sophons: I agree that the "Research an era ahead" bonus is vital to them. In fact, I think it should be part of their affinity, not a law that anybody can get access to if they get enough scientist support.

Regarding the Cravers: I am not entirely sure if Dictatorships work as intended right now. The approval penalty I get after "elections" often seems quite arbitrary. Not to mention that, in my opinion, the entire game is missing abilities to influence your population by force and propaganda, which would go a long way to offsetting the approval penalty for dissent in dictatorships.

Regarding both Lumeris and Vodyani: I need to do further testing, since the current feedback during elections makes it difficult to judge, but I do not know whether or not Federation and Republic elections work the way they are supposed to. If they do, that may explain why the Vodyani do so well at getting the right parties in power, given that the Federation claims to have "powerful actions to influence elections" in its description.

The-Cat-o-Nine-Tales wrote:

Suggestion #6

I can agree to this. All the FIDSI modules are really powerful. I would prefer versions that start weaker than now, and improve as you level up your Ark. Furthermore, each new ark starting out empty, and then being -individually- outfitted with modules would help this, as you wouldn't immediately start with a bunch of FIDSI modules on a new ark (and it would also make each Ark a unique and worthy asset, instead of just a copy-pasted large ship with the ability to generate FIDSI)

That is a VERY interesting suggestion. Having each Ark be individual, and unlock more modules as they level up. In which case you need at a bare minimum two modules to start with, though I would suggest making it atleast three so that customizationi is still possible. The module slots could have different effectiveness. I think 50% for the 2-3 base slots is necessary, but the bonus slots could have a reduced effectivenesss - like let´s say 25%. I´m sorry I cannot offer a better opinion on this - as it is a complete gamechanger, and to propose proper numbers the idea would have to be tested.

I agree that starting with full 4 modules is powerful, but I do not think it is unbalanced. I still believe that the core issue lies at the exponential growth rate of your Arks.

Since the Arks get more expensive every time, the growth rate should not be exponential. If I understand correctly, though, it was for you because you used your arks to help with leeching, so that you could leech more and more systems at the same time.

Sir-Rogers wrote:

vahouth wrote:

Sorry I made a mistake. I meant the improvement Holy Proliferation, not Alms for Dust. Oops!

I've already had an Ark anchor itself on a 5 planet system where I could colonize 4 at once. 1 turn later that system had 8 pop thanks to Holy Proliferation!

Why isn't this huge? I haven't seen any other race expand that quickly.

Right at the start? I´ve never seen that - getting all those early colonization planets in one place you must have been extremely lucky.

I don´t think Holy Proliferation is worth it until a lot later in the game. Early you need every resource you can get to get your next Ark out. As with any 4x game you need to get the snowball rolling. Most of the FIDS come from improvements to a system, which take time to build. So the earlier you can pump out that second Ark the better. Sure in the short-term you will have a couple more fids if you boost your pop instead of breaking out another Ark - but in the longterm you will lose out big time.

It´s the exact same phenomenon in the Civ series for example. While it may seem like you are winning the game for a very long time when you are pumping out all those wonders in 1 big city - you will eventually lose, because your enemies are making more cities, and they do not pay off until much much later in the game. Exception if you are getting military rush and that extra production pays off right away - I meant in terms of Science production in particular, and other related things.

Yes, right at the start! That system had 2 tundras and 2 tropicals and an Ash. It doesn't seem as a rare combination of planets, but maybe you're right, I felt lucky.

Now if Holy Proliferation is worth it or not, in that particular case, it was a mere 2 turns delay for my next Ark since it costs 250 Essence to get one more pop and I was making 180 a turn, so it didn't feel as much of a setback. 

BTW on another note...

What are your thoughts about the Vodyani being immune to overpopulation but suffer greater penalties for overextension?

I kind of view them as the opposite of the Cravers in this regard.

I just did some testing, and I am not convinced that Federation elections do not work the way they are supposed to. According to the Federation description, systems with higher levels should get more representatives, but all my systems, ranging from level 1 to level 3, received the same number of representatives.

Something in the political system is clearly not working as intended. I have no idea how deep the rabbit hole of this particular bug might go.

As another example: I played a Sophon game on fast speed earlier today. During the first elections, I had accidentally left the Pacifists selected with Official Support enabled. Even though they only had a 15%-20% support in my empire at that point, the supposedly small boost from Official Support catapulted them all the way up to above 60% in the senate. That does not strike me as what should be happening, either. And it was no fluke, as after that, I experimented, and I as long as I had only those two parties around, I could basically swing the election massively in either direction. At that point, I started feeling like "official support" amounted to what the nazis did for the elections from 1933 to 1938: Use ballots that only have a "yes" option.

I'll see about starting a bug report and moving the pictures there, and then just linking it from this thread.

I don't quite agree it is entirely off topic, though, since broken elections may be part of the reason why the political gameplay works out the way it does with the Vodyani.

Regarding the Cravers: I am not entirely sure if Dictatorships work as intended right now. The approval penalty I get after "elections" often seems quite arbitrary. Not to mention that, in my opinion, the entire game is missing abilities to influence your population by force and propaganda, which would go a long way to offsetting the approval penalty for dissent in dictatorships.

You can also go Religious and get the Content law. I'm fairly certain that it scales with systems/non-Cravers.

It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have Forced Truce in the game, then it'd be easier to just wipe out a race. 

Honestly, I would rather it not be fixed so that you can have a big Empire. Thematically, they are supposed to be destroying worlds not colonizing them. Mechanically, it would also be nice to have them be more divergent. Maybe just have a few systems, but a massive fleet. 

Change the Trait to

• Eternal War
  • Increase your happiness by X times (# of Fleets - # of Systems; if there are more Systems than Fleets Decrease your happiness by this amount).
  • Cannot bypass System occupied by an opponent that you are at war with. 

The cannot bypass is just a random idea. But thought it was cool encouraging the opponents to over-expand to create a buffer zone to deal with them which then gives them more systems which then takes a hit on their happiness.)

vahouth wrote:

ironBlue wrote:

• The Vod get their free minimum pop for each colonized world, but each pop increase only gives you one more pop just like other civs.  Now you can significantly lower the essence cost for Proliferation, giving Vod players more control over their pop growth while slowing down the snowballing issue. 

Proliferation's cost should not decrease IMO. Depending on the system you use it, you can gain from 1 to 5 pop for a mere 250 essence! It is already too good right now.

Yeah, I think each pop increase applying for free to every colonized planet is the crazy part for sure.  I was proposing that we do away with that.

ironBlue wrote:

vahouth wrote:

ironBlue wrote:

• The Vod get their free minimum pop for each colonized world, but each pop increase only gives you one more pop just like other civs.  Now you can significantly lower the essence cost for Proliferation, giving Vod players more control over their pop growth while slowing down the snowballing issue. 

Proliferation's cost should not decrease IMO. Depending on the system you use it, you can gain from 1 to 5 pop for a mere 250 essence! It is already too good right now.

Yeah, I think each pop increase applying for free to every colonized planet is the crazy part for sure.  I was proposing that we do away with that.

Oh, I see. 

At least it is a good thing that its cost scales according to the population count.

Question to everone regarding the Ark template, as we're currently limited to only one.

I'd prefer being able to have multiple Ark templates, to better control what each is focused on.

Ark 1 might focus on science.

Ark 2 would focus on dust production.

etc..

Right now all Arks share the same template, which makes it slightly annoying to keep track of who's doing what, particularly if you'd switch often.