Foraven wrote:
I think you just experienced one of the features of the mod. I did rework skills and abilities of all the hero classes, they no longer follow the vanilla tree (look at v 1.20). For example i swapped several skills between the Commander and the Pilot so they do more what we would expect (Commander improving the Fleet while Pilot improving Ships). I also purposedly limited the basic stats skills to not always level to tier 3 making some class combos better better at certain tasks than others, but also making base stats more important. I enabled lots of disabled/incomplete/missing skills i found in the files. You will also notice i changed how several skills work as well, several are now % based and improve with Hero stats; some heroes are much stronger than others because of that.

I saw that, and with the corporate and builder types, you did a very good job. But if that cannibalization of combat stats was intentional, I have to question the logic behind it.



Yes, commanders needed a buff (and adventurers still do, as far as I can see they still completely suck), and moving for example the -6% accuracy ability over to them is not the worst idea. The problem now is that pilots simply have no skills. They are literally out of things to skill after 7-8 levelups. Active abilities suck as usual, in non-pvp no one lets his hero die or use costly abilities anyway, spying abilities for the most part do not play any relevant role, so that leaves me with 2 offense, 2 defense and the veteran upgrades.



Do you have a skilltree somewhere?

I only added 1 trade route per system by default (the home system has 4 instead of 2), and it only activate when the system is full fledged. However the Corporate hero now has several trade and dust improving skills, that might be the reason why you had lots of trade. I toned how much each trade route earn in the newest version though, twice the vanilla income may have been too much combined with the extra trade routes...

I just restarted again yesterday, but do not have trade routes yet. This brings up another sore point: The way one has to play (forced by the AI behaviour and cheating) all 4xs I have seen so far is "my borders are completely shut down". Since open borders is a requirement for trade routes, they are basically nonexistant for the first half or more of a given game, and then suddenly jump into being with extreme values since you can enhance them so much by then. Is it possible to move trade to "peace" instead of "open borders" - ideally in a limited fashion like a lower base value or perhaps not being able to use the extra routes you gave all systems?



The core problem right now is that I have never, ever, seen a small trade route.

I did so to avoid elite ship modules to be too cheap due to the combined cost reductions. In fact i wanted to remove it completely, but settled to put it high but still reachable in large galaxies.

The problem is then, what use do these ressources have. You need one instance to be able to build certain stuff (which you partly removed anyways - I like that you put it on "better clones" instead of stuff like the vanilla T1 rockets). Every single one after that is useless besides the small buff it gives to its planet, basically reducing them to a second small anomaly slot. Is it possible to make a scaling cost reduction bonus, like you need the first to actually build a part and every subsequent one gives a multiplier of 0.95 on its costs (multipliers would make it so you got diminishing returns and never reached zero cost)?

stormfox wrote:
But if that cannibalization of combat stats was intentional, I have to question the logic behind it.

I made it so every class had their stats they could max. Commanders and Pilots have lots of combat skills and bonuses to use, and become quite overpowered when combined. And yes, i did try to prevent super powerful passive buff to fleet attack and defense; i want no hero fleets to stand a chance.



Edit: The tweaks (nerfs) to passive buffs is intended to be a buff to active ones btw.

Yes, commanders needed a buff (and adventurers still do, as far as I can see they still completely suck), and moving for example the -6% accuracy ability over to them is not the worst idea. The problem now is that pilots simply have no skills. They are literally out of things to skill after 7-8 levelups. Active abilities suck as usual, in non-pvp no one lets his hero die or use costly abilities anyway, spying abilities for the most part do not play any relevant role, so that leaves me with 2 offense, 2 defense and the veteran upgrades.

No skills for Pilots? Pilots have engine tuner 1-2 (makes fleet faster), Thinkerer 1-2, Lethal Modder, Defense System Specialist, Fast Reboot 1-2, Rapid adaptation... As for the Adventurer, it's more a support class; depend what it is paired with (it's as good at fleet or system duty).

Do you have a skilltree somewhere?

No, i did not make one yet. I don't know how to replace the one in game either.

I just restarted again yesterday, but do not have trade routes yet. This brings up another sore point: The way one has to play (forced by the AI behaviour and cheating) all 4xs I have seen so far is "my borders are completely shut down". Since open borders is a requirement for trade routes, they are basically nonexistant for the first half or more of a given game, and then suddenly jump into being with extreme values since you can enhance them so much by then. Is it possible to move trade to "peace" instead of "open borders" - ideally in a limited fashion like a lower base value or perhaps not being able to use the extra routes you gave all systems?

As far as i can tell, that part is hard coded.

The core problem right now is that I have never, ever, seen a small trade route.

Do you feel receiving trade income is a cheat or something? You have to stay in good terms with your neighbors to make use of it, one reason not to just systematically erase all competition...



Btw, what race do you use?

The problem is then, what use do these ressources have. You need one instance to be able to build certain stuff (which you partly removed anyways - I like that you put it on "better clones" instead of stuff like the vanilla T1 rockets). Every single one after that is useless besides the small buff it gives to its planet, basically reducing them to a second small anomaly slot. Is it possible to make a scaling cost reduction bonus, like you need the first to actually build a part and every subsequent one gives a multiplier of 0.95 on its costs (multipliers would make it so you got diminishing returns and never reached zero cost)?

The only thing monopoly does is add a further 30% cost reduction (on top of the 30% from the first few ressources) to modules/improvements that use the ressource. I unfortunately can't alter that 30% (i find it too good), i could only alter when the monopoly occur. I made the the ressources improve income btw, something vanilla did not.

Preface:



Do not take criticism as a flame. I would not take the time to type all this out if I did not really like your mod and think it massively improves the only average game ES is at its core.

Foraven wrote:
I made it so every class had their stats they could max. Commanders and Pilots have lots of combat skills and bonuses to use, and become quite overpowered when combined. And yes, i did try to prevent super powerful passive buff to fleet attack and defense; i want no hero fleets to stand a chance.



Edit: The tweaks (nerfs) to passive buffs is intended to be a buff to active ones btw.

I still do not see myself getting, let alone using those actives. Heck, 99% of battles are played best with Repair/Repair/Repair, since that gives you fully operational ships at the end of battle and the AI basically never counters it - but always seems to be countering anything else that might be useful. Playing any other action cards than engineering or retreat is simply a risk you cannot take. Perhaps I am missing something completely here, but all my experiments so far, default or with your changes, do not make me want to deviate from that beaten path. I like that you made offensive retreat uncounterable tough, a step in the right direction (now I can actually use it, before it got countered everytime and my fleet would be destroyed).

No skills for Pilots? Pilots have engine tuner 1-2 (makes fleet faster), Thinkerer 1-2, Lethal Modder, Defense System Specialist, Fast Reboot 1-2, Rapid adaptation... As for the Adventurer, it's more a support class; depend what it is paired with (it's as good at fleet or system duty).

Engine Tuner is unimportant, because speed is mostly unimportant in this game. Its more of a convenience featuer than anything else, since fleets spend the majority of their time sitting around defending or invading or blockading systems. A speed boost of +2 or even +5 to one of my fleets might at best save me one turn when moving over to the next system, which usually makes no difference. If it did something else or if ESs combat system somehow incorporated speed or if distances between systems were much larger, this stat would be worth something, but the way ES is constructed strategically, it just isn't.



Fast reboot is made obsolete because I have to pick engineering every phase anyways, tend to build repair modules into all bigger ship types and because you gave all ships a good amount of regeneration outside of combat (which was btw a good change because it was ridiculous that fleets without many repair modules took dozens of turns to regenerate - or one enemy scout as a victim to trigger battle cards). Rapid adaption is allright, but needs reboot first.



Tinkerer is nice, but it just compensates for the fact that I suddenly cannot get +4 Offense and +4 Defense anymore. That leaves Modder and Specialist.



Basically, a Hero assigned to a fleet that is a pilot but no commander has the following worthwhile skillups:

- Offense 1,2

- Defense 1,2

- Tinkerer 1,2

- Modder

- Specialist

- Veteran 1-4



So beginning at level 12, I have nothing to pick that actually makes my hero stronger in anything important.

No, i did not make one yet. I don't know how to replace the one in game either.

One can actually see the tree ingame? Never found that.

Do you feel receiving trade income is a cheat or something? You have to stay in good terms with your neighbors to make use of it, one reason not to just systematically erase all competition...

I think you completely misunderstood me here. My complaint was that in the last iteration, trade was giving by far too much. My general complaint about the trade system in general is that its an all or nothing deal. The game forces you to keep your borders closed until you are in a very advanced position, and if you open them to just one other race you suddenly get an income that raises your science and money generation by several magnitudes from one turn to the next. There should be some kind of middle ground, a way where trading does not compromise your territory to "invasive colonization" and supplements instead of far surpasses your normal economy.

Btw, what race do you use?

My own, but that race does not have anything that would skew my results with trading. I think I have a 10% science and/or money boost in there or something, most of the other stuff is starting position and combat related. Ah, btw, was there always a limit of 10 racial perks or did you add that? I found it somewhat annoying when I redid my race for your mod that I could not spend my leftover single point on a headhunter to save me some restarts.

The only thing monopoly does is add a further 30% cost reduction (on top of the 30% from the first few ressources) to modules/improvements that use the ressource. I unfortunately can't alter that 30% (i find it too good), i could only alter when the monopoly occur. I made the the ressources improve income btw, something vanilla did not.

The latter I had not noticed, good point. I will check that out. As I said, I like your approach of removing resource needs from critical ship parts and making stronger clones to be built when those are available - its just that I rarely noticed a benefit in having multiples of the same resource in vanilla, and with higher abundance requirements, the question remains what they could be good for. I will have a look at their economic value, but I still think the whole strategic ressource system needs a complete overhaul (not necessarily by you).

stormfox wrote:
Preface:



Do not take criticism as a flame. I would not take the time to type all this out if I did not really like your mod and think it massively improves the only average game ES is at its core.

Well, feedback is so few and far between, i can handle a little criticism lol.

I still do not see myself getting, let alone using those actives. Heck, 99% of battles are played best with Repair/Repair/Repair, since that gives you fully operational ships at the end of battle and the AI basically never counters it - but always seems to be countering anything else that might be useful. Playing any other action cards than engineering or retreat is simply a risk you cannot take. Perhaps I am missing something completely here, but all my experiments so far, default or with your changes, do not make me want to deviate from that beaten path. I like that you made offensive retreat uncounterable tough, a step in the right direction (now I can actually use it, before it got countered everytime and my fleet would be destroyed).

Unless my tweaks to the AI's card choice are broken again, the AI should use a lot more variety of cards and counter your repair card from time to time (especially if you need repair badly). Also, haven't you noticed you were reducing your fleet firepower when you use that card?

Engine Tuner is unimportant, because speed is mostly unimportant in this game. Its more of a convenience featuer than anything else, since fleets spend the majority of their time sitting around defending or invading or blockading systems. A speed boost of +2 or even +5 to one of my fleets might at best save me one turn when moving over to the next system, which usually makes no difference. If it did something else or if ESs combat system somehow incorporated speed or if distances between systems were much larger, this stat would be worth something, but the way ES is constructed strategically, it just isn't.

Well, to each their own, i really like my fleets to get there faster, especially when i'm about to lose a key system. The EXP does include defense bonuses for faster ships, something i plan on thinkering with when i start porting the mod to it (soon).

Fast reboot is made obsolete because I have to pick engineering every phase anyways, tend to build repair modules into all bigger ship types and because you gave all ships a good amount of regeneration outside of combat (which was btw a good change because it was ridiculous that fleets without many repair modules took dozens of turns to regenerate - or one enemy scout as a victim to trigger battle cards). Rapid adaption is allright, but needs reboot first.

In a recent version of this mod i added a penalty to the repair modules; they remove a % of tonnage to the ship they are on, making ships without them able to carry extra armor/defense/weapons. Of course, if your ships have lots of extra HPs due to racial choices, repairs do make more sense. Even with all the changes i made though, i'm not sure i was able to kill the armor tank strat.

Tinkerer is nice, but it just compensates for the fact that I suddenly cannot get +4 Offense and +4 Defense anymore. That leaves Modder and Specialist.

I gave those to the commander since he was lacking such buffs the pilot had plenty off.

Basically, a Hero assigned to a fleet that is a pilot but no commander has the following worthwhile skillups:

- Offense 1,2

- Defense 1,2

- Tinkerer 1,2

- Modder

- Specialist

- Veteran 1-4



So beginning at level 12, I have nothing to pick that actually makes my hero stronger in anything important.

All heroes are dual classes, there should be something to pick from the other classes as well (made sure all classes had something to contribute in both combat or system). Also, didn't you notice i changed several skills to require base attributes like wit and labor? That mean if you want your hero to be stronger, you will need to pick wit and labor at some point.

One can actually see the tree ingame? Never found that.

Click on the class name, the tree will pop up.

I think you completely misunderstood me here. My complaint was that in the last iteration, trade was giving by far too much. My general complaint about the trade system in general is that its an all or nothing deal. The game forces you to keep your borders closed until you are in a very advanced position, and if you open them to just one other race you suddenly get an income that raises your science and money generation by several magnitudes from one turn to the next. There should be some kind of middle ground, a way where trading does not compromise your territory to "invasive colonization" and supplements instead of far surpasses your normal economy.

I'm not sure how much i can change that. I could put some modifiers to factor population, number of planets and such, but i'm not sure if i can put a delay toward the full income (some games make you initially pay to set trade routes up for example). Also, the game don't seem to care that the other race don't want to (or can't) trade (my Pilgrims do set up trade with Cravers even though they can't trade themselves).

My own, but that race does not have anything that would skew my results with trading. I think I have a 10% science and/or money boost in there or something, most of the other stuff is starting position and combat related. Ah, btw, was there always a limit of 10 racial perks or did you add that? I found it somewhat annoying when I redid my race for your mod that I could not spend my leftover single point on a headhunter to save me some restarts.

I did not add the limit, it was there when i started modding and just did not remove it when the devs did. I did a lot of changes to the traits but i think they still need a lot of work (work i never could finish due to losing access to the game for more than 2 months). I can easily remove this though.



Edit: According to the files, i did remove it... It's set to -1 (ie no limits).

The latter I had not noticed, good point. I will check that out. As I said, I like your approach of removing resource needs from critical ship parts and making stronger clones to be built when those are available - its just that I rarely noticed a benefit in having multiples of the same resource in vanilla, and with higher abundance requirements, the question remains what they could be good for. I will have a look at their economic value, but I still think the whole strategic ressource system needs a complete overhaul (not necessarily by you).

I did start thinkering with this and i'm open to suggestion for it. In my mind special ressources should be used for special things, not a requirement just to remain competitive...

[BattleCards]



Yes, repair gives -10% firepower. But it works 99% of the time and basically cuts my "losses" to zero whenever I am even slightly ahead. If I really think I need firepower (in those maybe-happening-once-per-game close fights) I can always pick the other engineering option you added with the +25% accuracy. I remember sometimes getting a sabotage through and using the +hp thingy effectively in long range vs missile heavy fleets when my ships are for some reason not at 100% at the start of a battle, but basically anything else always gets countered (or is useless for my fleet because it buffs the wrong weapons or defenses) in the phases where it would be relevant.



I think its more of a fundamental problem with battle outcomes than specific cards, though. Combats are extremely destructive, often resulting in a complete wipe even if both sides were relatively even (and even when my ships devout as much tonnage to defense systems as to weapons, so its not just caused by me building glass cannone and blowing both fleets up by that). Less repairs and less incoming damage as well as removal of the countering bonuses (really, getting your card nullified is harsh enough!) could make for a bit more forgiving combats, allowing one to actually try something instead of using the average-but-working strategy all the time.



The dust-costing hero only abilities are more problematic. Perhaps the best idea with them would be to give them the same treatment as the special ressource ship parts - reduce them to very few, and make them simply better variants of existing ones. That way they are easily comparable and strict improvements. An easy idea would be to make them all unblockable and remove the costs (which would of course make the cost-reducing skills useless, but by the time you have multiple skills and those reducers, the costs do not matter much anyways, and you cannot have them when they would be useful, during the first 50 turns or so) as well as making them about 25% stronger than existing skills. So basically the hero learned to just execute existing strategies better. This would also reduce the clutter on the battle card screen by a good chunk.



[ShipSpeed]



I won't be getting the expansion anytime soon because it seems to have absolutely nothing interesting in it and came instead of a much more needed overhaul of most of the things your mod touched. It seems to have broken and needlessly complicated more things than helped. A speed to defense relation would be nice, though.



A system that is about to be taken only happens during the very beginning of a game while your borders are not yet secured and you do not yet have ground defense upgrades in border outposts. In these times, the more pressing constraint is actually building and upkeeping the ships, and it is about the only time in a game where a saved turn of traveltime will actually matter. The question is, do you have mid level heroes in that fleet at that moment that have that ability? I would rather skill things that do something all of the time or something strong regularly than something that maybe saves a colony once every few games but is otherwise wasted space.



[Repair]



As said above, I would start by making combat less deadly overall and then nerfing repair speeds over-proportionally to the damage nerfs. If combat was less swingy and two fleets might have to battle for multiple turns till one is beaten, the speed with which reinforcements arrive and even small battle repairs might be enough to make them worthwhile.



[HeroSkillsandStats]



I just checked. None of my pilot skills and none of those I can take on my level 10 pilot/corporate fleet commander benefits fleet combat in any way, besides those explicitly buffing offense or defense. There is no wit correlation in any of them either. I think the repair stuff uses labor, but the way its implemented does not make labor seem attractive but the repair skill unattractive, since a weak skill is even weaker if I do not place more points into more otherwise useless skills.



The entire melee stuff is basically worthless, too, for the same reasons speed currently is. You will rarely, likely never, have a governor in a border system that is under siege and that has melee stats besides those he started with (why should I use those points there instead of economic stuff?), colonies with defense improvements take 15 to 30 turns to take over anyways, and on the other hand sieging enemy planets usually happens because you just started to wipe them out - wether you do that 5 turns earlier or not makes no difference in the long run. Something interesting would need to happen to the melee stat itself to make it even remotely interesting. I always took it last on fleet heroes when nothing else was there, but more for completionism than anything else.



Some ideas for new or reworked hero skills:



- a more useful scouting ability for adventurers that either buffs vision range ridiculously (like half the galaxy) or specifically gives vision to all connected systems up to the next wormhole and their fleets or something like that. I doubt I would take it even then, but if it came early in the skilltree, one might take it early to be safer from running into unexpected pirates and so far unknown ais.

- an anti-pirate-bonus, again something that would be available very early, giving a hefty (like 50 or even 100%) combat bonus just against pirates. Could be useful on larger maps.

- some real crossover abilities. Stuff that buffs the planet a hero fleet is orbiting and stuff that buffs fleets in orbit above a planet with the hero. Currently the only things working like that are the leeching abilities, which again are inconsequential "win more" stats I tend to pick when nothing else is left. Melee as a stat could become a bit less useless if it worked on both fleet and system no matter where the hero resided.

- if combat boosts of all hero stats in general were slightly toned down, adventurers could get something like "feign death" that allowed them to instantly (or almost instantly) respawn for no cost when defeated. Should be a pretty high level ability basically enabling kamikaze runs with them, which is otherwise a complete no-go.



[TradeRoutes]



I have no idea what is possible and what not. I only see the results, and currently they are incredibly spiky. Not your fault, but I had hoped you would perhaps find a solution. What definitely needs to go ist the 481284 trade routes providing buildings paired with the high base amount. As I said before, giving systems one by default is a good change, but having one or two systems with all trade upgrades (and likely a wit based administrator) usually uses up all your trade routes, making all the other ones for naught.



[RaceBuilder]



Hmm, now that I tried again, you seem to have removed the limit with the latest patch. I am 100% sure it was in there two days ago.



[StrategicResources]



Its a real shame the game does not allow for a more gradual approach. Perhaps you could make even better systems that need access to multiple instances of a certain ressource? Is that possible?

stormfox wrote:
[BattleCards]



Yes, repair gives -10% firepower. But it works 99% of the time and basically cuts my "losses" to zero whenever I am even slightly ahead. If I really think I need firepower (in those maybe-happening-once-per-game close fights) I can always pick the other engineering option you added with the +25% accuracy. I remember sometimes getting a sabotage through and using the +hp thingy effectively in long range vs missile heavy fleets when my ships are for some reason not at 100% at the start of a battle, but basically anything else always gets countered (or is useless for my fleet because it buffs the wrong weapons or defenses) in the phases where it would be relevant.

Not sure how you play, or at what difficulty level you do, i just struggle to figure how you could get those results when i find them to be working fine when i play. I play at normal and usually against multiple AI and love to use cards to get a edge in combat and repair is probably my least used card.

I think its more of a fundamental problem with battle outcomes than specific cards, though. Combats are extremely destructive, often resulting in a complete wipe even if both sides were relatively even (and even when my ships devout as much tonnage to defense systems as to weapons, so its not just caused by me building glass cannone and blowing both fleets up by that). Less repairs and less incoming damage as well as removal of the countering bonuses (really, getting your card nullified is harsh enough!) could make for a bit more forgiving combats, allowing one to actually try something instead of using the average-but-working strategy all the time.

I did make combat more deadly on purpose; the reasoning was that when ships die more easily it's harder to make tank fleet that just wipe out everything because weaker fleets can't even dent them. Fights should not be won before the first shot is fired, that was the intent behind lots of my balance changes. I also wanted to make armor upgrades more important by making active defenses less effective (of course you can find advocates for both all defense or all armor, i tried to make them both equally useful).

The dust-costing hero only abilities are more problematic. Perhaps the best idea with them would be to give them the same treatment as the special ressource ship parts - reduce them to very few, and make them simply better variants of existing ones. That way they are easily comparable and strict improvements. An easy idea would be to make them all unblockable and remove the costs (which would of course make the cost-reducing skills useless, but by the time you have multiple skills and those reducers, the costs do not matter much anyways, and you cannot have them when they would be useful, during the first 50 turns or so) as well as making them about 25% stronger than existing skills. So basically the hero learned to just execute existing strategies better. This would also reduce the clutter on the battle card screen by a good chunk.

I don't feel like they need a buff, they are way more powerful than normal cards; their cost become inconsequential late game or when you actually pick skills to reduce the cost. You seem to want only buff skills on your heroes, skills that make your fleets more powerful in a passive manner. I guess, from your replies hate having to figure what is the most appropriate card to use (something i actually find fun, or at least least boring than number crushing).

[ShipSpeed]



I won't be getting the expansion anytime soon because it seems to have absolutely nothing interesting in it and came instead of a much more needed overhaul of most of the things your mod touched. It seems to have broken and needlessly complicated more things than helped. A speed to defense relation would be nice, though.

Not sure if i can add features from the mod into vanilla... Most likely it won't work .

A system that is about to be taken only happens during the very beginning of a game while your borders are not yet secured and you do not yet have ground defense upgrades in border outposts. In these times, the more pressing constraint is actually building and upkeeping the ships, and it is about the only time in a game where a saved turn of traveltime will actually matter. The question is, do you have mid level heroes in that fleet at that moment that have that ability? I would rather skill things that do something all of the time or something strong regularly than something that maybe saves a colony once every few games but is otherwise wasted space.

I always find my ships to not be fast enough... Maybe it's because i usually play on larger galaxies where it can take a dozen turns to get anywhere.

[Repair]



As said above, I would start by making combat less deadly overall and then nerfing repair speeds over-proportionally to the damage nerfs. If combat was less swingy and two fleets might have to battle for multiple turns till one is beaten, the speed with which reinforcements arrive and even small battle repairs might be enough to make them worthwhile.

I disagree there. Less deadly combat lead to "Steamrolling Tank Fleet" where you just stack the best possible designs you have and just kill anything the enemy throw at you (because their fleets are never that min-maxed). What card you use actually matter in my mod, being countered or letting the enemy play their powerful cards are recipe ton disaster. The deadlyness of combat is on purpose.

[HeroSkillsandStats]



I just checked. None of my pilot skills and none of those I can take on my level 10 pilot/corporate fleet commander benefits fleet combat in any way, besides those explicitly buffing offense or defense. There is no wit correlation in any of them either. I think the repair stuff uses labor, but the way its implemented does not make labor seem attractive but the repair skill unattractive, since a weak skill is even weaker if I do not place more points into more otherwise useless skills.

I'm sorry there, i'm not a min-maxer so i can't really agree with your assessments of how useful skills are. If you really want a Combat only hero, you should look for a Commander/pilot or an hero with high attack/defense stats from the start. Some heroes are just terrible as fleet even if one of their class is a Commander or Pilot, and that is by design. Not all heroes are meant to be equal, and being of the right class don't mean they will be good at it.

The entire melee stuff is basically worthless, too, for the same reasons speed currently is. You will rarely, likely never, have a governor in a border system that is under siege and that has melee stats besides those he started with (why should I use those points there instead of economic stuff?), colonies with defense improvements take 15 to 30 turns to take over anyways, and on the other hand sieging enemy planets usually happens because you just started to wipe them out - wether you do that 5 turns earlier or not makes no difference in the long run. Something interesting would need to happen to the melee stat itself to make it even remotely interesting. I always took it last on fleet heroes when nothing else was there, but more for completionism than anything else.

If you fight against only one opponent, maybe. When you have several to deal with, or they have multiple fleets going around, that 5-10 turns count because it free your fleet to go elsewhere (something i'm always glad of). I do use melee skills (but like you i rarely put them on system heroes). One thing you should know though is the AI don't min-max their heroes; they often swap them between Fleet and System duty and they always end up with a mix of skills. That mean it's not that hard to make a more powerful hero than what the AI use thus little need to add even more combat buff skills that would just make it easier for the players.

Some ideas for new or reworked hero skills:



- a more useful scouting ability for adventurers that either buffs vision range ridiculously (like half the galaxy) or specifically gives vision to all connected systems up to the next wormhole and their fleets or something like that. I doubt I would take it even then, but if it came early in the skilltree, one might take it early to be safer from running into unexpected pirates and so far unknown ais.

Feel like a cheat skill.

- an anti-pirate-bonus, again something that would be available very early, giving a hefty (like 50 or even 100%) combat bonus just against pirates. Could be useful on larger maps.

Current game code don't allow that as far as i can tell.

- some real crossover abilities. Stuff that buffs the planet a hero fleet is orbiting and stuff that buffs fleets in orbit above a planet with the hero. Currently the only things working like that are the leeching abilities, which again are inconsequential "win more" stats I tend to pick when nothing else is left.

They are hardcoded unfortunately.

Melee as a stat could become a bit less useless if it worked on both fleet and system no matter where the hero resided.

Melee does work for both; Melee increase invasion in fleet and increase system defense when in system.

- if combat boosts of all hero stats in general were slightly toned down, adventurers could get something like "feign death" that allowed them to instantly (or almost instantly) respawn for no cost when defeated. Should be a pretty high level ability basically enabling kamikaze runs with them, which is otherwise a complete no-go.

When you have both Hardy Constitution (i added the second one because the code was there), you get incredibly cheap healing. Work the same exept it's not completely free. Yes, you have to waste 2 picks for it, but if you really want to play reckelessly it's the way to go.

[TradeRoutes]



I have no idea what is possible and what not. I only see the results, and currently they are incredibly spiky. Not your fault, but I had hoped you would perhaps find a solution. What definitely needs to go ist the 481284 trade routes providing buildings paired with the high base amount. As I said before, giving systems one by default is a good change, but having one or two systems with all trade upgrades (and likely a wit based administrator) usually uses up all your trade routes, making all the other ones for naught.

Well, that mean you can save on the extra structures (cost and upkeep). I did try to prevent the governor from building more trade buildings than needed, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyway, the way it currently is you are not forced to max the traderoutes, i don't think it's a bad thing.

[RaceBuilder]



Hmm, now that I tried again, you seem to have removed the limit with the latest patch. I am 100% sure it was in there two days ago.

Yes, my latest version has it removed... Did it when i updated to 1.1.7, but since i waited more than a month to release that version, that's why it's a new thing.

[StrategicResources]



Its a real shame the game does not allow for a more gradual approach. Perhaps you could make even better systems that need access to multiple instances of a certain ressource? Is that possible?

Right now, no. The way it's coded ships can't require more than 1 of each; the only thing more than one does is make it cheaper.

I have been looking at what i could do with the EXP... They really did add lots of tech. It's unfortunate they also reduced the amount of modules we can use in ships; only 3 tiers for most of them. I dunno, unless i create even more techs, i can't add new weapons or cards... I'm really tempted to mod that tech tree, but that would mean lots of work, and most likely i would have to do it from scratch... Hum... I guess players would not mind if i ditch the current tech tree and build a new one...



Would that be worth the hassle?

Meanwhile... I got a few new inspirations for my next version of FF. I'm currently reworking prerequisites for system improvements and ships (some ideas taken from Leto's HeavyNova mod) that should greatly help the AI manage it's constructions spendings. One thing that annoyed me was that we could just buyout everything regardless of the infrastructure in system... This is no more as i can set all kind of requirements that force players to invest in building up their systems. Lots of potential there .

Foraven wrote:
Not sure how you play, or at what difficulty level you do, i just struggle to figure how you could get those results when i find them to be working fine when i play. I play at normal and usually against multiple AI and love to use cards to get a edge in combat and repair is probably my least used card.

I never have close combats. Most are very lopsided in one sides favour. Usually in mine and I just want to minimize losses (usually to zero), which works when playing defensive cards that will likely not be countered, but is risked when playing other stuff. When I am outmatched, I retreat and regroup, because that only happens when a sub-par fleet that wasnt at my fleet cap or has not been refitted in a while meets an AI hero fleet or some of those crazy pirate spawns. About once per game I have a combat where I am slightly behind and try to shoot some ships out of the opposing fleet (again, usually happens against pirates, since they have no defenses in their ships) - that is the one battle where picking the right cards actually does something. The problem is that I would like to pick cards that enhanced my firepower there so I could maximise HIS losses, but the AI of course anticipates what I would like to play (like +missiles when I have lots of missiles on my ships) and usually counters it. It simply does not work.

I did make combat more deadly on purpose; the reasoning was that when ships die more easily it's harder to make tank fleet that just wipe out everything because weaker fleets can't even dent them. Fights should not be won before the first shot is fired, that was the intent behind lots of my balance changes. I also wanted to make armor upgrades more important by making active defenses less effective (of course you can find advocates for both all defense or all armor, i tried to make them both equally useful).

Hmm, might be a problem, but defenses almost useless and combat even more swingy did not make it better. I still rarely have losses, I just have even less incentive to do something that might risk ships.

I don't feel like they need a buff, they are way more powerful than normal cards; their cost become inconsequential late game or when you actually pick skills to reduce the cost. You seem to want only buff skills on your heroes, skills that make your fleets more powerful in a passive manner. I guess, from your replies hate having to figure what is the most appropriate card to use (something i actually find fun, or at least least boring than number crushing).

I do not "hate to figure out what is the most appropriate card to use". I already know that. The most appropriate card is the one that gives me a minor bonus and does not get countered and ideally counters theirs. Which is 99% of the time one of the engineering cards. Playing the lottery does not win strategy games, maximizing chances and minimizing bad luck does.



I am not just wanting better passive upgrades for heroes out of the blue. I want MEANINGFUL upgrades, and they currently (in vanilla OR your mod) do not exist after I took the good ones.

I always find my ships to not be fast enough... Maybe it's because i usually play on larger galaxies where it can take a dozen turns to get anywhere.

On large, global movement might feel a bit slower, but is it really? Even if ships take a dozen turns, with the engine upgrades it would be 10. Two turns hardly ever make a difference.

I'm sorry there, i'm not a min-maxer so i can't really agree with your assessments of how useful skills are. If you really want a Combat only hero, you should look for a Commander/pilot or an hero with high attack/defense stats from the start. Some heroes are just terrible as fleet even if one of their class is a Commander or Pilot, and that is by design. Not all heroes are meant to be equal, and being of the right class don't mean they will be good at it.

I cannot count on getting a commander/pilot hero, just as I cannot count on getting an admin/corporate one. I have to make do with what my academy gives me, and that means I often have to take a half-decent admiral that starts with suboptimal base stats (low offense and defense). I still want to be able to pick 19 upgrades that are worth something. Thats my criticism. If I know my guy will not get anything interesting anymore after six or seven battles, that just feels bad.

If you fight against only one opponent, maybe. When you have several to deal with, or they have multiple fleets going around, that 5-10 turns count because it free your fleet to go elsewhere (something i'm always glad of). I do use melee skills (but like you i rarely put them on system heroes).

I often have games where 2-3 AIs declare war on me and still get by. Usually you have what, 4-5 border systems at most? You can always close up at choke points until very late in the game (when you basically have won already because by then you are either dead or far ahead of them). I stand by my point that 1-2 saved turns on longterm stuff is not worthwhile enough to be taken. System defense is buffed enough by the buildings, fleets take over developed systems as soon as you crushed their fleets (because they rush you with their 238848 only half-decent fleets the moment you enter their territory) and when the smoke settles, you just move from system to system and claim them as your own in a handful of turns each. I do not care if that takes 10 turns longer per empire.

Feel like a cheat skill.

As I said, I would not even take it then because I would STILL find it inconsequential. You call me a cheater that wants everything on a silver platter, which I really frown on. I want meaningful choices and as you can see from my comment on the trade routes last version, I really do not want everything thrown at me. I just do not pick bad stuff.

Melee does work for both; Melee increase invasion in fleet and increase system defense when in system.

I know. But melee on an admiral does not buff the defenses of a system I move him to - I have to destroy all opposing fleets first before I can break the siege and could theoretically assign him downstairs. At that point, I do not need him anymore, since I have air superiority.

When you have both Hardy Constitution (i added the second one because the code was there), you get incredibly cheap healing. Work the same exept it's not completely free. Yes, you have to waste 2 picks for it, but if you really want to play reckelessly it's the way to go.

I don't. I was just throwing suggestions out of stuff that might interest some players while making strong enough suggestions that I would not see them as a total waste of a skillup.

Well, that mean you can save on the extra structures (cost and upkeep). I did try to prevent the governor from building more trade buildings than needed, but it doesn't seem to work. Anyway, the way it currently is you are not forced to max the traderoutes, i don't think it's a bad thing.

I am forced to max the traderoutes, since every building that gives buffs to existing ones also adds new ones. Perhaps you could mix those up a bit? Have buildings give the +xx% and and others +2 routes, but not both some of it.

Foraven wrote:
Meanwhile... I got a few new inspirations for my next version of FF. I'm currently reworking prerequisites for system improvements and ships (some ideas taken from Leto's HeavyNova mod) that should greatly help the AI manage it's constructions spendings. One thing that annoyed me was that we could just buyout everything regardless of the infrastructure in system... This is no more as i can set all kind of requirements that force players to invest in building up their systems. Lots of potential there .

Good idea, but do not overdo it. For example, the Planetary Institute should stay a "tier 1" building, since that is basically what it is - the new first building for all your future colonies as a reward for teching that far down. Similar thoughts on your new fridge - its meant as a kickstarter for "bad" systems and should work like that. Just group them up into 2-3 tiers of their respective colors and keep it that way. If you overcomplicate things and enforce very specific build paths, it gets tedious without adding any gameplay.

Another proposition:



Nerf the amount of stats a skillup gives, but re-buff the amount of useful skillups for each class.



For example, even with your slight early game nerf, administrators with labor => civil engineering are still a tad too good (usually its just a 2-3 point nerf over the 15 flat points before). You feel hero combat bonuses are too much when stacked (and I could actually agree with you there, which does not invalidate my point that I want something useful to do with a skillup).



Solution:



Make skillups only give about 2, sometimes 3 stat points instead of 3-4. Lower base stats of heroes to a total of 12 points instead of 15, purposefully removing points from their "main" attributes and keeping the secondary stats the same (so as not to lower their potential even more when someone has to take them for the wrong role simply because no one else is available).



Example:



Lets say I use current Oros Gec (by far the best starting hero) and level two times when building my first improvement, exploitation and scoutship. I pick Labor and Civil Engineering, giving me 11 Labor and resulting in a 11 points + 32% boost to production from turn 6-7 on (and he still gives +22% food, +14% science and +14% money in addition to that). That is a bit much.



With my proposed changes, he would start with something like Labor 6, Wit 6, and gain only +2 Labor from the first upgrade. So after the first few turns, he would be at 8 + 26% production, +16% food, +12% money and science - much more reasonable.



Combat



The same could be done to combat stats. If each point of defense or offense only gave +3% instad of +4% and typical admirals had a bit less total stats (4-5 at start +2/+3 per skillup), heroes would still matter without overpowering the need to build good ships. At the same time, you could actually add statgiving abilities instead of removing them.



All that would remain would be to make adventurers useful (perhaps move almost all the "nice to have" skills over to them so they are always a somewhat interesting secondary class but never a good primary one?) and make sure pilot and commander had different feels to them. The latter could be solved by making commanders give the melee stuff as well as the tanky upgrades (repairs boosts, mainly defense stat enhancements) and the pilots the offensive stats with only 1-2 token defensive ones (but relatively strong ones like the - enemy accuracy, coming in late in the tree).



My envisioned end result would be that a good admiral would give almost the same total stats at level 20 as right now in vanilla, but took smoothed out baby steps until he arrives there instead of gaining a huge boost within the first 7-8 levels and then almost nothing anymore.

THis will be the first mod I try once the game has another 1 or 3 balance patches.

stormfox wrote:
I never have close combats. Most are very lopsided in one sides favour. Usually in mine and I just want to minimize losses (usually to zero), which works when playing defensive cards that will likely not be countered, but is risked when playing other stuff. When I am outmatched, I retreat and regroup, because that only happens when a sub-par fleet that wasnt at my fleet cap or has not been refitted in a while meets an AI hero fleet or some of those crazy pirate spawns. About once per game I have a combat where I am slightly behind and try to shoot some ships out of the opposing fleet (again, usually happens against pirates, since they have no defenses in their ships) - that is the one battle where picking the right cards actually does something. The problem is that I would like to pick cards that enhanced my firepower there so I could maximise HIS losses, but the AI of course anticipates what I would like to play (like +missiles when I have lots of missiles on my ships) and usually counters it. It simply does not work.

The most optimal card is the one most likely countered. Playing a less optimal card is more likely to work, that's why your repair card does because you use it when you don't really need it.

Hmm, might be a problem, but defenses almost useless and combat even more swingy did not make it better. I still rarely have losses, I just have even less incentive to do something that might risk ships.

What difficulty level do you play again? I guess i should do like Leto and remove all combat maluses and bonuses from difficulty level so combat outcomes don't vary so wildly depending on how hard the game is set.

I do not "hate to figure out what is the most appropriate card to use". I already know that. The most appropriate card is the one that gives me a minor bonus and does not get countered and ideally counters theirs. Which is 99% of the time one of the engineering cards. Playing the lottery does not win strategy games, maximizing chances and minimizing bad luck does.

None of the card gives "minor" bonuses, they are all meaningful and can swing battle in your or their favor. If the AI pick Metal Storm and you don't counter it, that 40% extra damage should show; if it doesn't, something is wrong.

I am not just wanting better passive upgrades for heroes out of the blue. I want MEANINGFUL upgrades, and they currently (in vanilla OR your mod) do not exist after I took the good ones.

Can't do much there besides adding more combat buff skills (since they are the only ones you find meaningful).

On large, global movement might feel a bit slower, but is it really? Even if ships take a dozen turns, with the engine upgrades it would be 10. Two turns hardly ever make a difference.

I'm an impatient player.

I cannot count on getting a commander/pilot hero, just as I cannot count on getting an admin/corporate one. I have to make do with what my academy gives me, and that means I often have to take a half-decent admiral that starts with suboptimal base stats (low offense and defense). I still want to be able to pick 19 upgrades that are worth something. Thats my criticism. If I know my guy will not get anything interesting anymore after six or seven battles, that just feels bad.

But giving you the opportunity to pick buff skills every level would become quite imbalancing, making the non-buff skills even more undesirable if not downright crippling to use. Your buff only Combat hero would just mop the floor against any lower level or non-buff only hero... And unfortunately, i can't force the AI to make buff only hero as he does pick both system and combat skills depending on where the hero is used at level up.

As I said, I would not even take it then because I would STILL find it inconsequential. You call me a cheater that wants everything on a silver platter, which I really frown on. I want meaningful choices and as you can see from my comment on the trade routes last version, I really do not want everything thrown at me. I just do not pick bad stuff.

Let me just agree to disagree there. I do use many of the "inconsequencial" skills and do find them useful for my playstyle.

I know. But melee on an admiral does not buff the defenses of a system I move him to - I have to destroy all opposing fleets first before I can break the siege and could theoretically assign him downstairs. At that point, I do not need him anymore, since I have air superiority.

That i wish i could mod in. Maybe it's possible, need to ask a dev about that.

I am forced to max the traderoutes, since every building that gives buffs to existing ones also adds new ones. Perhaps you could mix those up a bit? Have buildings give the +xx% and and others +2 routes, but not both some of it.

The end result might just be the same unless you micromanage every systems to make sure they build only the useful ones (can't code governors to make a difference between the xx% and +routes ones, nor make them remove the unneeded ones).

Nasarog wrote:
THis will be the first mod I try once the game has another 1 or 3 balance patches.

Why wait for balance patches? I am the one making them, better play and tell me if something is off than let me figure it out on my own (that can take me a while as i spend more time in the code than actually playing).

stormfox wrote:
Good idea, but do not overdo it. For example, the Planetary Institute should stay a "tier 1" building, since that is basically what it is - the new first building for all your future colonies as a reward for teching that far down. Similar thoughts on your new fridge - its meant as a kickstarter for "bad" systems and should work like that. Just group them up into 2-3 tiers of their respective colors and keep it that way. If you overcomplicate things and enforce very specific build paths, it gets tedious without adding any gameplay.

I'm still figuring out what works or not. Don't worry, i don't intent tier 1 building to be needing high requirements (if any).

Foraven wrote:
The most optimal card is the one most likely countered. Playing a less optimal card is more likely to work, that's why your repair card does because you use it when you don't really need it.

I know that. Which is exactly why I would never play such a card if it was not the only card that could win me the game. Strategy is about minimizing risks (or only taking them where appropriate), not gambling. If I can squeeze off an almost guaranteed but shallow win, I will take that every time over something that might make me steamroll 25% of the time but screw me over in the other 75%.

What difficulty level do you play again? I guess i should do like Leto and remove all combat maluses and bonuses from difficulty level so combat outcomes don't vary so wildly depending on how hard the game is set.

While I would applaud you if you did that, I doubt it makes a difference. I usually play on normal because the rampant AI cheating on higher difficulties in 4x games just makes the game more frustrating and tedious, but not more interesting or much harder.

None of the card gives "minor" bonuses, they are all meaningful and can swing battle in your or their favor. If the AI pick Metal Storm and you don't counter it, that 40% extra damage should show; if it doesn't, something is wrong.

If I pick the safe +25% accuracy (which usually counters their card, btw) and he picks whatever he likes and gets it through, let him. I will win anyways or I would have played retreat or offensive retreat. With the kind of all-or-nothing-combat ES has (and your higher relative damage values only make that worse), I will never risk a weaker fleet in an unlikely gamble, because it will likely do nothing anyways and just get shot to pieces. I would rather retreat and reuse the ships and come back when I can actually win. As I said multiple times before, the number of battles where both fleets are close in power to each other can be counted on one hand over the course of multiple games.

But giving you the opportunity to pick buff skills every level would become quite imbalancing, making the non-buff skills even more undesirable if not downright crippling to use. Your buff only Combat hero would just mop the floor against any lower level or non-buff only hero... And unfortunately, i can't force the AI to make buff only hero as he does pick both system and combat skills depending on where the hero is used at level up.

Have you seen my suggestion up there regarding just that? More levels that are weaker by themselves would solve both problems - the feast or famine skillups as well as the too high relative impact of mid level heroes.

The end result might just be the same unless you micromanage every systems to make sure they build only the useful ones (can't code governors to make a difference between the xx% and +routes ones, nor make them remove the unneeded ones).

I have never used a governor in any 4x game, ever. Of course I build all my stuff myself. I mean, its not that you got many things to do most of the time - even with doing all the menial buildup stuff for new colonies (or cities in civ or whatever) per hand most turns take at most a minute and some are just click away.

Something for the record: I just did a new game and trade still seems too good. My total dust+science is just over 30k, over 10k of which are the trade routes alone. That is not even 20 trade routes from just two empires.

stormfox wrote:
I know that. Which is exactly why I would never play such a card if it was not the only card that could win me the game. Strategy is about minimizing risks (or only taking them where appropriate), not gambling. If I can squeeze off an almost guaranteed but shallow win, I will take that every time over something that might make me steamroll 25% of the time but screw me over in the other 75%.

So, out of all the cards in the game (+ the ones i personnally added) you can't find anything else to play than nano repair? Sad i can't code the AI to actually anticipate cards played, i can only set odds they would play certain cards according to the given scenario.

While I would applaud you if you did that, I doubt it makes a difference. I usually play on normal because the rampant AI cheating on higher difficulties in 4x games just makes the game more frustrating and tedious, but not more interesting or much harder.

Easy to do and will be in the next version.

If I pick the safe +25% accuracy (which usually counters their card, btw) and he picks whatever he likes and gets it through, let him. I will win anyways or I would have played retreat or offensive retreat. With the kind of all-or-nothing-combat ES has (and your higher relative damage values only make that worse), I will never risk a weaker fleet in an unlikely gamble, because it will likely do nothing anyways and just get shot to pieces. I would rather retreat and reuse the ships and come back when I can actually win. As I said multiple times before, the number of battles where both fleets are close in power to each other can be counted on one hand over the course of multiple games.

Military power is only a relative number. I did try to make it close to actual power of a fleet, but it's quite possible to beat a fleet with twice your mp if your designs defeat theirs. It's very unlikely fleet will be equal unless they exactly have the same designs on each sides.

Have you seen my suggestion up there regarding just that? More levels that are weaker by themselves would solve both problems - the feast or famine skillups as well as the too high relative impact of mid level heroes.

I seen it. Would still end up with an incredibly powerful hero in the end if every level is min-maxed, something i try to avoid (and did tweak several skills in that regard already). I like the fact high level Heroes are not godlike and unbeatable, they just have a lot of perks. Heroes don't need to be level 15 to compete with the other Empires veterans.

I have never used a governor in any 4x game, ever. Of course I build all my stuff myself. I mean, its not that you got many things to do most of the time - even with doing all the menial buildup stuff for new colonies (or cities in civ or whatever) per hand most turns take at most a minute and some are just click away.

Shame, i did put a lot of time tweaking them. The AI use them so if i want the AI to be challenging i need the governors to be adequate, and that help when players use them and feed me back about them.

Foraven wrote:
So, out of all the cards in the game (+ the ones i personnally added) you can't find anything else to play than nano repair? Sad i can't code the AI to actually anticipate cards played, i can only set odds they would play certain cards according to the given scenario.

I did not say nano repair, I said engineering. Mixing the 1-3 engineering cards works best. In the early game when I only have nano repair, I pick that simply because its just slightly better then nothing, the next best option. If the AI would counter those and not others, I would pick those, giving the same net result. Sure small benefit > any large benefit with a needless risk tacked on in any case where I do not need said large benefit to win (which is, as I said before, practically never).

Military power is only a relative number. I did try to make it close to actual power of a fleet, but it's quite possible to beat a fleet with twice your mp if your designs defeat theirs. It's very unlikely fleet will be equal unless they exactly have the same designs on each sides.

Well, it's not that I build specific counterdesigns or even made the effort to calculate defense numbers and whatnot. I just slap on a few defenses (with a slight overweight to what I expect from the AI currently and what deals the most overall damage (usually kinetics), a bunch of missles/lasers/both, the 2-3 support modules and perhaps a hp upgrade or two if I got weight over and that's it. There is not much to my ship designs, but they always work reasonably well. The point stands, close battles are more than rare, and in all other cases you should retreat or use "safe" cards that make sure you do not give the opponent any needless bonuses and ideally contain stuff that helps your fleet stay in top shape (+repair and +hp for example). Everything else might look nice but will ultimately at best cost you more ships for the same result.

I seen it. Would still end up with an incredibly powerful hero in the end if every level is min-maxed, something i try to avoid (and did tweak several skills in that regard already). I like the fact high level Heroes are not godlike and unbeatable, they just have a lot of perks. Heroes don't need to be level 15 to compete with the other Empires veterans.

The hero in my example would have the same power at level 20 than a vanilla hero currently has at about 12 or so and only a tad more than your current ones - why do you think those are overpowered? At the same time, the heroes you most commonly face, between levels 5 and 15, would be weaker than even in your variant - but one would feel that there is something to those late levelups.

Shame, i did put a lot of time tweaking them. The AI use them so if i want the AI to be challenging i need the governors to be adequate, and that help when players use them and feed me back about them.

I never liked some script dabbling in my building. And why should I, building improvements is 75% of the game! The only things I use are those "explore all moons" and "remove all bad effects" buttons in the systems overview simply because the take time. Something else I would use would be userdefinable saved queues for late colonies, because you click all the same stuff in the same order anyways and would save some time like that.



The formulas for good planetary growth are not magic, anyways. A bit of food > production >>>> dust, sci, stealth colonies, perhaps sattelite >>>> rest. Lategame that is done via Institute > Refinery > Fridge > all producers > all science > all quick to build dust, all other strong upgrades that are available, usually in order of time it takes to build them. If you have enough money (i.e. if you have trade routes and literally swim in dust making thousands per turn at 0% money/science rate), you quickly buyout the first 3-4 of those improvements and let the rest sort itself out. Early on, your labor-buffed first governor swaps into the colony for ~10 turns to kickstart it, works almost the same.



The deviations from that formula are systems with no food sources, but that deviation actually makes it easier, since nothing can be done about that. Systems with only bad food sources but lots of planets build a food upgrade or two more than usual. Sometimes you have to leave stuff that depends on moons because there are no moons (or only one on a 4-slot-planet). Everything else that buffs fids gets built. In a border system where diplomacy is unclear, stealth colonies and the second defensive upgrade might get picked before some others.



Exploitations are usually done easily, too - pick the one that is best of the given planet type, but sometimes kickstart with some green exploit for a few turns before switching over. Switch over all green exploits on tier 1 planets to one of the other three as soon as the system nears max current population.



The only halfway complicated thing is when to expand to the other planets and when to do stuff like moon research and when and if you build influence boosters.



In similar games like civ for example, the upgrade paths are even more linear because only very few upgrades are available most of the games time, but follow a similar route. I am always amazed about the seeming difficulty AIs seem to have with that, seeing that they should be predestined to actually improve upon my very simple list of things to do with their superior calculation power.

stormfox wrote:
I did not say nano repair, I said engineering. Mixing the 1-3 engineering cards works best. In the early game when I only have nano repair, I pick that simply because its just slightly better then nothing, the next best option. If the AI would counter those and not others, I would pick those, giving the same net result. Sure small benefit > any large benefit with a needless risk tacked on in any case where I do not need said large benefit to win (which is, as I said before, practically never).

If you can play those cards with impunity, it means there is a flaw in the AI's logic. There shouldn't be any "safe" or "Jack of all trades" cards to play.

The hero in my example would have the same power at level 20 than a vanilla hero currently has at about 12 or so and only a tad more than your current ones - why do you think those are overpowered? At the same time, the heroes you most commonly face, between levels 5 and 15, would be weaker than even in your variant - but one would feel that there is something to those late levelups.

Having an Hero that spend all it's points in buffs would always be much stronger than one that spent a few points in it and then "wasted" it's points on non combat/support ones. The way it is right now, you can safely pick non combat skills without gimping your hero, under your system everyone would be forced to pick all the combat skills if they want to remain competitive (remember i also think Multiplayer, won't make a different version for them).

The formulas for good planetary growth are not magic, anyways. A bit of food > production >>>> dust, sci, stealth colonies, perhaps sattelite >>>> rest. Lategame that is done via Institute > Refinery > Fridge > all producers > all science > all quick to build dust, all other strong upgrades that are available, usually in order of time it takes to build them. If you have enough money (i.e. if you have trade routes and literally swim in dust making thousands per turn at 0% money/science rate), you quickly buyout the first 3-4 of those improvements and let the rest sort itself out. Early on, your labor-buffed first governor swaps into the colony for ~10 turns to kickstart it, works almost the same.

That's because you don't understand how much code is involved for the AI to make those "simple" decisions. You forget all the instances where you have to chose between building a new improvement, some more ships, convert to food or science or switch to a different exploitation because your Empire is short on something. It may seem no brainer to you, but it's quite complicated (especially when it's done with weights instead of if-then-else code). The governors are a huge part of the AI and they work exactly the same for the players (exept they don't queue up ships).