I didn't see the hissho player doing anything wrong particularly, it's just that all the situations people have been giving for the Hissho being overpowered involve a dumb AI nearby which can be easily conquered to kickstart a giant FIDS bonus. Replace that AI with a human who knows how to build ships properly and the Hissho never get off the ground.



So I'd say, "Yes, the Hissho bonus is overpowered, but the fix to it is to make the AI better at building ships so it's not such a pushover, or to play multiplayer where human players won't be such pushovers."



Against the AI you'll do fine as Hissho, but take it online and play multiplayer and I doubt you'll have nearly as easy a time.

I don't see the stacking bonus in and of itself as a problem. But it should be brought in line with Death before Dishonour, for example, penalizing losses and defeats. And in addition to this there should be a cap of 5 stacks.



To put it into numbers:

Victory: +5% damage, reset timer

Defeat: -5% damage, decrease timer by 3-5

Conquest: 20% resources, stacking but no reset of the timer

Loss: decrease timer by 5



This way the Hissho should be as worried about losing as he is now focused on winning.

Agr wrote:
Militarized playstyle is multiplayer playstyle

Its pretty much a given that if you don't defend your border outposts, they will be taken midgame! Hehe...

Militarized playstyle is multiplayer playstyle

I got this game Friday evening, so almost exactly 3 days ago. I didn't read up on the game first, basically just jumped in. Don't fully understand the mechanics yet, didn't know leader development trees, didn't know lasers were awesome, etc. In single player the Hissho do seem very, very strong, largely because of Bushido. I've played 3 games on impossible as the Hissho, one of which was in a galaxy I thought would favor a blitz (tiny), and won easily, then the next two in huge galaxies, which I thought would make it harder. As it turns out, Bushido is a rather brilliant answer to the design problem of blitz races being strong in small galaxies and weak in big ones (this is true for instance in MOO2 and GalCiv2). However, I don't know whether the single player game is just easy or Bushido is too strong, because it seems a bit off that a new player with limited knowledge of game mechanics and no meta-game knowledge can comfortably beat impossible on the first few tries.



I quit each of the huge galaxy games when my power equaled the sum of the remaining opponents' power. It can be right on the edge of 15 turns sometimes trying to keep Bushido up, and does require a militarized playstyle - heavy focus on leaders/leader tech and military tech, less on infrastructure development. Against the AI, it's quite doable in my (limited) experience, but I can't imagine one could consistently have it work against humans. There is an opportunity cost to the rush to get it up - you're building attack ships instead of seed ships, and your race is useless if you aren't fighting something, so every turn you're not conquering you're falling behind. You're likely to be slower to the +40 research building than everyone else, for instance. My guess is that Bushido is probably slightly over-powered in single player, but perfectly balanced for multi-player.

Bringing down the bonus to +10% is an improvement, especially if the cumulative effect is still there. I like the idea behind the affinity, I think if the cumulative affect was addressed, that would be an ideal solution. If the affinity is supposed to reflect heightened morale and elan on the part of the military for successful campaigns, then a string of defeats should bring them back down.



So, if the effect of the affinity was a boost when they were doing good, and they lost it went doing badly, it makes the ability less overwhelming in MP games, AND in single player. Single player would have to be addressed though, since the AI does a poor job with the Hissho as they are right now.

Do you feel that +10% may be better than the current +20%? Or do you feel that +10% would still be OP for human players?

Having tried this, and faced this, in muliplayer games several times, I would lean towards OP. In the hands of a human player who stacks a custom race for combat, it is ridiculous how strong fleets get this way. In comparison, I had a "normal" fleet with UE affinity, the other player had a Hissho affinity. My fleet was sitting at 2498 value, with cruisers. The other player was sitting at 4298 with an all destroyer monohull fleet and same level tech.



I beat him the first time, died the second round. With the buff rolling by mid-game, the cumulative affect is huge, especially as battles continue. Insane pirates, in particular, are gas on the fire with this combination, and give a Hissho template build a huge boost. This coupled with the dust & tech advantages makes for a combo that is hard to beat.

You may be interested to try out my mod, which returns the +20% FIDS bonus back to +10%:

/#/endless-space/forum/37-modding/thread/15801-released-community-bug-fix-balance-mod

It gets ridiculous once it starts stacking. Say you just killed 15 fleets? Yea the next 5000 won't even damage you.

I have not tried it now that I know the triggers and that the effect is cumulative - using the Hissho themselves. That will be on my near agenda.

But speaking from a Single and Multiplayer perspective using the Hissho as the base affinity and min max'ing the design for combat - it is I think to overpowered.



As a min/max build you can easily trigger the bonus, keep the bonus and rarely loose a battle.

As an example on Impossible and with me having a bad start area and with a couple of ID10T errors that significantly hampered my start (building first ship immediately put me at -1 income) i still overcame that against a craver and a sower AI. and later an Empire based player.



The key is to build straight for attack, attack often, keep the empty systems around to generate pirates for more fights and cash (insane level on pirates). Very soon you will be rolling in the techs as they complete quickly (with the bonus to research and bonus to dust for each CP defeated.) Now at impossible the AI gets enough of an insane build rate to keep you busy with full fleets but not enough to push you back and eventually they lose.



At the least I would suggest at some time (depending on priorities) looking at custom faction and MP to help prevent one or two builds being the only way to play and compete. Another hamper to that build would be to play without pirates - it is too easy on the others but makes the penalties incurred by this build more detrimental and could lead to enough of a slow start to balance it out.

If you can get and maintain the Hissho Affinity it is without a doubt OP, but you have to get it first. I think the problem is more if you take Hissho Affinity and then make a custom faction with it, i did this in a SP game and had killed 5 computers by turn 120 on a huge 8 way map. Granted i only played on Normal but my lead was insane. 1st on FIDS and reasearch from around turn 40 after i took my first enemy colony and never lost it.

hissho affinity is way to strong. +80% fids and its not even difficult to attain this bonus. you could just exploit it in an mp together with an ally too.

should be more like +20% in 5% steps.

Gort wrote:
Against the AI you'll do fine as Hissho, but take it online and play multiplayer and I doubt you'll have nearly as easy a time.

I absolutely agree, and in a 1v1 I would probably never take Hissho. In a larger match though there are many more opportunities to to swoop in and take a quick outpost off someone, especially since you do not even need to keep it, that fact though I think will probably push them closer to balanced than anything else though. To me the Hissho as they are now represent a high skill race, with a highly skilled player they can be very potent even in MP, but it takes skill to overcome their weaknesses and really get that rolling. Compared to for example Sowers who represent a very low skill race. (Which is why we see the poor AI doing so well as Sowers and so poorly as Hissho)

Their problem is that they just don't expand. Thus they stagnate and are a pushover.

I have done a study of the hissho AI in the early game and the results are not pretty:

/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/8632-hissho-early-game-ai-all-dressed-up-and-nowhere-to-go

I just finished a Huge Spiral 4 galaxy with 7 opponents as the Hissho. I set the difficulty to Impossible. Economic victory around turn 180, with an upcoming scientific victory in a couple if turns (so much for their science malus). I get lazy and silly when I'm winning easily, so keep a few things in mind:



1. Virtually all improvements are built in all systems. I didn't bother to scrap obsolete improvements either.

2. I have far fewer fleets than I would have if fighting human players.

3. My ship design walks a line between making battles cinematic and keeping the ships alive. These aren't serious builds.

4. I chose Ocean planets to rush the AI for the scientific win. Against humans, I'd use more Jungle to build fleets.

5. I accidentally got Economic Victory on the way to Scientific Victory (to prove a point about Hissho Affinity). I could have won by Wonder Victory much earlier. Expansion Victory would have been very easy as well.



I'm sure there's more madness to my methods, but those points should forestall most of the more obvious queries. Here's the file:

Gort wrote:
Must say, I played a bunch of multiplayer games this weekend versus a very aggressive Hissho player, and I didn't find him to be all that good. His tech was inferior to mine (I was a Craver) and our fleet battles would often be extremely bloody with lots of losses on both sides. The problem was that as a Craver I was already getting about 25% more industry than him, my ships cost 30% less than his, my fleets could be larger and every time he lost a ship I gained 50 research points. I was able to just grind him down with large numbers of superior ships.



I don't think anecdotal evidence versus the AI is worth very much, as the AI doesn't build ships properly (IE, doesn't exploit the imbalances in the ship-building system) and therefore loses battles it should be winning easily.

At least the AI is a common ground accessible to everyone, whereas drawing conclusions from one game against a player of dubious skil (you said as much) is not helpful to the community. Your point about the limitations of using the AI as a good benchmark for balance concerns is well-taken, though, for the reasons you mentioned.



The Cravers are an interesting example because they are the inverse of the Hissho. Their ships are cheap, large, and numerous compared to the smaller number of efficient ships for the Hissho. The Cravers get their economic bonus power immediately from any kind of expansion, whereas the Hissho need to actually take held ground to get theirs. Judging by these forums, the Cravers are also said to be among the best races played by the AI, so I set up a test of sorts. I played Hissho in a Tiny galaxy against a single, Impossible Craver AI, which I crushed with an Expansion Victory on turn 92. Below are the turn 91 and turn 0 save files (try it yourself if you'd like). Over the course of the game, I only invaded two systems (Lors, then Kionos), but that was plenty to push my economy into a position where I could surpass the Cravers.



Note: compared to most of the games I've played, this one gave me an excellent start in terms of heroes and nearby systems. However, judging by the heroes I fought, and the worlds held by the Cravers, the AI had similar advantages...in addition to the huge pile of cheating it does on Impossible.





The Fun Part: Inside the Brain Bug (it's afraid)

I opened the game on turn 91 as the Cravers, and here's what I found.



1) They have roughly the same tech as I do.

I researched and used all weapon types, but they match my beams.



2) For reasons unknown, they have a Pilot/Adventurous hero in a system.

That hero has no business being there; it has a total of 6 points of Labour and Wits combined, and a bunch of combat upgrades.



3) Their ship designs are attrocious.

I know that the incomplete use of available tonnage is a known issue, so I won't spend time belabouring that point.



Hiveship (Transport)

1 Seed Mod

Comments: This ship should either be a Transport with Induction Drive Tuners or a Corvette with just the Seed Mod. I prefer the former, since the smll engine provides a decent speed boost without increasng the cost much. Since the actual available tonnage is 110, a human player should just us a Corvette with Lossless Fusion Pods at this tech level if they want a fast colonizer. However, it's not like there should be many uncolonized systems at that point.



Forager 4 (Corvette)

1 Offensive Chaff

1 Lossless Fusion Pods

1 Longe Range Sensors

Comments: Generally, these things just get eaten by my fleets as they roam around. Earlier in this same game, four of them flew into one of my fleets imultaneously. If the AI is using them to check my builds, it should be removing the scanner and the defence...maybe even the enigine to keep it cheap. If it wants to scout the map, it should drop the defence, and probably the scanner (these aren't large enough to be useful anyway). I'd even suggest dropping the engine, or at least downgrading to Induction Drive Tuners, since Lossless Fusion Podes cost as much as the hull. A single Hard Kinetics is sufficient to send this ship out of the hangar; it needs to be cheap.



Patroller 13 (Corvette)

5 Synchrotron Laser

5 Reflective Isotopes

Comments: If you insist on putting defences on a 1CP ship, at least cover more than one base to prevent really cheap counterbuilds. Something like 3 Reflective Isotopes, 2 Precision Plating, 1 High Energy Couplings (why don't the AIs use these???), 3 Synchrotron Laser, and 1 Laser would be fine. This is exactly 100 tons, but there are 10 more tons to play with; I was just suggesting a better build within current constraints of the AI parameters. Oddly enough, that build is cheaper than the AI template, and it does more damage. The defences are weaker, but the extra damage reduces incoming fire in subsequent rounds by killing opponents.



Small2swarmtemplates 13 (Destroyer)

6 Synchrotron Laser

5 Reflective Isotopes

Comments: See my comments on the Patroller 13, except that you can squeeze on extra guns.



Medium1swarmtemplates 15

8 Synchrotron Laser

6 Ultradense Slugs

3 Reflective Isotopes

3 Precision Plating

Comments: The approach in this design is slightly better, but it doesn't play to the strengths of the hull. A decent 200-ton mix might be 3 Extended Fields, 4 Reflective Isotopes 2 Precision Plating, 4 Synchrotron Lasers, 2 Unstable Torpedoes, 2 Ultradense Slugs, 1 S2G Kinetics, 1 High Energy Couplings, and 3 Reactive Hulls. It's not optimal, but it's well-rounded, and puts out comparable firepower to the AI template despite fewer guns (due to the HEC module).



I shot down lots of kineitc and kinetic/missile designs over the course of this game, but they weren't in the list of Craver ship designs when I open the file. That's strange, since the AI had five more design slots available. Note also that ignored the Advanced Containers module in my suggestions, which I did only because it's very expensive. I put them on my own ships, but that's always under the assumption that the extra tonnage gets filled with defences, and that I have a hero to boost said defences to a point where I can justify the cost.



4. Apparently, the Impossible AI gets insane FIDs boosts...

...such that it can set the tax rate at 50%, even though doing so results in starvation and paltry production once I opened the file. However, you can see snapshots of those designs by mousing over the entries in the production queues of the Craver systems.



5. The AI has bizarre, wasteful resource management priorities, especially with regards to long-term goals.

The Cravers hoarded 3675 Dust, and all four of its remaining systems built Hyperscale Farms. Since the population was full (or almost full) in each system, that the farms would have been necessary only if the tax rate were set at 45% and the Cravers were *unbonused* (minimum to prevent starvation).

System Breakdown:

-Gienah opted to keep building ships instead of building the Planetary Institute and Magnetic Field Generators. Gienah 1 had 4 pop, but no exploitation.

-Bryia could have replaced all of its farms with Epigenetic Crop Seeding and Compact Refrigeration (maybe not needed) and still maintained a food surplus, then used the exploitation slots for Science, Dust, and Industry. Bryia left its moons unexplored, and also did not build Intensive Cultivation Logistics, which would have helped immensely because two planets were depleted and the other two had 37 and 45 locust points.

-Pyxis had no explored moons or Intensive Cultivation Logistics either, and it could have used the help as well. Also, assuming that the Impossible approval bonus brought Pyxis up to at least Content, it had a huge food surplus that should have been any other exploitation on most of the planets. However, I know that there are issues with the AI mixing exploitations at the moment.

Phad had far too many Food improvements (not to mention the Hyperscale Farms), since the system would be only 2 Food short of subsistence at max pop if it had no such improvements at all. However, Phad did manage to explore its moon and build Intensive Cultivation Logistics. However, it did not build Careful Sweeping, and...wait for it...the system was set to Ind-Dust Conversion!

CXZman wrote:
What was the reason devs choose to buff it ? There certainly is a good reason.

The AI is teribad at playing Hissho, more so than any other race. This led to everyone thinking they were far weaker than they actually were.



On a note related to the Hissho strengths... I just realized they are probably the only race that can make the destroyer swarm work really well. The bonus damage from both their racial and then the bushido bonus helps lasers overcome defenses (and toss on in a few missile ships to prevent the omni-tank), and the 50% discount on weapon modules makes weapon laden destroyers pretty cheap, combine that with a good fids bonus from Bushido and you can crank out a lot of ships quickly to replace those you lose.

Gort wrote:
I'd love to see this chart. Got a link?

Depending on what exactly the chart states, it could mean you're right or partially wrong. In terms of strict damages : missiles, hands down. In terms of efficiency, of actual usefulness, missiles and lasers compete against each other. The most significant advantage laser have against missiles to me is that they get to be countered far later in the tech tree than missiles. I says something to me...



I personally found that kinetics can really kicks ass if the opponent doesn't expect it. You should always spy on the opponent to know what he's fitting on his ships and strike him where it hurts. That said, kinetics kicked my ass kicked my opponents' ass. Most of the time, lasers do the trick since it is often the least protected weapon type. It is also the most interesting in early game, against pirates and players who didn't take time to develop military, since they usually get kinetics. And you develop reflectors along with lasers.







Anyway. Back to the topic. I also didn't understood the why Hissho were buffed. So I tried again playing them after patch. Holy cow that's huge ! Ok that is indeed their BG to be that strong, but I've never seen such bonuses before on the screen. I guess the point is that one should always strike down a Hissho empire before it starts rolling over everybody, but if that's the case, strategy suddenly disappears in the face of dumbest common sense, and that's bad. They can be so dangerous that the obvious choice everyone should take is to kill Hissho before it is too late. It seems to me that this is a bit too much.



Also I've never considered +10% fids to be a weak advantage. My opponents had far more fleets than me but they couldn't fight against my 900-1000 prod systems, nor against my 17k-20k MP fleets (thanks to those techs). +10% fids was already a good reason to consider Hisshos as ticking bombs.



What was the reason devs choose to buff it ? There certainly is a good reason.

If the Hissho can be bullies in the early game to a weak opponent they can get out of control very quickly. With just 2 system captures under their belt they are better than everyone at pretty much everything (except sophon at research) and it just gets more ridiculous as they get more stacks beyond that. They really seem like a snowball race, if you cant be bullies they only do so-so, but as you get those Bushido stacks going (both for battles and invasions) they get pretty OP quickly. This is obviously very apparent in SP right now since all AI are weak opponents due to their inability to build a decent fleet, but in MP it may be less of an issue. It does of course open up to pretty serious exploiting among co-operating players in MP, but even just sharing techs does that.

Igncom1 wrote:
I literally cannot believe this finally happened, people have finally declared that all of the factions are OP!



And in regards to laser weapons, the fact that they are sill partially effective in long and medium ranges, as well as being very accurate to begin with make them seem like the most powerful, it has been put onto a chart and show that energy weapons do the least damage compared to kinetics and missiles, but the inaccuracy of kinetics in everything but short range and the way missiles act make them seem to act worse.

I'd love to see this chart. Got a link?

Igncom1 wrote:
I literally cannot believe this finally happened, people have finally declared that all of the factions are OP!

You know what they say grass is always greener on the other side

I don´t really think that any of the races are ultimately op they just need some more balancing

I literally cannot believe this finally happened, people have finally declared that all of the factions are OP!



And in regards to laser weapons, the fact that they are sill partially effective in long and medium ranges, as well as being very accurate to begin with make them seem like the most powerful, it has been put onto a chart and show that energy weapons do the least damage compared to kinetics and missiles, but the inaccuracy of kinetics in everything but short range and the way missiles act make them seem to act worse.

Kinetics are too inaccurate in the long and medium range bands. I find that most battles end in the long range phase, with a rare few making it to medium. Therefore a player should never build a ship using kinetic weapons unless he simply cannot build a laser or missile ship due to resource restrictions. The AI often builds kinetic ships even when it has the option not to.



Missiles are supposed to rule the long-range phase but don't really. The problem is that the missiles take so long to reach their target (3 rounds of shooting). This means that an enemy that your missiles WILL destroy gets three rounds of shooting to damage you. It also means that you can't even scratch a retreating enemy. Therefore a player should never use missiles unless they can't use lasers. The AI often builds missile ships even when it has the option not to.



Lasers are the kings of combat. If you can build a laser ship, you should. The AI doesn't really do this.



So I see that the real problem is that the weapon categories are unbalanced, not necessarily that the AI is bad. From what I can see it just picks at random from its templates, which would be fine if all weapon types were equally good, but they're not. I don't know if there's something more complex going on with the AI, or if it analyses past combats or what ships the player has.



If the AI is really just picking random templates, it may as well forget about all modules except weapons and weapon damage increasers, because you're better off with a weapon that WILL affect the battle than a defense module that has a one-in-three chance of being the right kind.

Gort wrote:
I don't think anecdotal evidence versus the AI is worth very much, as the AI doesn't build ships properly (IE, doesn't exploit the imbalances in the ship-building system) and therefore loses battles it should be winning easily.

I am interested in collecting more information about things the AI does wrong, since I play only SP and I want the AI to be more challenging. Based on your MP experience, what are the things the AI fails to exploit? Frequent lack of shields seems to be one thing. That and other things are mentioned in this thread:

/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/8862-evidence-requested-poor-ai-ship-design

If you have any additional observations about AI shipbuilding mistakes, please let us know.

Must say, I played a bunch of multiplayer games this weekend versus a very aggressive Hissho player, and I didn't find him to be all that good. His tech was inferior to mine (I was a Craver) and our fleet battles would often be extremely bloody with lots of losses on both sides. The problem was that as a Craver I was already getting about 25% more industry than him, my ships cost 30% less than his, my fleets could be larger and every time he lost a ship I gained 50 research points. I was able to just grind him down with large numbers of superior ships.



I don't think anecdotal evidence versus the AI is worth very much, as the AI doesn't build ships properly (IE, doesn't exploit the imbalances in the ship-building system) and therefore loses battles it should be winning easily.

Taelon wrote:
I'm stating from previous games where I thought I'd shoot for an economic victory it wasn't possible because I killed off too many opponents, each one at the cost of an additional 40k dust. If we are comparing one victory condition to another, the economic victory is (more) difficult to obtain unless you plan on leaving AI opponents alive. If you systematically eliminate one after the other you simply increase the difficulty of achieving an economic victory, whereas if you were to stop at the last system, and agree to a cease fire it would be substantially less difficult.

I know, I was simply musing out loud about my ignorance of the reduction in economic victory conditions over the course of a game as races get eliminated. I thought the goal was set upon game generation, and remained unchanged.

Taelon wrote:
The fallacy in your logic regarding mutual destruction fleets lies with the attributes to which you say are more conducive to the hissho faction...someone who is intent on mutual destruction isn't going to bother with ANY defenses, which places the hissho faction on the defensive if they want to attempt to survive a battle. Per the current combat system, there is absolutely no way any race can survive in a mutual destruction scenario. To elaborate, if I produce a fleet with no defenses (with the sole intent of destroying your fleet) it is extremely unlikely there is anything you can do to counter it. Additional accuracy and attack damage is not going to prevent you from losing all of your ships in the first round -- I am almost guaranteed to lose all of mine. The most vulnerable attribute in any given fleet appears to be missile interception due to it's 1 missile interception per defense (whereas number of bullet deflected and shields absorb varies on defense attribute of hero). Regardless, I doubt a diversified maximum 1CP/ship (max CP) offensive fleet could ever be countered with similar CP counts. I will admit I've never tested this with another player attempting to push the boundary to the limit, but the theoretical outcome doesn't favor the defender in any scenario.

Here's the crux of what I'm saying: Hissho have the most cost-efficient military, and efficiency is what counts. Regardless of the faction I play, I don't care if all of my ships die, as long as your losses cost you more than mine cost me. At first glance, if you build those glass cannons against a Hissho opponent, they can just build the same ones at roughly 50% cost due to Masters of Destruction. Better yet, due to Snipers and Deadly Weapons, the real cost for the Hissho to accomplish the same goal is roughly 25% of yours.



Check out the strategy guide I linked in my signature. I have done the analysis, at least as of a couple of patches ago, and at the time of the guide's writing, defences were terrible on 1CP ships (and still aren't great). Also, as efficient as 1CP ships can be, Cruisers, Battleships, and Dreadnoughts can be built to beat them, as I prove in the guide (battleship is not exmplicitly analyzed, but they do work). Since then, more experienced players than I have noted either a jump in defence efficacy, or possibly a rebalance of weapon accuracies. Both of those possible changes tip the balance in favour of larger ships, especially with a decent hero. However, such changes have gone unreported in the release notes, much like the revised timing on missile firing (no more load time).

Taelon wrote:
If Bushido was cumulative with no expiration, Hissho would be by far the most overpowered race hands down no contest. Even with it expiring, if you are continuously on the offensive (something their fleets are amazing at due to their faction attributes), the bonuses quickly stack up in Hissho's favor beyond anything any other race can attain. The main issue is how early in the game you start, as the earlier you start the greater the advantage you will have

I didn't say that Bushido shouldn't expire. Rather, I said that the timers on the 15-turn bonuses shouldn't reset (i.e., they expire regardless of subsequent invasions), so I agree with everything in your last paragraph. Remember, the point of this thread was to showcase the power of Hissho Bushido, even against Impossible AI opponents who have huge bonuses to FIDs.

I'm stating from previous games where I thought I'd shoot for an economic victory it wasn't possible because I killed off too many opponents, each one at the cost of an additional 40k dust. If we are comparing one victory condition to another, the economic victory is (more) difficult to obtain unless you plan on leaving AI opponents alive. If you systematically eliminate one after the other you simply increase the difficulty of achieving an economic victory, whereas if you were to stop at the last system, and agree to a cease fire it would be substantially less difficult.



The fallacy in your logic regarding mutual destruction fleets lies with the attributes to which you say are more conducive to the hissho faction...someone who is intent on mutual destruction isn't going to bother with ANY defenses, which places the hissho faction on the defensive if they want to attempt to survive a battle. Per the current combat system, there is absolutely no way any race can survive in a mutual destruction scenario. To elaborate, if I produce a fleet with no defenses (with the sole intent of destroying your fleet) it is extremely unlikely there is anything you can do to counter it. Additional accuracy and attack damage is not going to prevent you from losing all of your ships in the first round -- I am almost guaranteed to lose all of mine. The most vulnerable attribute in any given fleet appears to be missile interception due to it's 1 missile interception per defense (whereas number of bullet deflected and shields absorb varies on defense attribute of hero). Regardless, I doubt a diversified maximum 1CP/ship (max CP) offensive fleet could ever be countered with similar CP counts. I will admit I've never tested this with another player attempting to push the boundary to the limit, but the theoretical outcome doesn't favor the defender in any scenario.



If Bushido was cumulative with no expiration, Hissho would be by far the most overpowered race hands down no contest. Even with it expiring, if you are continuously on the offensive (something their fleets are amazing at due to their faction attributes), the bonuses quickly stack up in Hissho's favor beyond anything any other race can attain. The main issue is how early in the game you start, as the earlier you start the greater the advantage you will have

Taelon wrote:
I haven't played Hissho since their 100% buff to hissho bushido, but I thought it was fairly powerful at +10% per invasion / 15 turns. I took a look at the save file, which had a current bonus of +80% FIDS; it is hard to compete against that if you keep that bonus active. My play style with them reflects this -- I only colonize 3 systems at the start and start invading from that point forward to roll those bonuses. I'd say it's definitely too powerful against the AI, but against other players it shouldn't be too hard to counter them (build 1 CP max dmg fleets that have the intent of mutual destruction). If they can't get their bonus going relatively early in the game I'd imagine the faction stagnates and flops harder than any other faction.

1CP max damage/mutual destruction fleets aren't a good idea agains the Hissho because Snipers, Deadly Weapons, and Masters of Destruction combine to make such an arms race extremely unfavourable for their opposition in economic terms.

Taelon wrote:
Edit: Economic victory conditions need to be reevaluated. In their current form it is more favorable to create a cease fire when a faction has one system left than it is to kill them off (as it decreases by 40k per faction left standing). I've played games as UE where I wasn't able to attain an economic victory before another type because (in retrospect) killing off factions from the 7 I was playing against was detrimental to achieving victory. It just seems exploitative against the AI to agree to a cease fire only with the intention it allows for an easier economic victory.

Huh, that's silly. In the above game, I killed off the Amoeba and the Cravers before cherry-picking decent systems from the UE and opposing Hissho (just to get monopolies and reset the Bushido timers).



Personally, I think that Bushido should be cumulative for each invaded system, but that the timers should never reset.

I haven't played Hissho since their 100% buff to hissho bushido, but I thought it was fairly powerful at +10% per invasion / 15 turns. I took a look at the save file, which had a current bonus of +80% FIDS; it is hard to compete against that if you keep that bonus active. My play style with them reflects this -- I only colonize 3 systems at the start and start invading from that point forward to roll those bonuses. I'd say it's definitely too powerful against the AI, but against other players it shouldn't be too hard to counter them (build 1 CP max dmg fleets that have the intent of mutual destruction). If they can't get their bonus going relatively early in the game I'd imagine the faction stagnates and flops harder than any other faction.



Edit: Economic victory conditions need to be reevaluated. In their current form it is more favorable to create a cease fire when a faction has one system left than it is to kill them off (as it decreases by 40k per faction left standing). I've played games as UE where I wasn't able to attain an economic victory before another type because (in retrospect) killing off factions from the 7 I was playing against was detrimental to achieving victory. It just seems exploitative against the AI to agree to a cease fire only with the intention it allows for an easier economic victory.