Jetkar has asked for further discussion on my following suggestion:

Buecherwyrm wrote:
The Errant Fleet is a fantastic and very unique mechanism, but would it be possible to introduce some method of improving said fleet?



Examples would be:

- errand fleet produces Science and/or Dust if certain population treshold are reached

- players can select which buildings are evacuated (this would be a major boon)

- players can research special technique which increase the size and power of the errand fleet (i.e. turn them into armed Battleship- and Dreadnaught-Class-Vessels)

The original suggestion is found here.



So please discuss, I am looking forward to your ideas and opionions!



Take care, Buecherwyrm

I think just having it come with its own unique colony ship would be a huge boon. Give that colony ship 1200 base health and no other bonuses. I believe this would make it more economically feasible to use Fleet Errant. It would also dramatically reduce the risk of having that much of your power on a single colony ship.

Wait a minute, why is it not already economically feasible to use Errant Fleet right now?

Hi Steinernein,



the "Errant Fleet"-affinity is atm something that you either do in the beginning or early mid-game, but that later on becomes useless because the transferred system become too big for the initial landing or might be settled much easier by normal colony ship. I would like to see some use for Errants fleet later in the game.



Take care, Buecherwyrm

Buecherwyrm wrote:
Hi Steinernein,



the "Errant Fleet"-affinity is atm something that you either do in the beginning or early mid-game, but that later on becomes useless because the transferred system become too big for the initial landing or might be settled much easier by normal colony ship. I would like to see some use for Errants fleet later in the game.



Take care, Buecherwyrm

It's also used offensively or defensively in the mid to late game. You can still migrate populations over and create forward bases, you can also evacuate front line planets and let other players take them leaving them with expansion unhappiness and very little else.



I don't really understand why we are already confining it to the early game when it is still useful throughout. It tapers at certain points but rises in others, it's strictly contextual!

See above, Steiner, you are losing large amounts of population by settling too small planets and missing out on a lot of production (depending on how far you have to move it), not to mention that these fleets are vulnerable and can be shot down by the enemy ...



That is why I am asking for some improvements to the Errand Fleets ^^



Take care, Buecherwyrm

Two things:



1: There is a large opportunity cost to using Fleet Errant. You don't have access to any of that population or those installations while it is moving. This combined with the need for an already existent colony ship -one that you have waiting while this action is produced, means it is *very* rare that you actually want to do it. For the same price you could have effectively colonized several different systems.



2: I am pretty sure it is called Fleet Errant, not Errant Fleet. Right? They have different implications.

Ketobor,



Do you really have nothing better than to nitpick on something which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand? Really? Whether or not they have different implications is irrelevant.



But seriously? Really, you need an extra colony ship? No. You need to only produce the 'errant' and that's it. It costs the same as a colony ship. The trade off is pretty damn obvious which is settle a colony and make it productive near immediately or you can instead settle with a colony ship and wait 20+ turns for it to grow to full size. There's an obvious formula based on distance, planet type, and seeding planet type which really determines the opportunity cost. Generally, it pays off to 'errant' rather than to colony ship if you're playing on normal and on spiral. The actual difference between 'colony' vs 'errant' is also contingent on what you get for systems and what hero choice you pick at the beginning. So no, it's not really 'rare' at all for players to use 'errant' especially since your homeworld is a jungle and you're most certainly running green thumb for food production. The person who uses 'errant' will generally have more population than the player who uses colony ships only by a rather large margin. More population on a large planet means you grow faster too . Yeah have fun waiting for that one pop to farm up enough food for 6-7 other slots by turn 20 on normal.



Buecherwyrm,



So you're basically complaining that Errant takes a bit of forethought. You plan your empire around using Errant and it becomes close to a non-issue because even if you do smash down and lose two population it's a difference between waiting for 20+ turns or waiting for 8 turns for a colony to be fully productive. Yeah, it can get intercepted and it's why it is risky under hostile conditions which begs the question as to why you aren't escorting it or ensuring that the locality is devoid of hostiles. It really just sounds like you are using it at a bad time.



And address my point stop being non-responsive. You haven't countered the argument that in the mid game it's used for establishing forward operations - who cares if you lose excess population when you need your ships at the front line as soon as possible? At the mid game you aren't struggling for means of dust and science unless you're far behind in which case you can just gg out because as Pilgrims your tonnage makes a rather noticeable difference in battles. Nor have you really countered the argument that it can be used as a scorched earth/guerrilla warfare. You can just leap frog systems and completely destroy everything on a planet rendering it useless even if someone is going to capture it in a few turns.



You ask for improvements but you have yet to make a compelling argument as to why there should be any in the first place considering how powerful it can be already in its current state/meta. It SHOULD have weaknesses, it shouldn't be a boring blanket skill the Amoebas have.

Maybe if I played against people or more aggressive AI, I'd find a use for it, but I've never felt the need to get a colony up and running so quickly that I'd dump everything I have in another one to colonize it. Personally, I think the Pilgrims would see be a great race even without it.

lmaoboat wrote:
Maybe if I played against people or more aggressive AI, I'd find a use for it, but I've never felt the need to get a colony up and running so quickly that I'd dump everything I have in another one to colonize it. Personally, I think the Pilgrims would see be a great race even without it.

Why don't you just try it then? Get a labor hero and beeline for green thumb (the flat bonus to food not the percentile) by turn 3, exploitation for farming and then immediately set yourself to build 'errant' . Keep your home world as a farm colony essentially and seed all your colonies with errants. You'll find that very quickly and very easily you'll have way more population than anyone else or any other method. This is especially true if you settle on planets that have 6-7 pop slots though what you can do with planets that have only 5 but are good for farming and industry is to create yet another farming colony to launch errant fleets off of.



Remember you're never dumping everything, you're dumping n-2 population + all buildings. If you plan your economy and your empire around it you'll be reaping the benefits fairly quickly. If you don't plan around it then you'll lag behind as you end up having things that you don't necessarily want or need in your new colonies. The point really is to maximize population growth for the early game, for mid game and late game it's about re-positioning your industry much like the Soviets did during the Second World War. Alternatively, it can always be used for scorch earth policies and annoying the ever living hell out of your opponent as I have suggested before.



Errant isn't something you just do on the fly without any real drawbacks as these people seem to want it to be but rather something that takes a bit of planning in its current set up.

steinernein wrote:
Ketobor,



Do you really have nothing better than to nitpick on something which has no relevance whatsoever to the topic at hand? Really? Whether or not they have different implications is irrelevant.

And address my point stop being non-responsive. You haven't countered the argument that in the mid game it's used for establishing forward operations - who cares if you lose excess population when you need your ships at the front line as soon as possible? At the mid game you aren't struggling for means of dust and science unless you're far behind in which case you can just gg out because as Pilgrims your tonnage makes a rather noticeable difference in battles. Nor have you really countered the argument that it can be used as a scorched earth/guerrilla warfare. You can just leap frog systems and completely destroy everything on a planet rendering it useless even if someone is going to capture it in a few turns.



You ask for improvements but you have yet to make a compelling argument as to why there should be any in the first place considering how powerful it can be already in its current state/meta. It SHOULD have weaknesses, it shouldn't be a boring blanket skill the Amoebas have.

1: No need to be a dick about it. Is it so awful that I dedicate a full sentence at the end of my post towards mentioning you are all calling it by the wrong name?



2: You say you have used it effectively in games. Could we get save files of this? Screen shots? Something? You act like nobody has tried to use it before and only you have used it to its proper level of effect through some obvious mechanism. I have played... alot.. of games of ES. I have 'tried' to create opportunities to use Fleet Errant in a way in which it was more optimal than alternatives. They have all proved to be sub-optimal. This is an issue for an ability which is meant to be somewhat defining for a faction.

Ketobor wrote:
1: No need to be a dick about it. Is it so awful that I dedicate a full sentence at the end of my post towards mentioning you are all calling it by the wrong name?



2: You say you have used it effectively in games. Could we get save files of this? Screen shots? Something? You act like nobody has tried to use it before and only you have used it to its proper level of effect through some obvious mechanism. I have played... alot.. of games of ES. I have 'tried' to create opportunities to use Fleet Errant in a way in which it was more optimal than alternatives. They have all proved to be sub-optimal. This is an issue for an ability which is meant to be somewhat defining for a faction.

1. Irrelevant.



2. Isn't the burden of proof on you since you're clamoring for a buff? There are actually a few people on these forums who use errant with success - myself excluded. The better question to ask yourself is why did you get the basic mechanic of it wrong unless I am misreading what you wrote earlier; you said that you needed to have another colony ship waiting while errant produces in order to use it, that is blatantly incorrect - either clarify or correct yourself. But either way, you not understanding basic mechanics is not the issue in the end so I am digressing.



You have the basic formula for population growth, loss of FIDS on distance based on population, distance to colonization, et cetera. You actually don't need to boot up the game at all and can run a thought experiment. Let's just say, barring the initial colony ship, if you use one with the sole exclusion of the other that using Errant you are ahead in FIDS (by +100~ or so) by around turn 20+ but always behind in systems colonized by 2-3. If we assume unlimited expansion (never the case) then we can say that colonizing without Errant is the best but the fact is you also run into unhappiness which isn't a big issue since you can just lower your taxes and push ind-dust (currently) and you have to consolidate your empire at some point.



However, the better question is this: what happens when you start using both? It's pretty obvious that Errant allows you to establish a nearly fully operational colony so there is no reason that the seeded colony can't produce mission ships while the home planet produces Errants. That is by far the more optimal thing to do but regardless, any method will eventually run into the problem of consolidation and militarization. While using ONLY colony ships will get you more systems you have actually less useful systems in the event that you need to shift over immediately for military. So really, if your metric is 'how many systems can I grab' then you're best off using colony ships. So of course you'll find it sub optimal as you have less systems - that is pretty much your original argument. However, I don't think that's a good metric to operate under as you fall behind further and further in FIDS until you overcome the population difference which will take probably, at the very least, 20 turns (halp maths).



What further compounds the issue is when you get a horrendous start. Growth on arctic planets and gas planets are nearly non-existent so in that situation ... good luck even getting close to winning with your attitude of 'only colony ships!' . The best solution is to use both.

I'm all for the Pick which improvement you want to remove option. oftentimes I use a farm world(my homeworld) in the early game I throw out like 8-12 Errant ships. grab whatever real estate I can then settle into playing the game.



On 2 occasions I have been able to successfully evacuate a planet that I was about to lose. Once was because he left the system for a turn(to defend himself) and the 2nd time was because I brought in a combat fleet. He used his attack and didn't have Blockade enabled, so I was able to get the Errant out.



I think producing sci/dust while in flight is a bit broken. Personally I'd hit the point where I'd be building Errant ships simply to store excess population and earn whatever benefit from them I can. (my planet would have insane growth and I'd be fine)



Defending itself seems slightly redundant, from my perspective anyway.





My 2 Gripes

Maybe they can slide in a tech somewhere that allows me to select the population I'd like to send along with Improvements? At a certain point of development It's exceedingly counter productive to be sending a fully developed system around the stars. I don't want to use my developing worlds,,, they're developing. I don't want to use my Core worlds. So i just revert back to Colony ships.



On top of not wanting to send an entire system is the issue that currently, if I had 7 population in the errant and I colonize a 5 pop planet. I've effectively killed 2 pop. It's just gone. I can't choose to settle a 2nd planet in the system or anything. They just become soilent green or something. So yes I'd like to be able to pick how much pop to evacuate or the ship should still exist if there is remaining population from the planetary maximum. (or a tech for it a little ways into the tree[Icanseesomeabuseearlygame,droppingoff3peoplein2differentsystemsandafinal7thpopina3rdsystemallfor150ind])

Posted a thread just yesterday about expanding the usefulness of Errant Fleet(especially late game):



/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13757-suggestion-optimize-errant-fleet-by-giving-it-population-transport-capabilities



The OP from that thread:

bilun wrote:
Pilgrim affinity is IMO one of the more interesting racial affinities which creates some very unique play opportunities. However, for what could otherwise be a very flexible tool with a variety of uses, a few needlessly restrictive aspects of the Fleet Errant have pigeonholed it primarily int a very restricted usefulness(at present it's only real use is to accelerate early expansion, especially for low food production worlds). I would propose the following changes:







1). Allow a Fleet Errant to Add it's population to already colonized worlds with available space. This would allow it to retain more usefulness late game(where you may acquire a fleet errant, but have nowhere to put it as all the actual useful worlds in your systems are already colonized).



2). If Fleet Errant carriers more population hen can fit on the world it tries to add it's population to, allow it to choose another world in the same system to colonize or add remaining population to- these selections continue until either the fleet errant has deposited all of it's population or all planets in the system are full. This change would make evacuating high population systems not a colossal waste. It would mean evacuating a high population about to fall and then resettling with the fleet errant once you've retaken the system would actually be a viable option.





With these changes, Pilgrim affinity would retain it's usefulness into the late game and would be far more flexible and consistent in it's effect(and not be so horribly wasteful and difficult to actually use to move populations about).

Just another idea.

Fleet errant is the worst junk affinity and definately needs some kind of buff or even better a complete overhaul to be another ability. I love the idea of that unique ability since it is a gameplay-factor that is not based on passive no-brain buffs like sophons affinity and the like. However the realization of that idea is simply bad, its bad ... it really is bad. No offense to whoever designed it, its just much more effort than other affinities for much less yield.



What I said so far and what I am going to say about that topic is my humble opinion - I do think I am a bad ES player (relative to most of the people actively discussing in balance related topics) and I probably did not put too much effort into thinking about "the best strategy". I like to play things how they should feel to be played and not the way you can exploit the mechanics best to win at all cost like most of the humans playing online nowdays (doesn't matter which game). That again does not mean I do not understand mechanics or see exploitable opportunities. You may prove me and my opinion wrong but you will definately not achieve it by "LOLNOOB PLAY 1VS1 AGAINST ME USING PILGRIMS AFFINITY! I ROXX U SUXX!".



The first and most disgusting problem about fleet errant is that it becomes pretty much useless in midgame and definately utterly useless in late-mid game for the rest of the game. Why? -In my experience, at that point of a game the borders are already set and most uncolonized systems are already under heavy influence of their nearest systems - which also already belong to someone obviously. This is even more true when playing against horatio.

I think these factions benefit much longer from their affinities throughout an average default game with 4 players which takes about 150-200 turns in my experience (I mostly lose around the 180 turns mark): Sophons, Hissho, Sowers, Automatons, United Empire



The second point I do not like is the - lets call it "beneficial value". While you can set up systems faster in early game, this is both neither always good(since its not for free), nor always doable. If you face aggressive races like hissho or cravers (or anybody else that wants to play agressive) you can break your own legs trying to set up fleet errants while you should rather build ships for defense - or you build ships for defense and fleet errants usefulness slowly times out.

||not related to affinity but to pilgrims as whole->Add to that problem: terrible early game ships with "wasted space lvl 2".<-not related to affinity but to pilgrims as whole||

On the other hand many factions hold affinities that are good in any galaxy setup and have no drawback or risk to it (like being shot down with all your population and improvements).



UE: +(~5 early on)%industry and +10ship exp is always good + no risk

SOPHONS: +(~20 early on)%science and -50%support module cost is always good + no risk

HISSHO: +5%damage and +15%fids is always good

AUTOMATONS: +5%industry interest is always good + no risk

AMOEBA: start with explored map is always good + no risk

HORATIO: hero cloning is always good + no risk + wtf is 50% fatigue recovery?



The third point is that I find fleet errant near impossible to use defensively because noone would NOT blockade your system and simply let your fleet fly out. Even if you manage to leave a close to useless system behind before you enemy starts invading - like steinernein suggested - you will not gain anything in my opinion. OK your opponent will conquer an empty system, but it will also only take him a minimum of 4 turns to do so. And what do you do with your fleet errant ships then? If you have no empty systems to set up nearby you need to retake your system anyways. Id rather build bunkers and use the system while its being invaded to train destroyers with a shitload of weapons to support my fleet defending that system, replace losses etc.



Looking for feedback on my thoughts, thx



edit: dont get me wrong please, I do not think fleet errant is completely useless. It is a better colony ship after all, but compared to other affinities its probably just not worth it.

Wow steiner, your attitude isn't helping this discussion. Why not keep this clean? I also don't understand why you insist Fleet Errant is useful when you state you haven't used it to great effect yourself, only seen(?) others do. Isn't it saying something about the ability that you find yourself unable to find a good use for it?



I definitely agree something needs to happen to help the for-reasons-already-eloquently-laid-out awful Fleet Errant ability, it's strictly worse than even the much-criticized Sower affinity I made a suggestion for myself. Here's a quick suggestion: How about letting the Errant ship produce whatever FIDS its system was creating for up to five turns while the ship is moving to a new location? Not losing out on the massive FIDS-production of an established system would make it far more interesting to be moving Errants around, even in the late game.