Tridus wrote:
I don't think it's normal that one captureable location can build entire fleets every turn, in any turn based strategy game I've ever played. Typically, building a capped out fleet of the best ships you can build is a big deal, and losing it matters...

For that point, the buy option should be almost completely nerfed, at least for ships but perhaps for anything, ie at max one stuff produced per turn. That plus a total fleet cap based on number of systems colonized or explored by any faction would remove the fleet spaming from any point of view of its meaning, no ultra fast production, no mega huge fleet number.

Unless your automatons? :P

Nook wrote:
Right, the ship production need be capped, so for example allow build only one ship per turn on a system could work.

No, no.. NO!



If you fall behind on systems, you lost. Plain and simple!

Tridus wrote:
A cap doesn't really fix anything. So we're both at the cap. We wipe out a bunch of each others ships. Next turn comes around, and we're both at the cap again. Nothing has been accomplished.



Production is just too fast in the endgame and you can build ships so fast that losing them has little meaning. The only fix is to make late game ship production more like early game ship production (where you can't build 16 ships per turn in one system).

Right, the ship production need be capped, so for example allow build only one ship per turn on a system could work.



But it will still be fleet spamming if there's no global cap. Tedious for players not agree to a lot of micromanagement (like manage 20 ships produced in 20 systems). That's why a global cap could be good too, it's just to ensure lowdown the micro management. And again that global cap need be adapted to game setup and current configuration, for a cap adapted to systems already discovered or colonized, and to not favor even more bigger empires, this cap would be the same for all factions in the game.

Antera wrote:
Yup kinda like that.



It'll be like the Total War series, just as one possible example. You got your formations of pikeman and archer and what not and each has like 20-30 men in each formation. Only in ES those would be ships, and the formations would be fleet. And the rest is just pure mayhem.

Yea, that would be fun. THen we can add several new ginormous ship classes. THis could also be employed for ground combat.



Very WH40k even.

About Fleet Spamming Little exploit :



1. (buy/produce) X - T4 ship in one system

2. move to this system any FRESH HERO

3. in next turn you have hero on 15+ lvl (how many ship you buy in one turn you have higher hero lvl in one turn)



simple and very OP !!!!

Nasarog wrote:
SO each fleet ends up acting as a single unit within the larger engagement?

Yup kinda like that.



It'll be like the Total War series, just as one possible example. You got your formations of pikeman and archer and what not and each has like 20-30 men in each formation. Only in ES those would be ships, and the formations would be fleet. And the rest is just pure mayhem.

Antera wrote:
I think we need multi-fleet battle. Triggers when you have a certain number of fleets on both side in the same system. Then you go into a deployment screen, pick which fleet you want to take up which battle position (you won't be able to see how your opponent is arranging their fleet) and then hit go and watch the lot of them annihilate each other.



Well there's plenty of ways to arrange large scale combat, this is just one of them. Many games have try many ways to handle these kinds of things before. Its really just a matter if ES so go epic with its late-game battle or if it should go smaller-scale, more tactical.

SO each fleet ends up acting as a single unit within the larger engagement?

I think we need multi-fleet battle. Triggers when you have a certain number of fleets on both side in the same system. Then you go into a deployment screen, pick which fleet you want to take up which battle position (you won't be able to see how your opponent is arranging their fleet) and then hit go and watch the lot of them annihilate each other.



Well there's plenty of ways to arrange large scale combat, this is just one of them. Many games have try many ways to handle these kinds of things before. Its really just a matter if ES so go epic with its late-game battle or if it should go smaller-scale, more tactical.

Shyrka wrote:
Buyout is a bit over-powered, certainly (especially with Sheredyn, they're completely broken if you ask me - but that's another issue) but it would be a bit harsh to punish dust-geared races and not apply the same to the production-geared ones.



A hard 'ship cap' that globally limits the number of ships you can have at any one time is one way of fixing the issue but linking it to the number of systems you've conquered would unfairly benefit the 'sprawl' races that like to conquer anything and everything. Ideally whatever limit that introduces would work nicely with both sprawl races -and- turtle races: if the turtle race has a suitably powerful economy, it should be possible for them to fight off a sprawl race on an equal footing.

A cap doesn't really fix anything. So we're both at the cap. We wipe out a bunch of each others ships. Next turn comes around, and we're both at the cap again. Nothing has been accomplished.



Production is just too fast in the endgame and you can build ships so fast that losing them has little meaning. The only fix is to make late game ship production more like early game ship production (where you can't build 16 ships per turn in one system).

Nook wrote:
For that point, the buy option should be almost completely nerfed, at least for ships but perhaps for anything, ie at max one stuff produced per turn. That plus a total fleet cap based on number of systems colonized or explored by any faction would remove the fleet spaming from any point of view of its meaning, no ultra fast production, no mega huge fleet number.

Buyout is a bit over-powered, certainly (especially with Sheredyn, they're completely broken if you ask me - but that's another issue) but it would be a bit harsh to punish dust-geared races and not apply the same to the production-geared ones.



A hard 'ship cap' that globally limits the number of ships you can have at any one time is one way of fixing the issue but linking it to the number of systems you've conquered would unfairly benefit the 'sprawl' races that like to conquer anything and everything. Ideally whatever limit that introduces would work nicely with both sprawl races -and- turtle races: if the turtle race has a suitably powerful economy, it should be possible for them to fight off a sprawl race on an equal footing.

Nasarog wrote:
No, no.. NO!



If you fall behind on systems, you lost. Plain and simple!

worst game ever



(not that 1 ship/system per turn would change that.... its even worse that way)

Tridus wrote:
I don't think it's normal that one captureable location can build entire fleets every turn, in any turn based strategy game I've ever played. Typically, building a capped out fleet of the best ships you can build is a big deal, and losing it matters.



I've killed 10 fleets a turn in the ES endgame and felt like I wasn't actually accomplishing anything due to how fast they could be replaced. It's what makes the endgame feel like such a grind. The best solution IMO is to flatten the production growth curve and boost the cost of endgame ships, so they're more like they are in the early game where you can't throw them away like candy.

Maybe. I'd like to see what the dev's do. But I agree that the end game is a grind.

Nasarog wrote:
Sure, but if you think about it, a city vs. a system is very different. I mean, in modern sci-fi this is how it usually works.

I don't think it's normal that one captureable location can build entire fleets every turn, in any turn based strategy game I've ever played. Typically, building a capped out fleet of the best ships you can build is a big deal, and losing it matters.



I've killed 10 fleets a turn in the ES endgame and felt like I wasn't actually accomplishing anything due to how fast they could be replaced. It's what makes the endgame feel like such a grind. The best solution IMO is to flatten the production growth curve and boost the cost of endgame ships, so they're more like they are in the early game where you can't throw them away like candy.

I agree with OP there's a general issue but it's not about performances and multiplayer, it's more general. For the solution I read (perhaps a bit fast) all posts and I have some remarks:

- No way more realism is better gameplay. It's an easier way to think because it's not hard to design reality, it's right there. But since when real life was fun? Well I'm sure you can see what I mean. Realism help players know/learn/apply the rules but apply blindly realism isn't the guaranty of a better gameplay. I know there's many players that believe it, but it's very simple to shows it's wrong, look at real life.

- If a global limit is the only solution, the problem is to cap it on what element. Pure size, and pure power would be logical but should be used with temperance to not remove tools to less developed factions.

- Increase upkeep cost seems also logical but it's the same than empire size, it could remove tools to less developed factions.



There's still a problem and it's hard to imagine something else than a global limit otherwise the only limit becomes the player patience for micro management.



I think it should be a fixed limit. And the problem is that this limit should probably evolves along the time, but also should be adapted to setup.



This leads to the general idea to have a number of ships global limit adapted to the number of system in the galaxy already explored by any faction. Now the exact formula requires tuning from a gameplay point of view, ie to decide the best numbers to target.



But I saw in the thread some idea that could be added with this new rule to temper it. But I think the base should be something like that.

Economic recovery is the role that Unsatisfied Citizens (Red) play for my idea: The player can't send those to war for a while, but they work like a Content Citizen (Blue) in all other respects. They basically ensure an economic recovery by not allowing empires to throw them away for a number of turns after their creation.

fleet spamming after the midgame is a major problem as games grind to a halt every turn. I like the idea that they streamline fleet construction and control maybe into a battlegroup setup or something and have multiple combats auto resolve all at the same time. The way I see it is that the problem is controlling, constructing and using your fleets in battle is already kind of annoying in the midgame and kills the fun in late game completely. Even if a type of upkeep system is improved to more uniformly reflect the increase in production/dust in late game we still have infuriating tools to wage war with.

However I find that economic mistakes that are very easy to make can doom you for the rest of the game.

I think that ship maintenance should be abolished, and replaced with system improvements deriving their upkeep from population size.



Intergalactic Market

+5 Dust per worker.

-3 Dust per citizen.



This means that there is a net gain of +2 per person working in a system. However, when called away to war there are less workers, but families still have to support themselves and the people sent to the front line. So for each citizen that has been conscripted, we get a -3 Dust per turn without them making up for that. This makes improvements costly during war, and makes the player ask "how many people do I send to war?" Too many, and the treasury would run dry before the fight is over. Too few, and the empire would be conquered in short order. Ideally, this means that there will be lulls of peace between empires, because they are building up their warchests and population in order to successfully win the next conflict. I say that it is better to heavily penalize all players in respect to war, because this gives everyone a reason to treat their assets with care.



There is no genuine importance for the proper handling of war in Endless Space right now, simply because there is little weight to making a mistake.

Gaizokubanou wrote:
It's true that most 4x games suffer from repetitive nature of end game, but from my limited 4x experience, this game suffers from it far more than the genre should.



Two things that compound this issue in Endless Space are



1. The balance favors destroyer spam so much that production is as monotonous and repetitive as it gets

2. Towards late game productivity of your empire skyrockets



BTW I think it's the mid game were 4x games get most fun, right around when your empire begins to take shape and you can better imagine how you are going to achieve victory.

I think you need to qualify it?



I have been playing 4x games since the late 80's (is Simcity even a 4x game?), and the end game is tedious throughout. I can give you many examples, but that won't change the situation really. Wait, what are we discussing again....