Then you are simply not willing to stray from your path.

Compare UE and Sophon gameplay: The former should heaviliy invest in happiness upgrades and Dust, so they can ramp up their taxes and get more Dust and Industry. The latter focus on almost no taxes to avoid having to build all the happiness buildings and still receive huge Science bonuses.

Don't get me started on Hissho, another type of gameplay altogether. You just have to discover their strengths and play accordingly.

Just going to link this thread for expansion disapproval discussion: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12835-decaying-expansion-disapproval

Shivetya wrote:
To fix the problem you have with the technology trees you would have to dispense with them in their entirety. Something like MOO2s system where you could actually be MISSING technologies at certain levels would make for a more interesting game. Not the default behavior mind you, but one to challenge players. There is no replay value in any fixed tech tree. If you remove the intertwined aspect of one it becomes even more fixed in how you must play it. There is always going to be one or two best paths to follow in a game with a fixed tree.



G-6 You cannot lose as Cravers as long as you keep expanding or stop attacking. It is impossible. By design they have to win, only another better played Craver should be able to beat them.

I disagree that (non-randomized) tech trees have no replay value. Especially ones with completely separate branches. (Actually, having a game-mode with a randomized tech tree could be fun. I might add that to the G section.) By actually separating the branches, the developers would create 4 completely different paths (obviously, faction bonuses will make some of these more preferable than others). But looking at the current branches, there are really (roughly) 11 different approaches (ground combat, laser ships, missile ships, kinetic ships, colonization, happiness, diplomacy, food, industry, dust, and science). Mixing these different branches to find unique gameplay styles, should create a ton of re-playability. Combining just 2 different categories results in 110 possibilities (granted, some combos won't work well, but that's beside the point).



If Cravers can't lose, that's a pretty big balance problem. A good defense by a Hissho player (or a coalition of multiple other factions) should be able to beat a Craver player (if played well enough, of course). Non-Craver factions would probably lose some ground at first (especially if they hadn't researched war techs), but by dramatically slowing the Craver player's expansion, the Craver empire would slowly consume itself. After that, the other empires would just have to mop it up. The Cravers are (or at least, should be) an all-or-nothing gamble that their leader can conquer enough in the early game to outgrow any opposition.

Nosferatiel wrote:
@OP: You can discuss your ideas and refine upon them in the discussion format, of course, but unless you post any of them as a single suggestion per thread in the proposals section, it is unlikely that any of them will be regarded.



Just making the point again, that suggestion lists are really hard to cope with.

Thanks for the advice. I was (and still am) hoping to refine my and others' ideas into a more cohesive vision. That way we can offer more in-depth suggestions to the developers without contradicting ourselves (at least as much). I'm rather saddened that ideas might be disregarded if they are not placed into their own threads, since I'm hoping to gather a ton of them. Furthermore, many suggestions (most, actually) work best when paired with other ones. I consciously used patch notes as an inspiration for this thread. There's a reason patch notes clump all the changes together: it helps give a clearer picture of how the game as a whole has changed.

Sahal wrote:
A1. Technology trees are fine. Your example shows it.

A2. There is end game technology. It gives you science victory. Plus, we have to end technology trees in some point, it can't be infinite. While end game techs aren't game-breaking (or significant), they give us little a more than incremental advance.

A3. This is so one can focus on one tree, while easily not staying far behind with others. So your "war-mongering faction" could not struggle with lack of industry, problems with colonization, etc.

B2. If we could choose cards for automatic combat how would it be different from manual?

B7. Guarding systems works how it was intended to. It blocks enemy fleets from leaving the system. It could be nice if it would block invasion too.

B9. They do? I play with insane pirates, and didn't notice that. They are annoying early, but mid game they do nothing to me. Sometimes I see pirate's systems, that they took from AI, but no problems with them too.

C1. They can. Ctrl + click. Ctrl + Shift + Click.

D2. If they only generate dust, they are in plus taking cost in account. I don't see any problem here.

D3. Influence area as it is work fine IMO. Controlling it by diplomacy (trading, selling etc.) would be unnecessary complex without said tiles.

D4. That's because it's beginning of their own turn too. It's different from turn by turn concept. Has it's pros and cons. Developers want it this way, so it will stay this way.

E1. You can break deals any time (except ceasefire) at cost of relation points from other side.

F1. AI would be too easy if it wouldn't cheat.

G3. Didn't play. Don't know. But their affinity gives them advantage in that they can focus industry and still boost their population growth. Ability to colonize any planet isn't their affinity.

G4. Some combinations of traits are unbalanced. But that doesn't mean custom factions are.

G5. Colonization disapproval means people are unhappy because government focus on getting more planets, while neglecting their needs. New outpost are burden, and that why people aren't happy about them. That's how I explain it to myself.

G6. I have no idea. I didn't play Cravers. But it goes well with their lore without serious disadvantage like reverse terraforming.

A1. As I've stated before, making the 4 tech branches interdependent to such an extent ruins the entire idea behind having for distinct branches in the first place. It forces every empire to research techs in almost the exact same order, which makes the game more boring (at least for me).

A2. Having a finite amount of technologies isn't quite the same thing as having end game technologies. I was referring to the introduction of new types of gameplay, which is woefully absent. The only branch that actually mixes things up is colonization. By the end-game you can terraform planets at will and move ships without the help of warp routes. But such progression is completely absent in the other branches, which usually only offer % increases to existing gameplay styles. In short, I want more creativity in the various techs.

A3. But that's the point of specialization. Investing heavily in one area should make you fall drastically behind in others.

B2. Players would have to pick all the cards from the start (instead of potentially waiting til mid-battle). More importantly, it would skip the fancy but unnecessary light shows and explosions. Although, now that I think more about it, picking cards wouldn't work well in a multiplayer match.

B7. Why would the developers call the action "guard system" if they didn't intend for it to actually guard that system from attack? Why else would someone want to park their fleets over their own planets, but to stop enemies from invading or blockading?

B9. You must either be parking ships at every nearby system (which stops them from spawning) or just be a militaristic faction in general. For a colonial/diplomatic faction, pirates are hell. In one of my games, pirates had managed to take over half of an Empire's total holdings (over a dozen star systems).

C1. Really? I had no idea that was possible. I'm gonna go try that out.

D2. I've noticed that dust improvements (with the exception of trade route improvements after a trade pact) don't give very good rewards. They take time to build, and when balanced against their maintenance costs, they only generate a few dust per turn. This isn't nearly enough to offset the costs of other improvements and upgrading ships.

D3. Yeah, tiles would be a huge help, but would also take away from the game's atmosphere. I just wish borders were realistically portrayed in strategy games .

D4. Ah, now it makes a little more sense. Does the game attempt simultaneous turns in multiplayer matches as well? I can't imagine those would play well.

E1. I kinda forgot about that actually (although the penalties for ending deals such as mutual trade agreements is ludicrously high) . Still, players aren't able to reject peace treaties when their allies sign them, and breaking cease-fires would be nice.

F1. Not if the AI is actually competent. *Sigh* Maybe that's asking too much, though.

G3. Yes, they can focus more, but the overall bonus still only adds up to 90% (out of 100%), which makes it negative instead of positive. I grouped in their other ability since it is pretty much the only thing they having going for them.

G4. That's true. Sorry, I really meant to say that some individual traits/combos are unbalanced.

G5. My main issue is that colonization disapproval never, ever goes away. When outposts become full colonies (and should therefore be self-sufficient), the other colonies need to stop whining about them.

G6. The problem is that (from what I hear; I haven't played as them yet) Cravers are nearly unstoppable because they get a +25% boost to all FIDS in newish systems. This allows them to get an early lead on competitors, which means they can settle colonies before their old ones get the -25% penalty to FIDS. Basically, the penalty needs to be higher later on to stop them from steamrolling the entire galaxy.



I'll list your disagreements on the various topics after I get some sleep.

Spero42 wrote:
Just going to link this thread for expansion disapproval discussion

Thanks for the link. I somewhat agree with that OP: expansion disapproval should decrease to nothing with time. However, I still find the concept of expansion disapproval unnatural and forced, which is why I still advocate removing it entirely.

Wow. A list! Some comments:



A1) I don't mind this, especially with the military.

A2) Not yet had a problem with this

A3) This is because Magnetic Field Generators produce too much research.



B6) Only thing I really agree with in this section. Hangers need a limited capacity.

B10) Actually, I agree with this, but not strongly.



G1) Agree.

G3) Agree.

G4) Yes. My MP group only play stock factions because of this.

G7) Need fixing.

Ganpot wrote:
A -2 & 3

I generally agree on late game tech, something feels like its missing on the late game tech rewards. On early tech or tech in general being too fast, I thought that to myself alittle while back too.

Oh man. People are saying that current research tree is good. Now there is one and only one the best route for victory with any faction. I never change my research order regardless of faction i play. If you think that is good you are so wrong.

Shivetya wrote:


F. AI

1. Sorry it needs to cheat, its too stupid to have a chance otherwise.

The stupidity is the point criticized here. Their greatest failures are not even things that should be hard to sort out. There is stuff the AI does wrong that is really, really obvious.



Like constantly using fleets that are not at the command-point-cap, having fleets sit around at their systems when in war.

Using Instructor-Heros on fleets instead of planets but not actually using those fleets.

Building useless and inefficient stuff at their systems while ignoring really important things.

Setting all Planets to the same specialization... not that big of a deal unless they do that with food-production on systems with full pop. And they have done that!



Without an AI that at least appears to be competent the game is no more fun to play. Playing GalCiv2 Ultimate-Edition now. It has outstanding AI. The difficulty level where the AI is on par with the human there is the 6th out of 12 not the 1st.

For me I think most of the issues stem from the UI rather then anything else really. First time playing I took forever to find how to do the simplest things like colonize a planet. If the UI was much clearer it would be good.

trinest wrote:
For me I think most of the issues stem from the UI rather then anything else really. First time playing I took forever to find how to do the simplest things like colonize a planet. If the UI was much clearer it would be good.

Reading the Tutorial more or less solves this. And after a few games there's little left of things that you don't know how to do. And at this point you will probably also see the more pressing issues.

Not saying there's nothing to improve about the UI tough.

Refitting ships only doable from the fleet-screen for example is rather ridiculous.

I pretty much agree with most of your points. Overall, the game is just too static, especially late game, it's like "Build improvement that increase FIDS and approval, then get tech that allow to build improvements that increase FIDS, then build improvements... etc" at the beginning ; and at the end, spamming ships, auto-ing most of the battles (especially against the AI aka "I build 5 junk fleets/turn on each system I got") and waiting for a circle around a system to be filled with the color of our faction (that was an invasion ?). Every games just look the same, because no matter which faction I chose, I'll always do the same things.

A1. Technology trees are fine. Your example shows it. War-mongering faction needs to invest into industry, beacause it's industry that creates ships. It needs to invest into exploration if they want to colonize planets. You can't demand to change trees so you could colonize more planets, and produce more ships without investing into trees that focus these aspects. Ships designs and increasing max fleet CP could be put in military tree, but they are where they are not without a reason. Exploration tree deals with engines so it has ships designs. Increasing max CP is in diplomacy tree cause that's where technologies dealing with empire management are.



A2. There is end game technology. It gives you science victory. Plus, we have to end technology trees in some point, it can't be infinite. While end game techs aren't gamebraking (or significant), they give us little more then incremental advance.



A3. This is so one can focus one tree, while easily not stay far behind with others. So your "war-mongering faction" could not struggle with lack of industry, problems with colonization, etc.



B1. Agreed. But still it's work in progress.



B2. If we could choose cards for automatic combat how would it be different from manual? More cards? Yes, please.



B3. It would be fun if we had random events during combats, like reversed combat stage or something. Diversity can be fun.



B4. Agreed.



B5. They don't have to. It's only rough approximation. If one wants more, he should have other means to check details.



B6. More interaction would be fun. Blockades could block hangars. Nothing gets in, or out. Or hangars could be attacked.



B7. Guarding systems works how it was intended to. It blocks enemy fleets from leaving the system. It could be nice if it would block invasion too.



B8. Not priority. It would be nice to have more.



B9. They do? I play with insane pirates, and didn't notice that. They are annoying early, but mid game they do nothing to me. Sometimes I see pirate's systems, that they took from AI, but no problems with them too.



B10. Yes... I want ability to choose which fleet I want to destroy. Still, knowing that weakest fleets are attacked first gives me some flexibility.



C1. They can. Ctrl + click. Ctrl + Shift + Click.



C2 and C3. Yes. Scouting ships should do that.



C4. We got plenty of planet anomalies. Adding star anomalies would add more flavor. But it's not a priority.



D1. Can't complain. Still seeing FIDS per pop over planet would be cool.



D2. If they only generate dust, they are in plus taking cost in account. I don't see nay problem here.



D3. Influence area as it is work fine IMO. Influence area around fleets could be intresting. Controling it by diplomacy (trading, selling etc.) would be unnecessary complex without said tiles.



D4. That's because it's beginnig of their own turn too. It's different from turn by turn concept. Has it's pros and cons. Developers wats it this way, so it will stay this way.



D5. Upgrading ships using industry and not money? Intresting. Agreed.



D6. And they heal too fast in combat too.



E1. You can break deal any time (except ceasefire) at cost of relation points from other side. It would be good if breaking deals would undermine our reputation in eyes of other factions too.



E2. Realtion is more between leaders/goverments than population. So declaring a war would lower relations drastically and so it does. But it would be nice if diplomacy status with other faction affect empire happines and by it system happines. Of course depending on faction and on what that war is about. When I defend myself, it shouldn't affect as much as offensive war. Same with winnig, losing, and short/long war.



E3. Yup. More diplomatic options would be fun. It's planned, if I'm not mistaken.



E4. Close borders could be less punishing unless we really take their lifespace.



F1. AI would be too easy if it wouldn't cheat.



F2. Yup. Diplomacy is lacking. But it is stil WIP.



G1. Techs that lower time to establish colony would work.



G2. Neat idea.



G3. Din't play. Don't know. But their affinity gives them advantage in that they can focus industry and still boost their population growth. Abillity to colonize any planet isn't ther affinity.



G4. Some combinations of traits are unblanaced. But that doesn't mean custom factions are.



G5. Colonization dissaproval means people are unhappy because goverment focus on getting more planets, while neglecting their needs. New outpost are burden, and that why people aren't happy about them. That's how I explain it to myself. But happines should be affected by other things. Invasions, wars, casaulties...



G6. I have no idea. I didn't play cravers. But it goes well with their lore without serious disadvantage like reverse terraforming.



G7. Agreed. It's annoying.



Peace.

I've been away for awhile because of schoolwork and various other responsibilities, but I have some free time in the next couple of days. I think I'm gonna start posting individual threads in the proposals section. I'll try to avoid posting anything that's been said before, but it's still going to be a LOT of new threads (since I need to create a thread for each idea).



Moderators, I'm just doing what you suggested, so please don't punish me for spamming the proposals section, alright?

Ganpot wrote:
I've been away for awhile because of schoolwork and various other responsibilities, but I have some free time in the next couple of days. I think I'm gonna start posting individual threads in the proposals section. I'll try to avoid posting anything that's been said before, but it's still going to be a LOT of new threads (since I need to create a thread for each idea).



Moderators, I'm just doing what you suggested, so please don't punish me for spamming the proposals section, alright?

I only punish people if they spam old threads, but I gave you a list of what's really new: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11266-discussion-comprehensive-problem-list-with-suggestions

Everything I didn't mention as "already proposed" there is safe and unpunishable for you to post.

Nosferatiel wrote:
I gave you a list of what's really new

Here's my problem: some of those ideas have been brought up before, but they don't have a poll attached. The developer-sanctioned thread I'm trying to get these ideas listed on (here) only accepts ideas which have an attached poll (with more than 10 votes). Which means that even though some ideas have been mentioned, they aren't being investigated. So should I create new threads (with polls) for those threads as well, or just hope the original thread-starter does?

Never mind, I think I misunderstood the submission criteria. The thread states that ideas with polls must have 10 votes and be run for 7 days, not that all ideas must have those polls. My mistake. So I'll post the ideas which don't show up on that thread (as far as I can tell).

Adding polls to ideas is not compulsive, but can help if you formulate the polls right. That means give them yes/maybe with changes/no options that are all worded neutrally.

Hey Nos, if you're not too busy, I'd like to ask a favor. I've cut down my list into ideas not already present in the proposals forum (not just the general forums, since they don't count). I'd still like you to look them over, since I don't want to re-paste stuff. Here it is:



Key:

Underlined = not sure if new or not (I couldn't find anything)



A:

1. completely independent tech trees

2. building warp routes/planets/systems

3. branch tech speed bonus per tech known in same branch



B:

1. Revamped. separate card system for firing pattern with the choices of spread fire (target all enemies simultaneously) , concentrate fire (on largest ship), and duel (1v1 ship battles like normal), switchable once per round (just like the tactic cards)

2. new tactic cards for suicide ramming, lining up in front of the colony, and hit-and-run [Note:Thiswon'tgetitsownthread;I'llpostitintoanalreadyexistingone]

3. make most system anomalies have effects in combat

4. ship mobility card system

5. separate MP (might power) from IP (invasion power), and assign IP for certain modules instead. Also don't assign points in either category unless the modules actually effect that area

6. limited hanger space and destructible hanger / don't allow production in a besieged system

8. separate ship size from hull selection

9. hard cap on Pirate strength, both galaxy-wide and specific fleets

11. non-random retreat success



C:

1. free ship movement across empty space / changing course and parking mid-destination [Note:thetopicRevampedShipMovementreferstoadifferentproblemcompletely(lackofhot-seatmode)]

2. idea #3 merged with this one. Enemy fleet and system information from scout modules.



D:

1. ability to see amount of FIDS produced per person on planets

2. nerf trade route bonuses but increase effectiveness of other commerce producing improvements

3. change borders to work through diplomacy and military instead of culture

6. passively increasing heal speed and reducing passive heal after combat heals are used



E:

1. allow AI to anticipate backstabbing and initiate it when it makes sense

2. idea #4 merged with this one. Revamp diplomacy system to make approval/disapproval factors more consistent, including making disapproval among warring factions more dependent on ship and civilian losses

3. intelligence pacts to share civilian or espionage info / addition production pact to increase factions' build times when resources are shared by both parties



F:

1. tone down computer cheating (on medium difficulties) by improving AI



G:

1. increase settlement to colony transition speed through later-game techs

3. improve Sower affinity by providing a 15%-20% bonus to production

5. revamp domestic happiness system to make more sense

6. Locust points aren't drastic enough (including visually)

7. allow ships to travel towards friendly territory after a cease-fire



H:

1. race-specific victory conditions

6. allow private and public notes between players in multiplayer matches

7. allow player choices in response to events [Note:currentthreadssuggestmoretypesofevents,butdonotraisethepossibilityofplayerchoice]

8. tournament mode which disables all faction specials (including affinities)

9. religions in space. Space religions. Spreligions?

Well, let's see:



For A1, probably this would be the most fitting /#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13777-suggestion-race-specific-tech-trees and my commentary in that thread would apply.

In A2, building planets has been proposed here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12896-suggestion-building-planets , while the rest hasn't been suggested as far as I'm aware. You might want to read through that thread, because some of the counterarguments also would apply to systems.

I've never seen A3 anywhere before.



B1: The targeting in general has been proposed here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/11814-prioritise-targets-during-ship-battle-s , but you might want to post your card-version-extension in detail in that thread.

B2: This might be the right place, then: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12076-more-combat-cards-phase-specific-ones-and-card-chaining

B3: There are no system, only planet anomalies, yet?

B4: Especially this one is similar: /#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13492-suggestion-navigation-cards-after-conventional-combat-ends linked to the one posted in B2.

B5: Haven't seen that.

B6: Haven't seen that, either.

B8: Haven't seen that, but don't know how that would work out, since I doubt the devs would like to load each shiptype times 3 for different sizes?

B9: Haven't seen that.

B11: I'm not sure what you mean. Retreat is always successful, if your fleet survives the enemy fire long enough.



I'm taking care of the rest once I find the time. Hopefully this is a good start.

A1. Well, my idea is neither to randomize the trees, nor make them racially specific. So I don't think it would really fit there...

A2. Interesting. I hadn't found that thread before.



B1. Yeah, I saw that thread but I wasn't sure whether it was specific enough. I'll add this point there then.

B2. Thanks, I'll add it there.

B3. I misspoke there. I meant to say that for a given system, all planetary anomalies and effects (including the star type) would be taken into account during any battles in that system. For example, having an asteroid field in the system would create hazards (ships are damaged when hitting an asteroid), while having a planet with the high gravity trait would decrease or eliminate the close combat phase (since the ships wouldn't be able to get too close to the planet without crashing). Things like that would allow fleets tailored to individual systems, enhancing strategy depth.

B4. Hmmm.... the major difference is that the OP of that thread wants his system to be largely separate from normal combat (only taking place immediately afterwards) whereas I want the system to be completely integrated (taking place at the same time). EDIT: Just realized that thread was in the archives, so I can't reply there anyway. Time for a new thread then! lol

B8. Uh, wouldn't it mostly just be a matter of up-scaling the smaller hull designs or down-scaling the larger ones? I wouldn't think it would be that hard. After having the player select the hull design, just have the option of 3 different sizes.

B11. When I've used the retreat options (either normal or adaptive) in my games, it did seem to randomly decide if my ships died after the conflict was over. I remember specific instances where I had a larger, more powerful fleet and decided to retreat (the enemy had several other fleets moving to that system as well). Afterwards, I was informed by an event message that the retreat was unsuccessful, and all my ships were gone (despite not being destroyed by enemy fire). It might be a glitch, and it is possible that this was changed lately (I haven't played in a few weeks) but it definitely happened to me.



Thanks for the response.

Ganpot wrote:
I. Questions:

1. Can the Cravers engage in diplomacy with other Craver factions? (It would make sense from a lore perspective.)

2. Do ships actually gain XP? If yes, what effect does it have? If no, then why are there improvements specifically designed to give ships nonexistent XP? (For the moment, I'm assuming this system isn't finished yet.)

3. What does the Adventurer hero class do, exactly? The other classes are fairly self-explanatory, but Adventurer is never well-explained.

4. Does culture from a single system ever reach a maximum limit? By this I mean, if there was only one system in the entire game that built culture buildings, would it eventually cover the majority of a larger map given enough time?

5. What does a system improvement mean when it claims building it will allow me to see all fleets orbiting that system? I already own that system, and unless ghost ships exist, I can already see all the fleets orbiting it.

Okay, waaaay too much for me to address completely...I can try answering the questions, though.



1.) No. Looking at the lore, there wouldn't be any other real Craver factions. They operate as a whole, as a hive-mind essentially. And even if there were seperate groups, I'd imagine their mentality would be the same...You have what I want, and I will take it from you, regardless if you look like me or not.



2.) Yes. It increases their health, as they gain XP and "level up."



3.) I haven't messed with this class that much. But from looking at the class's abilities, they help get you resources. They can leech money and science off of enemy systems, and can generate Dust for each enemy ship that they destroy. They can also tap into the sight range of any enemy empire whose system they are docked at, allowing you to see any enemy movement in that empire.



4.) Influence, not culture, might have a limit but I'm not sure. There are techs you can build to give it a boost, but seeing as it is based primarily on population, I'm going to say that once a system's populations stops growing, the influence radius stops growing as well.



5.) It allows you to see the fleet compositions, I believe. So when you are invaded, you can look at the enemy fleet and see how strong it is, letting you know what you're dealing with instead of flying in more or less blind.

B. Combat:

1. Weapon types are completely unbalanced. In theory, having 3 types of weapons and armor sounds great. But since different weapons dominate at different ranges, and ships always start out at the same distance away from each other, some weapons become near useless very quickly. In this case, kinetics is given the short straw (as it is hideously inaccurate at long ranges). Missiles are decent overall, but unless the player wants to send in massive amounts of small suicide ships, lasers are almost always the best choice. Why? Because lasers are the best at long-range combat (where almost all battles are mainly fought), and missiles are extremely slow. A large part of missiles' ineffectiveness is also due to the AI. No matter how many missiles are fired from a single ship, they all seem to be aimed at a single opposing ship (meaning that they specialize in a 1:1 kill-death ratio). Usually by the time your ships can launch a second missile volley, most of them have been cut to ribbons by the enemy.

Suggestion: Either short-range combat needs to happen much more often in end-game battles, or the weapons need to be rebalanced to be effective regardless of distance. That doesn't mean the weapons can't be different from each other. Lasers can inflict small amounts of damage continuously, whereas missiles can offer large damage at longer intervals, with kinetics serving as a medium ground between the two. Lastly, missile volleys need to know how many of them it will take to destroy the ship they are targeting, so that the extra missiles can change targets (allowing missiles to reach closer to their full potential). Note that this might require nerfing each missile's damage to keep them balanced.



2. Players aren't given enough control during combat (especially automatic combat). I'm not advocating that players control their ships like a typical RTS game (as that would destroy any multiplayer potential by drastically slowing down the game). But players need to be forced to actually think about what cards best suit the situation. Right now, there isn't enough variety to the cards, which means most players pick 3 or 4 cards and use them constantly.

Suggestion: Selecting 3 cards at the start of an auto combat match would take mere seconds, while providing a deeper level of strategy. As well, some of the more creative/crazy options need to be represented, like suicide ramming the enemy fleet, using hit-and-run tactics, or lining up in front of the colony itself (so that enemy fleets risk hitting their own colony when they fire upon you).



3. Battlefields are too static. The space combat backgrounds look very pretty, but none of the special effects of the planets or system ever impact the battlefield in a meaningful way. I feel this is a pretty big missed opportunity for some crazy, chaotic fun.

Suggestion: Battlefields should (in pre-defined systems) have comets and asteroids flying through certain areas, potentially decimating fleets if they aren't careful. Other systems should have damaging radiation from pulsars, large gravity wells from black holes (which can trap and destroy/teleport fleets), or a small possible area of conflict due to large planetary bodies (which would promote short-range combat). (Also, please list the battlefield hazards in the battle alert message so that players can react accordingly.)



4. Ship speed and mobility are not factored into combat. This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the combat system in the current build. The only time armies stood in a line and fired at each other until only one side still had soldiers left was during the early adoption of fire-arms (when they were hideously inaccurate). Even then, generals quickly realized this was a terrible idea, which led to the creation of trench and guerilla types of warfare. In space, standing in a line makes even less sense, since space is a primarily open 3D area. Not to mention that most weapons will be guided by advanced targeting machines. Any captain with brains would be trying to avoid as much enemy fire as possible.

Suggestion: Create a secondary layer of cards (with one being picked per combat phase) labeled Movement. These cards should give options such as advance, spread out, cluster together, back up, and surround enemies. Then rename the phases 1, 2, and 3 (instead of long-range, mid-range, and short-range). Each ship generally moves according to its own movement speed (so if one fleet tries to outdistance its enemy, the slow ships might fall behind and be caught). (There are exceptions to this, like if a player orders their ships to stick together. Then they would move according to the slowest ship.) Three times a phase (all evenly spaced) the distance between the ships is updated as either long-range, mid-range, or short-range (for the purpose of determining weapon effectiveness). (It would be preferable if the distance designation was made for each individual ship, but if that is too taxing then it can simply be made for the entire fleets by using the average ship distance apart.)



5. MP (might points) don't reflect reality. By giving out MP for using modules which don't contribute to space battles, these points become largely meaningless. Maybe that 15k point fleet is armed to the teeth… or maybe it's equipped purely with invasion modules, making it easy prey. There's simply no way to know.

Suggestion: Only give ships MP for modules which directly contribute to victory in space. That way a lot of the confusion is preemptively side-stepped. Colony ships should also be clearly labeled as such (to avoid letting them be confused with unarmed scouts).



6. Hangers make defending systems a joke. Hangers cannot be destroyed, they can have limitless amounts of ships housed within them, said occupants cannot be sensed or attacked, systems under siege can still build new ships, and fleets can move between hangers and open space an unlimited number of times per turn. All of these things make defending a friendly star system nearly effortless. Once I figured out how to cheat the system, I only lost solar systems to forces 10 times my own strength (not ten times my fleets' MP, just very large amounts of mediocre fleets). (How did enemies get 10 times as many fleets, you ask? I don't want to talk about it .)

Suggestion: Allow hangers to be destroyed (that's probably the first thing an invading army would go for), only allow them to house a certain number of ships at once (with upgrades present somewhere in the army tech tree), allow invading forces (with good enough scout modules) to see ships in hangers, don't allow besieged systems to construct new ships, and have ships who go into or out of a hanger use up a movement point each time. Next, have ships inside a hanger be destroyed instantly if the hanger is destroyed (to discourage hiding in there). Allow hangers to be rebuilt (obviously), and possibly start new colonies out without a hanger (as most new colonies wouldn't be focusing on ship-building until their own home was well set-up).



7. Guarding a system doesn't work. Firstly, computer controlled fleets sometimes just ignore defending units altogether by entering and exiting the system very quickly. Secondly, fleets can only attack one opposing fleet per turn (even while guarding a system), which means that sending two fleets will always allow a system (with a single defender) to be blockaded. Thirdly, even if the defending fleet intercepts and destroys a lone attacking fleet, the planet is still treated as if it was blockaded for that turn (which can slow down production times, and lessen trade income).

Suggestion: Allow all ships to attack an unlimited amount of times per turn, assuming they have the movement points to do so. Also fix the bug allowing fast computer fleets to bypass guarded systems without a fight. And only have a system count as blockaded if the last defending fleet ties, retreats, or is defeated.



8. Too few hull designs is leading to monotonous armies. In the current game, there are only 6 different hull designs. Of those, one is clearly meant for scouting (the Corvette), while another is clearly meant for settling planets (the Transport). That leaves 4 hulls to choose from when designing a military vessel. Of those, one (the Dreadnaught) is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to manufacture (without any bonuses what-so-ever), and therefore can't make up the bulk of most armies. A fourth hull (the Cruiser) is specialized for planetary invasion, but without any useful space combat bonuses (it gets bonuses to health and planetary combat). That leaves two to do the bulk of the work: a small offensive hull (the Destroyer) and a medium-sized defensive one (the Battleship).

Suggestion: Separate ship size from hull design, add a Carrier hull type (it should be good against large ships but bad against small ones) which can house both fighters (defensive) and bombers (offensive), and give the Dreadnaught a -12% module size across the board (to make up for its greater build cost). These changes would allow far greater freedom when designing ships.

9. Pirates can get absurdly strong. Pirates aren't supposed to be a major threat (unless you leave systems unguarded), but I've played game in which pirates had assembled the strongest fleets in the galaxy. I have no idea how pirate strength is generated (since pirates only spawn in areas without civilized fleets), but something is clearly not working correctly. Logically, pirates should always be exceptionally weak due to a lack of resources (they don't own any of their own planets, and certainly don't run an empire). They should basically act as cannon-fodder.

Suggestion: Max out the pirates' strength in any one area at 1/3 of the weakest empire's military. As well, possibly add combat bonuses (like +15-20%) when fighting pirates (their ships are probably more prone to falling apart, due to age and lack of maintenance). That way, pirates stay a nuisance (since some ships have to be left to guard colonies) without ever becoming a serious military threat. I also question whether pirates should be allowed to take over systems. I'd think most pirates would rather keep wandering and stealing than settle down to try to rule. To reflect this, maybe have pirates merely steal dust (and possibly population points. Space slavers seem to be a convention of the sci-fi genre) and destroy improvements. That should be more than enough incentive to guard valuable colonies.



10. Attacking fleets don't get to decide which defending fleets to attack. This leads to a massive break-down of potential strategy. Need to take out the planetary invasion fleet? Too bad; the computer decided what you really wanted to engage was the single half-dead scout making up its own fleet. This sort of thing happens far too often, and is incredibly easy to fix.

Suggestion: Allow attacking fleets to pick their target from within a stack of enemy fleets. This shouldn't even unbalance the game, since any weak fleets which are attacked can already try to retreat/flee.



11. Retreat success is pointlessly randomized. If a fleet chooses to retreat and survives the last wave of attacks, it can still be destroyed. This happens completely randomly, and the player is informed of this after the end of the battle. But this isn't necessary, and can be incredibly frustrating for players with large retreating fleets.

Suggestion: Have any ships which survive the battle remain alive afterwards.



C. Exploration:

1. Ships can't move freely (even in end-game). After being confined to single pathways the whole game, being given the freedom to move anywhere on the map sounds amazing. Unfortunately, it's actually a huge let-down. Ships still can't move into the void of space on a whim. Instead, they can only do so when a far away solar system is declared as the destination, and the computer decides the fastest route would be through empty space. Other than that, it changes absolutely nothing. As well, ships cannot be stopped or re-routed mid-flight (even when not using warp tunnels), which means that they can't adapt to changing circumstances. This can lead to some very frustrating circumstances.

Suggestion: Allow fleets to be parked at or guided through empty space at will (after the technology is researched). This will allow players to hide their fleets in deep space in order to catch enemies off guard. Also allow ships to fight while going through warp gates (even if only after researching a certain technology), as right now everyone has to wait for an enemy to invade their system (even though they know what is going to happen ahead-of-time). Some people will probably protest that having a single tech allow access to so much new space would make it painfully overpowered. This might be true to an extent, but since every faction still has access to all of the important areas (solar systems), that's where most of the fighting will take place anyway. Having ships be able to go into deep space doesn't help much when your central planets are under attack. Lastly, movement should be sped up while going through normal space (to make it a more appealing alternative to warp gates).



2. Systems (and their inhabitants) are unknown until a ship is literally in the system (which largely defeats the purpose of scouts). This gets annoying quickly. Even scouts equipped with sensors can't tell what is going on within nearby solar systems. This inevitably means stumbling into a rival's home system and having your ship(s) needlessly destroyed. It also means being repeatedly caught off guard by pirates. Unfortunately, even if you spot enemy ships at your destination, it is usually too late (since ships can't reroute or stop mid-warp).

Suggestion: Allow ships' sensors to see details in nearby systems (like population, improvements, ownership, and present ships).



3. There is no way to know what ships/weapons/armor/modules are included in an enemy fleet until you engage them. I'd go so far as to say this is game-breaking, since not being able to see which weapons enemies favor means relying completely on luck (which is a terrible idea for a 4X game). Even worse, if players only play out automatic battles, they are never told any of these details, which leads to massive confusion about why they are winning or losing battles.

Suggestion: Allow scout modules (especially more advanced ones) to see the composition of enemy fleets (both in terms of ships and weapon/armor/module choices) within their sensor range. This would make scouts necessary in mid-game and end-game, when they are currently useless (or near useless). Also show a more detailed report of battles, which display what modules each ship had equipped.



4. Not enough space anomalies. One of the main draws of space is its mysteriousness. But unfortunately, the most abnormal thing implemented so far is systems with two stars. Where are the black holes (worm holes don't count), the pulsars, the magnetars? On the planetary level, what about planets which are tidally locked to their sun, or are composed entirely of nano-machines (don't look at me like that). The artwork for existing effects is fantastic, but more variety is rarely a bad thing.

Suggestion: Create more planetary anomalies, and create more exotic systems (with or without colonize-able planets).

D. Empire Management:

1. Not enough critical information is made available to players. This is more of a general problem than one with a lot of specific examples. Granted, I might just not know where to look yet, since I've only played 3 matches so far.

Suggestion: Allow players to see how much FIDS (food, industry, dust, and science) each population point on a planet generates per turn on the system screen (currently, players can only see the total amount generated per turn by the entire planet. Personally, I'd love a button which switches between the two information sets). Show exactly where all Dust is being generated in the financial menu. Display (somewhere) how much civilian strikes are actually costing your empire. Stuff like that.



2. Dust (money) improvements cost dust while generating dust. This isn't so much a problem as a questionable design element. Having improvements to dust generation cost dust to maintain makes them less effective than they should be, which makes trade routes (and converting production to dust) the best means of generating large amounts of money.

Suggestion: Nerf trade routes (after trade agreements), and either get rid of maintenance costs on dust improvements, or improve their positive effects.



3. The Civilization problem with borders (I'll explain). The Civilization series absolutely loves its city-states. Every city-state produces culture, which grants access to nearby tiles and resources. Cities from different empires compete over these tiles if they are too close together. This is basically how the culture in Endless Space is set up, except without any visible tiles. The only problem is that this approach isn't realistic in any sense of the word. Empire boundaries aren't determined by cultural influence (otherwise America would rule the world through its fast-food chains). Instead, boundaries are determined either by treaties or militaries. This needs to be represented in the game.

Suggestion: Change culture to promote trade routes and revolt from foreign empires (in the lack of a military presence). Have boundaries be set by having military ships secure and pacify an area of empty space during several turns, which then grants that area to your faction until another empire attempts to take it from you. As well, boundaries can be set through diplomacy. Factions can sell, give away, and trade open space among each other (sometimes as the result of a peace agreement), and even declare open space (which no one can legally claim but everyone can use).



4. Factions continue to move their troops in the beginning of player turns. I'm really not sure why this was implemented in the first place. The entire point of having turns is for everyone to move individually instead of at the same time. Since the player's turn begins before enemies actually move their units, it is quite possible to miss their units by mistakenly moving your own units to where they were last turn. Since it’s a 4X game, most people aren't going to care that enemy turns take a little longer if it means fixing this problem.

Suggestion: Have each enemy move its troops during its own turn (and display those changes before the player's next turn).



5. Ships can only be upgraded by spending a lot of dust (money). This routinely cripples armies, since they are usually obsolete by the time they are built. There needs to be a way to upgrade ships using industry instead of dust. Otherwise dust becomes too useful.

Suggestion: When ships are in a hanger, allow that system to upgrade those ships. This would take industry away from the current building project in the system for that turn (or multiple turns, depending on how much the ship needs to be upgraded). The industry cost would be calculated by subtracting the modern design's costs by the cost of the ship being upgraded.



6. Ships take too long to heal. Currently, even small ships (without large amounts of health) take up to 8 or so turns to fully heal while sitting in a friendly hanger. Since good star systems can produce several ships per turn, it actually seems more efficient to kill off badly injured ships rather than wait around for them to become combat-ready again. There is also no effect on ships' recovery speed if they are stationed inside a hanger, which should instead drastically reduce healing times.

Suggestion: Have ships only heal in friendly territory (until relevant techs are researched, allowing for partial health recovery in neutral and hostile space). Have hangers speed up the ship recovery process by 4x (get it?), but at the cost of taking away some of that star system's industry for the turn (maybe 25%?). To stop ships from healing more in combat than out of it, activating repair systems in combat should only be possible twice per turn (in either a single battle or in different ones), and doing so should mean a -50% healing rate per activation for that turn. In this way, in-combat healing becomes about ensuring the survival of heavily damaged ships, instead of a way to always insure full health.

E. Diplomacy:

1. Deals are too binding. In real life, a deal is only as good as the parties' reputations. The United States government, for example, broke just about every deal it ever made with Native American tribes. By forcing factions to abide by their deals, diplomacy becomes far less interactive and spontaneous than it could be.

Suggestion: Allow factions to break almost any deal, at the cost of disapproval from all other factions and possibly their own civilian populace (depending on the race and type of deal broken). The only real exception to this would be the Cravers, who would more than likely see backstabbing as the only logical outcome to diplomacy (and therefore wouldn't care). In contrast, the Hissho would almost certainly be disgusted by such dirty tactics (leading to a massive diplomatic penalty from them). Furthermore, program the AI to anticipate backstabbing (especially at higher difficulty levels) and even backstab the player if it provides a large enough advantage.



2. War shouldn't necessarily cause hatred. This is admittedly very nit-picky. Currently, war with another empire (even if that empire declared it on you) immediately causes that faction to hate you. This doesn't sit quite right with me, as it doesn't happen that way in real life. An entire nation of people (especially the civilian population) don't just hate whoever their government tells them to hate (well, at least the more reasonable people don't). Instead, hatred is usually caused by the casualties of combat.

Suggestion: There should be a small diplomatic penalty for being at war with a faction, and every ship destroyed (especially a colony ship) and system captured/destroyed would incur an additional penalty. After a cease fire agreement, these penalties would linger on but be continually diminished until they eventually disappeared entirely. An additional note: most races (not the Cravers and Hissho) should also take into account who declared the war, and who is the aggressor (fighting a defensive war should be recognized).



3. Diplomatic tools aren't diverse or powerful enough. The diplomacy tools in this game get boring rather quickly, and I can't imagine diplomacy is at all viable on higher difficulties. Diplomacy needs to be every bit as thrilling as warfare (albeit, in a different way).

Suggestion: Add a ton more diplomatic options, as well as an espionage system. Players and NPCs should be able to form intelligence pacts (which let them each see what the other faction is researching in the tech menu), establish embassies (which allows each faction to see what's going on in allies' systems), gift or rent out combat units (there would need to be an extra cash cost if the ships are destroyed while rented out to another empire), anti-trade pacts (against a third party), alliance domination treaties (which lay out ahead-of-time which enemy systems will be conquered by which member of the alliance (to prevent stealing and allow empires to work together to conquer a single system)), and secret deals (which could involve any number of things, from secret trade agreements to plans for attacking a third faction in the future). Factions (including the Cravers but possibly excluding the Hissho) should also be able to spy on each other via espionage. Of course, with the right techs, they can do a lot more than just watch. Sabotaging a system's current production or an empire's current tech progress, stealing techs or dust, instigating civilian riots, framing other factions for various crimes, blowing up infrastructure (improvements), and assassinating rival heroes should all be possible. Success rates would need to be shown ahead of time, and be determined by the experience of the operative(s), difficulty of the job, and the counter-intelligence force of the enemy. Just make absolutely sure that you don't get caught, because that will probably mean war.



4. Everyone always hates everyone else. Computer opponents seem to hate players (and each other) no matter what. They get upset if the player doesn't have a large enough army, but if the player does have an abundance of fleets then they get nervous. If the player has a small empire, they will disdain you. If a player has a large empire, they will be mad about having to share a border. There is practically no way to please them. Even a galaxy full of Amoebas faces long and bloody wars (on normal difficulty).

Suggestion: Have the AI act more realistically (I'm aware of how hard that can become). Borders should only be a problem if the other faction starts to take large tracks of space from the other empire (or cuts them off from new colonies). A small military should only lead to a diplomacy penalty with the Hissho, since no one else would really care. Possessing a large empire should make the AI cautious, not hateful. Finally, making pacts or possessing a large military shouldn't displease any empire which already likes you (Warm or Friendly rating).

F. AI:

1. Computer opponents cheat excessively. I know this point will arouse some contention, but I'm 90% sure that the computer cheats even on normal difficulty. Enemy empires summon endless amounts of ships from seemingly nowhere. I prefer NPCs in strategy games to use intelligence instead of cheating, but sometimes it is unavoidable. This wouldn't be as big of a deal if the game told you how much the AI was going to cheat ahead of time, but when selecting a difficulty level only flavor text is given. I like the flavor text, but I also need to know around how difficult a match will be before I sink 50 hours into it.

Suggestion: Save cheating for the high difficulty levels (and even there, use it as little as possible). And yes, I count giving the player unique penalties as cheating. The only difference between the normal, easy, and beginner (I don't remember if there actually is a beginner difficulty) difficulties should be the AI. On beginner, the AI should basically just be wandering around looking at the pretty planets. On easy, enemies should be half-competent (around the skill-level of a new player). For medium, the AI should act like a competent human player (who knows the rules and systems). By hard, enemies will be familiar with all the tricks, and play as well as the game's developers. After that (serious and impossible difficulty levels), you can start giving the AI bonuses to FIDS.



2. The AI makes self-destructive deals, and refuses to make mutually beneficial deals with allies. NPCs don't seem to understand the different values of techs. They are all too happy to trade their costly techs with my extremely cheap ones. Friendly NPCs also demand tribute for no apparent reason. Even more oddly, NPCs often refuse military alliances against a common foe (who is already at war with both parties) and trade pacts unless they are showered with "gifts" at the same time.

Suggestion: Make the AI generally accept deals which help out a rival (especially an ally) while also helping their own faction. Also tone down the amount of bribery demanded by friends. Lastly, program the AI to realize that more expensive techs are worth a lot more than cheap ones.



G. Misc. (doesn't fit into another category):

1. New settlements take too long to become full colonies in late-game. This slows down the late-game unnecessarily, and to be honest, I just find it somewhat grating. This is a small issue, but I still think it hinders game flow.

Suggestion: Put some techs in the colonization branch which speed up outposts' development into full colonies (three techs which lower the number of turns to 12, 9, and 6 consecutively would be great).



2. Invading planets is too mindless and boring. Somewhat oddly, invading planets is currently one of the most boring parts of the game. The entire process is automated, and can take an exceedingly long amount of time. It needs some spice.

Suggestion: Use the space battle card system as the basis for a planetary invasion card system. Instead of picking 3 cards, the attacker and defender each pick just one. As well, this card will stay in effect for as long as the system is under siege (although the card can be manually switched once per turn). These cards determine the type of strategy used during the ground fighting, and influence take-over speed (as well as the number of civilians and improvements destroyed). Possible examples include Scorched-Earth Policy (destroying everything as your army is driven back), Guerrilla Warfare (using hit-and-run tactics), Surrender (giving up the fight completely), and Overwhelm (overrun the enemy with troops and hope you come out on top). Just like in the space card-game, different types of cards would counter each other.



3. The Sowers seem to be poorly balanced. I've looked over 6 or 7 of the races' affinities, and the only one that struck me as actually negative was the Sowers'. They have their food cut in half, but up to 40% of their production is also supplied as food. The problem is that this still leaves them with only 90% of a normal empire's food, with no actual bonus to industry. True, this means that they can simply focus on production. But several of the other empires' affinities (namely the United Empire's) give pretty hefty potential bonuses to production (up to +60%), and their factions aren't based around production in the first place. As well, the Sowers' main advantage (in theory) is that they can settle any world from the get-go. Since industry is vital and food is a non-factor, that actually makes Lava planets some of the best colony candidates. Unfortunately, the Sowers still suffer absurd amounts of unhappiness from settling non-perfect (terran, ocean, and jungle) planets. This basically means that Sowers are very prone to self-destruction, as expanding rapidly in the early game (as they are required to do in order to stay competitive) means facing severe civilian rebellions which can't be easily fixed (fixing said unhappiness would require deep investment into the diplomacy tree early on, which would force them to not concentrate on industry tech, their area of expertise). I've played 3 games with the Sowers. In two of those my empire imploded mid-game due to unhappiness, and in the 3rd I fell behind rapidly because I tried only settling better planets (which produced less industry, and as a result, less food).

Suggestion: Either lessen (at least -50%) or completely eliminate Sowers' civilian unhappiness due to settling non-tier 1 planets. Since they can survive anywhere (and should be seeking out terrible planets to terraform anyway, according to their lore), it doesn't make much sense that they hate the more extreme planets.



4. Custom factions are apparently broken (balance-wise). I haven't tried playing as a custom faction yet, but I have heard from multiple people that there are some incredibly game breaking trait combinations.

Suggestion: There's really no other way to fix this, except to balance test as many combinations as possible.



5. Happiness is too hard to combat (especially mid-game), and isn't caused by the right things. I don't normally advocate completely redoing systems, since doing so usually takes a lot of time and effort. I understand why the happiness system is designed how it is (to prevent rapid over-expansion), but it simply doesn't work well. I can understand that settling more extreme planets (such as barren, lava, asteroids, and gas giants) would lead to some unhappiness. That part makes logical sense (people don't typically enjoy living around volcanoes all the time). But there is no logical reason why settling more total colonies would lead people on other worlds to be extremely unhappy/angry. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps people on the old colony miss their family/friends who have gone off to settle new worlds. But even then, such happiness would only exist on the world the colony ship was built on, and it would disappear rather quickly. Furthermore, things which people should naturally complain about go completely unaddressed. Getting invaded by a foreign army (or raided by pirates), losing ships and space battles, getting blockaded, not having enough luxury resources, and being left unprotected all tend to cause feelings of malcontent. From a game-play perspective, there is no reason to punish over-colonization a second time. The main problem with expanding rapidly is that by building so many colony ships, your empire cannot also be building up its military. And because colony ships also drain a population point, your empire will be slower to mature (and therefore ripe for invasion by enemies).

Suggestion: Completely scrap unhappiness resulting from expansion, have unhappiness from extreme planets be generated per person on that planet (instead of a one-time penalty upon initial colonization), and give happiness penalties for leaving star systems unprotected (especially while in a war) (said penalty should only go into effect if there are no ships within any directly connected system). Further, if a system is invaded, it should suffer unhappiness in relation to the success of the invasion. There can also be a much smaller happiness penalty empire-wide when any owned systems are under attack. If a system is completely taken over (or destroyed, if that option is implemented later), imperial happiness should take another hit (a larger one that if a colony is just under attack). Next, the destruction of ships and lost battles should also give unhappiness. Lastly, peaceful empires (Amoeba, Sophon, Pilgrims, and Sowers) should suffer an increasing unhappiness penalty during long or expensive wars, while war-minded races (Cravers, Hissho, United Empire, and Horatio) would suffer such a penalty during prolonged periods of peace.

6. Locust points don't make enough of a difference. A +25% boost to FIDS followed by -25% is nice and all, but it just doesn't give a visual sense that the Cravers are cannibalizing their own worlds. Instead of merely decreasing the base of a planet by 25%, the Cravers should turn every world they own into a barren wasteland.

Suggestion: Planets should go through a reverse-terraforming process, and degrade through the tier levels over time (excluding gas giants and asteroids, as that wouldn't make sense). Let's say every 20 turns the planet type gets reduced by one tier. After a planet hits tier 4 status (barren and lava), the next change should make it a Dead planet, with a virtually non-existent FIDS output. A dead planet would look like a barren planet, but with red dotted population lights instead of yellow. (Just to be clear, the Cravers would keep the initial +25% FIDS bonus on all non-dead planets.) Obviously, if the Cravers were allowed to terraform these planets back to tier 1 status, they would become hideously overpowered. So they either need to terraform planets very slowly (like 20% base speed), or be completely unable to do so. I'm not sure whether other empires should be able to terraform dead planets or not (if not, it would add incentives to kill the Cravers quickly before they ruined half the galaxy). (Oh, and don't have locust points ever get reset when another faction conquers the system (to avoid possible cheating)).



7. Ships can get stuck in enemy territory after a cease-fire agreement. This causes some major headaches, since enemy fleets are free to attack your stranded army without the player being able to do a thing about it.

Suggestion: Either have ships only be able to head towards friendly territory through enemy space, or automatically teleport all ships to friendly (or at least neutral) space when a cease-fire is signed.



H. Additional Ideas (not really needed, but would be nice):

1. Add race-specific victory conditions (which can be disabled). Can the Sophons research the entire tech tree before the Pilgrims find a certain amount of Endless temples? Will the Sowers terraform enough planets to tier 1 status (ocean, terran, and jungle) before Horatio amasses enough (beautiful) people? Are the Cravers going to conquer enough planets before the Hissho win enough space battles? Or will the Amoeba claim victory by gathering enough diplomatic points, and crush the United Empire's dream of generating a literal planet-full of Dust. With every race rushing towards a unique goal, I think such a match would be extremely entertaining (both to play and watch).



2. Create more races with unique outlooks / game-play. I really love how thought-out some of the stranger empires are (my favorite from a lore perspective is definitely Horatio), so more of them is always a plus. Since the 8 existing factions all specialize in one of the 8 game-play areas (diplomacy, dust, science, industry, colonization, ships, food, and ground battles), additional factions would need to specialize to a lesser extent in more than one area (for example: science and diplomacy).



3. Have some angry natives on unsettled planets. These would basically act as mini-empires (think of them like the city-states in Civ5, but less game-breaking). They should be randomly present on some systems, and can either be conquered or uplifted (becoming full-fledged factions) (uplifting them should give them a massive permanent diplomacy bonus).



4. Allow factions to establish and change government types. This is just I feature I liked from the Civilization series. It would lend a more personal atmosphere to players' factions and add to re-playability. For added realism and pressure, maybe allow civilians to change the government type if the general populace across the empire is unhappy enough.



5. More specialized faction-specific buildings would be nice. These would ideally provide more than a small percentage increase to what the standard building would supply, making each faction even more unique.



6. Allow players in a multiplayer match to send each other in-game notes (privately and publicly). I'm not sure if this is already partially allowed (I have yet to test out the multiplayer), but if not then it would make a great addition. Some of the best fun I've had from strategy games was bargaining with my enemies behind my allies' backs, and knowing that my supposed allies were secretly doing the same. Seeing someone's reaction when they realize I've triple-crossed (or even quadruple-crossed) them is priceless.



7. Include player driven random events. One of my favorite features of newer Civilization games is that players are forced to respond to semi-random events. Admittedly, these don't live up to their potential, as there is usually only one good choice out of the 3 options available (the other two are usually for players who have absolutely no money). But if the options were better balanced, these could help spice up the game further. As a leader, you wouldn't just be told that your empire had found a massive dust stockpile. Instead, you'd be asked whether to distribute it among the population (leading to more happiness), claim it for the royal treasury (granting a large sum of dust), or invest it in industry (prompting a production increase for a time).



8. Have a tournament mode. This would disable all unique techs and faction effects, so that everyone is on a level playing field (including NPC factions).



9. Space religions based around the Endless would be interesting. Since just about every race has some members which treat the Endless as demigods, most of the religions should be based around different beliefs about them. They can also add some further humor elements to the game. For instance, one religious sect (probably founded by someone related to Horatio) might fervently declare fruits to be the optimal form of life, and decry vegetables as sinful temptations. Such religions don't even necessarily have to provide unique effects; they can all merely do the same thing but have different lore (and of course be largely hostile to each other) (ala Civilization 4).



10. A campaign mode, perchance? I'm not very hopeful on this front, since 4X games rarely have campaigns (and said campaigns usually suck if they are included). Nevertheless, this game has some pretty decent lore laid out, so a short campaign which also acts as a tutorial might be useful for genre newcomers.



11. Let people keep playing after they win. Sometimes victories feel a bit pre-mature, so the ability to continue playing afterwards would be appreciated. Of course, it'd be better if we could build planet-busters / massive nukes. Everything is better with large explosions. Everything.

I. Questions:

1. Can the Cravers engage in diplomacy with other Craver factions?

Answer: No, they cannot.



2. Do ships actually gain XP? If yes, what effect does it have? If no, then why are there improvements specifically designed to give ships nonexistent XP? (For the moment, I'm assuming this system isn't finished yet.)

Answer: Apparently, they do gain XP. It merely increases their health.



3. What does the Adventurer hero class do, exactly? The other classes are fairly self-explanatory, but Adventurer is never well-explained.

Answer: The Adventurer helps a player's economy by stealing materials from rivals (either by blockading their systems or plundering destroyed ships).



4. Does influence from a single system ever reach a maximum limit? By this I mean, if there was only one system in the entire game that built culture buildings, would it eventually cover the majority of a larger map given enough time?

Answer: No one really knows (except the developers), since it has never happened. If there is a limit, it is very, very high.



5. What does a system improvement mean when it claims building it will allow me to see all fleets orbiting that system? I already own that system, and unless ghost ships exist, I can already see all the fleets orbiting it.

Answer: ???? (No conclusive answers at the moment.)





Thank you to the users who answered these questions, and generally contributed feedback.

*Reserved*

I don't want anyone to misinterpret this thread. I enjoy playing this game, and I want to enjoy it much more (hopefully it will replace the Civilization series as my main strategy game). Despite its potential, Endless Space has some problem areas (what game doesn't?). I'm taking the time to write this so that I can hopefully help improve the game.



I'll try to keep the OP updated with everyone else's input, so please feel free to contribute (and evaluate the thoughts of others). I'm also not sure whether this belong in the discussion or suggestion forum, since it contains both discussion and suggestions. So if this is in the wrong place then I apologize. Lastly, this is going to be a very long read, as I am required to write often for a college class in which I'm currently enrolled (I try to go in-depth and provide explanations and examples). You have been warned, so no complaining please.



A. Technology:

1. Tech branches are too intertwined. Let's say you're playing as a war-mongering faction. You want mighty armies, right? Well, that means investing heavily in the army branch. The only problem is, your systems can't make decent ships without taking forever, and your research speeds are becoming obscene. That means investing in the science and industry tech branch. That's all you need right? Wrong. Your fleets might be comprised of good ships, but the fleets themselves are weak as a result of small ship numbers. To fix this, you're going to have to invest in the diplomacy and dust tech branch (don't ask me why). But unfortunately, that's not the end. Your colonies might be able to produce good ships and armies on a regular basis, but your empire is too small to support their maintenance costs or build large enough quantities for galactic war. That means (you guessed it) investing in the colonization tech tree. In other words, no matter what goals the empires are trying to achieve, they all have to research the same techs in much the same order (unless they want to cripple themselves).

Suggestion: There are really only two possible ways to fix this problem. Either you can get rid of the tech branches completely (which I wouldn't recommend), or you can make each branch almost completely independent of the others. Move the fleet logistic technologies to the army branch, give the army branch some techs to speed up ship construction, move happiness techs to the colonization branch, transfer the ship hull design techs to the army branch, and create more diplomatic and dust techs to fill the resulting gap in that branch. This would create truly different approaches to game-play. Investing in army tech would make your empire into an unstoppable war machine; investing in diplomacy would allow you to forge confederations and manipulate others into doing your bidding (with or without their knowledge); investing in colonization would allow your people to spread far and wide (offering an advantage in the early game at the cost of possibly falling behind in science and military in the late-game); and investing in science and industry would lay the groundwork for a powerhouse empire in the late-game (if you can just survive until then).

Disagreement From: Stalker0 and Shivetya.



2. There is almost no end-game tech. The current end-game plays much the same as the beginning and mid game. But to keep players interested, new strategies should constantly be made available with advancing technological progress. Right now, techs usually only add extra percentages to pre-existing game mechanics (productivity, ship weapons, profits, etc.).

Suggestion: Ideally, there should be around twice as much tech in the final build. Let colonizing civilizations build their own systems, planets, and warp routes out of scratch. Allow war empires to completely blow up colonies, planets, or even entire systems. Let diplomatic societies conduct espionage and frame other empires for war crimes. Allow science and industry factions to build mass teleporters and other crazy contraptions. This is sci-fi; go crazy with the tech! The ends of matches should feel like struggles between gods, reshaping reality with the press of a button.



3. Early techs become too easy to research. Usually, by the time an empire has researched a level 3 tech, it can research any level 1 tech (in any branch) in just 1 or 2 turns. This heavily promotes investing in every branch at once, which is contrary to the purpose of having four tech branches in the first place.

Suggestion: Techs should generally take longer to research, but every tech known increases the speed with which any other tech in that branch is researched (+5%?). This also solves the problem of empires skipping the majority of cheaper techs (mostly in the army branch) in order to get to the most powerful ones.

I would like to discuss some of these suggestions, but the way you lumped them all together instead of either seeking out threads in which they have already been made or making new ones makes that very difficult. If the devs wanted to read this and it's various comments to see what others think, but they were only interested in a few specific ideas, they would potentially have to sort through dozens of posts that have nothing to do with what they are interested in seeking ideas for. :/

Firstly, thank you both for reading and responding. To talk about any points which particularly get your attention, just state the category letter and number (F1 refers to cheating AIs, etc.).

FinalStrigon wrote:
Okay, waaaay too much for me to address completely...I can try answering the questions, though.

2. I've never seen a ship level up. Does it display a message on the side-bar? That's probably just indicative of how long my ships survive.

3. I just looked at the hero wiki page. Adventurers seem to be an odd cross of commander and corporate. I have yet to discover their effectiveness.

5. By that, do you mean that the player can see the individual ships which compose enemy fleets? Or that players can merely see the enemy fleets' MP numbers? I'm fairly certain that the second information is already granted by normal line-of-sight, and I can't imagine knowing the hull types would be a big help without knowing which individual modules are installed.

stars2heaven wrote:
I would like to discuss some of these suggestions, but the way you lumped them all together instead of either seeking out threads in which they have already been made or making new ones makes that very difficult. If the devs wanted to read this and it's various comments to see what others think, but they were only interested in a few specific ideas, they would potentially have to sort through dozens of posts that have nothing to do with what they are interested in seeking ideas for. :/

I considered making individual threads, but there were far too many things I wished to discuss (many of them minor), and I didn't want to flood the forums with new topics. That said, I actually think it will be easier to find information and ideas in this format, because no one has to rummage through hundreds of threads (many of which are outdated). Instead, all the information can be contained in a single thread, split up by category. Lastly, I will be attempting to update my original posts with the thoughts of others (as well as new problems they discover/address).



I will admit though, I think I went overboard on some of the explanations. I might go tighten those up later. So anyway, which points in particular did you want to discuss?

I will actually disagree with you on the tech intertwining, that is something I actually like to see. Too often in games I see people race down a single tech path. In Gal Civ 2, a lot of warmongers would just race down the military path and get super weapons while others attempted to colonize. I like that the optimal game is balanced research, but if you want to go straight down a tree you can.



I agree with you on the weapon imbalance. Actually, I think it would be interesting if certain systems had combats that started at medium or short range. that would be an interesting twist.



"There is no way to know what ships/weapons/armor/modules are included in an enemy fleet until you engage them" - I agree here. I really wish there was more to do with sensors, so if they could show an enemies weapon combination I think they would be a solid idea.

I readed your post fully. It's great and you tell great things about the game and lacks of it. I think the same way as you do on all of those lacks of game. The developers of the game should read this all too and 'update' the game. Adding all that stuff and fixing bad things of game. It would really make game better. They should just update the game not release DLC or something to buy..just a update that everyone can download and enjoy.



So as i just got yesterday the Endless space Emperor edition from developers = many thanks. I would like to tell about my experiences of game.



1) I havn't been in combat yet myself but i think there should be a lot more cards to play in game. I was in some kinda 'card' menu that shows what tactics you can use in battle. And i think it's not enough just Offense and attack cards and some other i saw. I know there will be more cards after researches but it still lacks something.



2) The research tree. It's made pretty good i think but here i'd like to say..why there are real life images on researches.. Like Optimized logistics.. image of some kinda lifting car (don't know how to describe). Still..what?. I thought this is some kinda futuristic game. I don't think that amoeba that im playing uses that car or i don't know how to explain but that image is just not for this game. Make better images and images that really gives some information about the research itself. I know it may be hard to make ideal images for researches but i hope you can do it.



3) In game should be made real time combat. Not with cards. This function should be added to game from options or somewhere else.

When you enter the combat you are given 3D map that you can rotate with mouse or pressing key and then moving mouse. You can make an click and drag box that selects unit in it and then press right mouse button or press in HUD some kinda tactic how you want to attack your opponent with those selected units. Making this would make me happy as dude playing this game and i think it would be more exciting and bring more tactics and fun to the game. It could be even in multiplayer.

Im not sure what you guys think about this but in my opinion knowing that this changes combat fully in game i think this is great.



4) Get own tech trees to every race. Other images on every race in research. Make every race unique. Add more ships. Add more everything for every race. Just Make Every Race Unique!

This will give player great experience of that race that he played. Do something unique with every race like = something that one race can do, other races can't do that or they have to research that in end game tech.



5) This is continue to my 3rd place. Make land battles. And again..i know this will change the game combat fully but there is one but..the game would be more and more exiting because i would love that this game would be more exiting and fun. As land battle, again make 2 options, do you want to combat with cards or real time fight and you command all your units..

Land unit suggestion:

Every race has it own units. Units should be upgradeable and learn experience as ships do. Units: Basic infranty as basic units, Heavy units, Anti air units to counter flying enemies, Tanks for tanking in combat and rushing into combat, supportive units like medics, engineer, or supportive fire units from long range. And ofcourse at last = air units, they some of them counter best infranrty units and some of them are spezialised for tank destroying and others are specified on air units.

Before battle you should be able to make defences on battlefield like bunkers or defence towers that shoot enemies. And as attacker you should be able to make tactic like how to attack, where to attack and some supportive fire etc..



As again i write that this is just suggestion that would make game cooler and more exiting.



What do you thing? I tryed to write as best i could. Sorry if something i write is messy and not understandable but i hope you readed this.

I'll wait exited your thoughts and replies.

A. Technology - Sorry I like the interdependence of the trees, not that I like the tree concept much but the fact that you need all trees to accomplish some tasks is a good thing.



B. Combat, particularly point 4. Spreading out/etc would be meaningless. If your in range your in range and will be hit. Since no weapons are AOE style their cinematic inspired model works. If there were AOE weapons or ships exploding damaged nearby ships then I could see the point your making, however far too many people try to apply terrestrial combat mechanics to space and that is flat out wrong



C. Exploration - point 3. I agree, not being able to spy on your enemy to know what their fleet composition is is a problem. Since their is no spying in the game the only implementation I see would be for ships passing within your observation range should be revealed.



D. Empire Management.

1. I would like the top row of the Empire Management screen to show the totals for each columns, making it easier to see the effects of taxes and the like.

2. Odd I agree

3. Influence areas are maddening, especially where they are not logical.

5. Annoying as hell, I hate the whole concept of buying upgraded models of ships. Its stupid. They should enter the build queue and be done properly. You want to upgrade that DN to the latest tech, well that outpost is going to take a damn long time doing it.

6. Worse, they can come out of battles in better shape. Nothing beats fighting a manual battle you can't lose just to heal a fleet.



F. AI

1. Sorry it needs to cheat, its too stupid to have a chance otherwise.



G. Misc

1. Agree, there needs to be techs to speed up the transition from outpost to colony

3. Sowers like UE suffer from good concepts but poor implementation. The developers obviously left themselves no way to implement races whose affinities does not align with game rules.

5. Morale is a pain, worse is suffering empire wide for conquered planets. Those conquered planets need to pass through an assimilation period before affecting the empire

6. Cravers are the most overpowered race in the game, how anyone can lose playing them is beyond me





Will come back and read more

Stalker0 wrote:
I will actually disagree with you on the tech intertwining, that is something I actually like to see. Too often in games I see people race down a single tech path. In Gal Civ 2, a lot of warmongers would just race down the military path and get super weapons while others attempted to colonize. I like that the optimal game is balanced research, but if you want to go straight down a tree you can.

I'll list your disagreement in the OP. My main issue is that by making research paths so similar, they cut down on re-playability. Going straight down a tree isn't even really an option. I'm fine with a game forcing players to research in multiple areas, but by making four distinct tech trees the developers are giving a false sense of choice. The makes me think they can't decide how they want to approach it.

kravan wrote:
In game should be made real time combat. Not with cards. This function should be added to game from options or somewhere else. Make land battles. And again..i know this will change the game combat fully but there is one but..the game would be more and more exiting because i would love that this game would be more exiting and fun. As land battle, again make 2 options, do you want to combat with cards or real time fight and you command all your units..

Unfortunately, a lot of other people have asked for this, and the developers have stated bluntly that it won't happen. That's why I suggested adding more card complexity instead (it would be easier for them to implement).

kravan wrote:
Get own tech trees to every race. Other images on every race in research. Make every race unique. Add more ships. Add more everything for every race. Just Make Every Race Unique! This will give player great experience of that race that he played. Do something unique with every race like = something that one race can do, other races can't do that or they have to research that in end game tech.

Completely unique tech trees would be extremely time-consuming, since there are a lot of technologies in the game. I would like to see the handful of unique technologies be more differentiated though.

Shivetya wrote:
A. Technology

1. Sorry I like the interdependence of the trees, not that I like the tree concept much but the fact that you need all trees to accomplish some tasks is a good thing.

B. Combat

4. Spreading out/etc would be meaningless. If your in range your in range and will be hit. Since no weapons are AOE style their cinematic inspired model works. If there were AOE weapons or ships exploding damaged nearby ships then I could see the point your making, however far too many people try to apply terrestrial combat mechanics to space and that is flat out wrong.

D. Empire Management

6. Worse, they can come out of battles in better shape. Nothing beats fighting a manual battle you can't lose just to heal a fleet.

F. AI

1. Sorry it needs to cheat, its too stupid to have a chance otherwise.

G. Misc.

6. Cravers are the most overpowered race in the game, how anyone can lose playing them is beyond me

A-1. I'll list your disagreement along with Stalker0's. See my answer to him/her (first part of this post) to hear my rationale. (Just to be clear, I do agree that researching all tech branches should basically be necessary for the scientific victory.) This issue is largely a matter of different tastes.



B-4. From a realistic point of view, missiles would create a lot of shrapnel when they explode (not to mention the danger of running into friendly ship debris). On the other hand, if kinetics work like traditional flak cannons, then grouping together would help shield some of the ships from fire. Lasers... well they pretty much can't be dodged. Then again, this game doesn't feature true lasers (instead it goes for plasma projectiles). But of course, you are correct. No AOE is represented in the game at the moment. However, moving around would have a benefit in combat, because all projectiles (especially missiles) move slowly (and therefore can be dodged at longer ranges with the help of predictive computers). As well, different formations would help create different strategies, such as spreading out fire amongst more ships, or concentrating on a single (usually large) ship. Should I still put you down as disagreeing?



D-6. I forgot about that... I'll add it (although I'm not sure entirely sure how to fix it).



F-1. That's exactly the problem. It needs to cheat because it hasn't been programmed well enough. If the AI is made smarter, it can be made to cheat less, which would lead to more fulfilling matches. I grant that cheating is almost unavoidable at the highest difficulties since AIs (not real AIs, of course) can't yet be made as smart as human players. But the computer does have the advantage of never forgetting things, as well as being able to calculate thousands of possibilities quickly.



G-6. I was actually trying to make them worse (in the long-term, not the early game). Maybe decrease productivity to -75% FIDS on dead planets? Playing as the Cravers should mean either getting a (relatively) early victory or being slowly defeated (because of reduced FIDS).

Ganpot,



To fix the problem you have with the technology trees you would have to dispense with them in their entirety. Something like MOO2s system where you could actually be MISSING technologies at certain levels would make for a more interesting game. Not the default behavior mind you, but one to challenge players.



There is no replay value in any fixed tech tree. If you remove the intertwined aspect of one it becomes even more fixed in how you must play it. There is always going to be one or two best paths to follow in a game with a fixed tree. In this game its pretty much written in stone what the first tech is, if not the second, third, fourth, and fifth. Even the order becomes less of debate except with modified by hero or affinity.







G-6 You cannot lose as Cravers as long as you keep expanding or stop attacking. It is impossible. By design they have to win, only another better played Craver should be able to beat them. Craver's do not care about their old worlds, the exhausted ones are put on auto mismanagement and ignored. Hell if you really want to micromanage it you can pull everyone off each world as you exhaust it, delete all its build items other than research, and leave the world to rot.

stars2heaven wrote:
I would like to discuss some of these suggestions, but the way you lumped them all together instead of either seeking out threads in which they have already been made or making new ones makes that very difficult. If the devs wanted to read this and it's various comments to see what others think, but they were only interested in a few specific ideas, they would potentially have to sort through dozens of posts that have nothing to do with what they are interested in seeking ideas for. :/

This format is actually forbidden according to Rule #2 of the proposal submission rules for good reasons. Mainly this encouraged a lot of doubleposting of suggestions and therefore needless repetition that increased the amount of suggestions into the space of the unmanageable.



@OP: You can discuss your ideas and refine upon them in the discussion format, of course, but unless you post any of them as a single suggestion per thread in the proposals section, it is unlikely that any of them will be regarded.



Just to give you an idea of which suggestions I believe to have seen already, I'll list them:

A1-4

B1-4,6-8 (eight is actually more than one suggestion), 10

C1-4

D1-2,[3] (promoting trade routes by influence radii hasn't been suggested, that's a lot more than one suggestion for this point, though), 4-6

E3-4

F1-2 (by the way, there is no FIDS bonus for the AI on the lowest difficulty, it is just emphasising on dust-production and tends to hoard dust until it buys a lot of ships in one turn, which is definitely not optimal)

G1-6, not sure of 7

H1-8,10-11



This has just taken me half an hour to read through everything and recall from memory, which things I've already seen suggested. If one of the devs were to do this (or I had to do it thoroughly by searching for all original threads) it would likely take me a few hours.

Just making the point again, that suggestion lists are really hard to cope with.