Feedback needed

[Hebrewhammer]

I know this a month old, however I'm not sure what race you would be comparing the federation ships to for balancing. I don't mind seeing game balance but removing one torpedo launcher from most fed ships is a big damage decrease.

The romulans may have slightly weaker ships but their torpedoes do more damage and they have the first strike capability with their cloaking which alone is a big advantage.

The dominion scouts and fast attack ships are out gunned, but their battle ships and battle cruisers have 100-200 more shielding then the fed equivalent and double or almost double the torpedo launchers.

The cardasians are slightly below the federation in about every aspect, however they are a more mass production type of ship play style. Maybe further reduce build and maintenance cost so they can field more units to over come the disparity in ship power.

The klingons are kind of in the same boat as the romulans, they might have a 100 less shields then the feds however they have the first strike capability with the cloak and they carry more weapons then the federations ships.

If your looking to tone down the federations ship damage, maybe just slightly reduce the the damage of their torpedoes then completely removing one launcher from their ships.

I guess the real issue is the chances of other races equivalent ships winning in a 1 v 1 fight. As in pitting cruisers against cruisers and see if the feds always win in that scenario. I would think the cloak would be a big advantage over the 80 or 100 more shields the feds have. Then again I'm not sure how the shield number applies when taking damage from other ships.

[Iceman]

I know this a month old

Oh, there's no expiration date on any of the issues mentioned here
The purpose of this thread is to have people chime in when they feel confortable enough with the game to produce an opinion.
All feedback is extremely appreciated. Thanks!

I don't mind seeing game balance but removing one torpedo launcher from most fed ships is a big damage decrease.

The rationale was that since they have more staying power (higher hulls and shields, and shield regen) than everyone else - and they have more ship types and classes, including the Tactical Cruiser - maybe they should have less firepower. Add to that that "canonically" the Feds are more focused on exploration than warfare (hence the higher defenses). Basically, the opposite of the Klingons.
I guess that their Heavy Destroyers would be left out of this reduction, so that they have a true "brawler" option for times of war. The Strike Cruisers are a glaring example: a peace loving civ like the Feds have them as effective as any other empire, AND they have the tier 3 STK which the Klingons and the Cardassians (and the Dominion because they have none) do not!! It's kind of silly. Making them a bit weaker would balance things out a bit.

A lateral but important consideration is that the Feds are just too good - in diplomacy, in research, in the economy, in colonization, etc. They should suck at something
To match other empires' fleet power, they should need more ships, costing more upkeep, cutting into their economy. Or build stations for defense, and OBs - since they "should" have a more defensive playstyle.

The cardasians are slightly below the federation in about every aspect, however they are a more mass production type of ship play style. Maybe further reduce build and maintenance cost so they can field more units to over come the disparity in ship power.

That's an idea, yes. Don't forget though that their ships have heavy phasers, that deal 10% more damage than the standard version.

BTW, I'm in the process of tweaking the Cardassian civilian ships, changing their hulls to standard values instead of the higher values of their warships. It makes them more prone to duranium shortages.
I'm also going to increase their colony ships' starting pop (and the Klingons') to the standard value, following feedback from geordie.

If your looking to tone down the federations ship damage, maybe just slightly reduce the the damage of their torpedoes then completely removing one launcher from their ships.

Do we want to open that "why are the federation's torpedoes crappier than everyone else's" can of worms?

I guess the real issue is the chances of other races equivalent ships winning in a 1 v 1 fight. As in pitting cruisers against cruisers and see if the feds always win in that scenario. I would think the cloak would be a big advantage over the 80 or 100 more shields the feds have.

I once did something like that, but I just don't have the time to do extensive testing to get to real conclusions.
One way to do this testing is to edit HomeSystems.xml, and for any/each starting tech level, replace the default ships with the fleet composition you want to test - for each empire. Then start a new game, Tiny or Small galaxy, AIMode set to Normal. Use F12 to see where another empire is (one that you have edited the starting ships), and move your fleet there. Declare war first (use a scout for 1st contact, or wait a turn after contact), so that they don't hail.
This allows you to quickly change the test from 10v10 cruisers to say 20v20 cruisers, or any other settings.

Then again I'm not sure how the shield number applies when taking damage from other ships.

Very straight forward approach. Damage is applied to the shields, they regenerate at the end of each combat round, and when they're depleted they won't regenerate any more, and damage is applied directly to the hull.

[Iceman]

In the late game when playing the larger galaxies, when the player's colony count exceeds some 250, the Assets screen starts throwing Out Of Memory exceptions when trying to draw all those star system displays in the Colonies tab.

So here's the question.
Is it useful, to have the star system display *in the Colonies* tab?

In the Star Systems tab, it might be useful, to help you decide which system to prioritize for colonization, based on its composition (if you are short on some resource, for instance); so I guess it is justified to display it there.

In the Colonies tab, it might not be that useful? I don't usually pay any attention to it, it is just visually nice, and makes this view a little less "spreadsheet"-like. Maybe leaving the system resources (dilithium, duranium) icons only?
Removing the star system display would allow spreading the colony's info along the rest of the (now empty) line, making each colony take less (vertical) space to display, and thus shortening the length of the colony list - which is another issue when you have lots of colonies. It would also make turn processing faster, and loading the Assets screen Colonies tab a lot faster.

So, what do you guys think?
Do you have any suggestions? Redesigning the Colonies tab?

This only really becomes an issue usually in Huge galaxies (particularly in Dense), late game, when the player has lots of colonies.

[Hebrewhammer]

So here's the question.
Is it useful, to have the star system display *in the Colonies* tab?

I'm good either way, to be honest the main aids I use are the summary tab after each turn and the system screen. When doing mass upgrades on colonies I just use the arrow keys and work my way down the colonies list (though this takes awhile in huge maps I like being thorough). I rarely use the colonies tab for reference. So removing the star system display to help with the loading and memory issue of huge maps seems fine with me, however others may rely on this tab more then I do.

By the way I like the name of the temporary fix for the huge galaxy maps

[Iceman]

Yup, that was for you only, it's not an official patch. I'll take it down now.
(Though it does have some AI improvements, still under testing )

Thanks for the feedback!

[Iceman]

Currently, when a minor race signs a membership treaty wth an empire, if the empire has an envoy assigned to that minor, the envoy is recalled.
If an empire signs a Defense Pact or an Alliance with another empire, envoys are not recalled.

Question: should there be consistency in these 2 situations
And if so, should they be recalled, or not be recalled

(if they're not recalled, they'll keep improving/maintaining relations between the 2 civs)

[Iceman]

Re terrorism events (Commercial Terrorism and Domestic Terrorism), the conditions for their triggering are a bit "opaque" to the player. One of those conditions is that 50+ turns have passed since the founding of the colony, which is information the player doesn't have available. Not that that is all that crucial, but should there be a simpler, easier to remember condition?
Like the colony having 100+ population. Currently, it is 60+, which combined with 50+ turns, ends up around 100+ for new, uneventful colonies.
The (single) 100+ pop condition increases the number of terrorism-free colonies (from those up to 60 pop to 100 pop), making a larger number of smaller colonies not require anti-terrorism intel (this applies only to terrorism events!); reserving pop for "mandatory" intel in smaller colonies kind of makes them less useful overall (that was the point of 60+).
One other situation where this could have advantages is in colonies that have had pop casualties for some reason: bombardment, events, sabotage, subjugation, food shortage. These colonies would be "safe" from terrorism (and again, only terrorism) if/while below 100 pop.

I'm trying to think of situations where the 50 turns condition might be crucial, but none occur.

What do you guys think?

[Iceman]

How do you guys find the recruitment rate of personnel currently? The first agent, and the spacing between the rest.
Is it better, does it need more tweaking?
For each galaxy size!

[TempestWales]

How do you guys find the recruitment rate of personnel currently? The first agent, and the spacing between the rest.
Is it better, does it need more tweaking?
For each galaxy size!

I think it needs tweaking a bit, very slow sometimes (Usually run Huge Gals) and can meeting 4/5 Minor and 2 Gal Power and only have 1 recruited.

[TempestWales]

Currently, when a minor race signs a membership treaty wth an empire, if the empire has an envoy assigned to that minor, the envoy is recalled.
If an empire signs a Defense Pact or an Alliance with another empire, envoys are not recalled.

Question: should there be consistency in these 2 situations
And if so, should they be recalled, or not be recalled

(if they're not recalled, they'll keep improving/maintaining relations between the 2 civs)

I think the status quo for this is the best option.

[Iceman]

How do you guys find the recruitment rate of personnel currently? The first agent, and the spacing between the rest.
Is it better, does it need more tweaking?
For each galaxy size!

I think it needs tweaking a bit, very slow sometimes (Usually run Huge Gals) and can meeting 4/5 Minor and 2 Gal Power and only have 1 recruited.

All these agents are meant to give you a *significant* edge in one of the 3 areas, so they shouldn't probably be recruited too frequently. Making them too frequent might also diminish their "surprise" factor, making them "trivial". I think recruiting them should be a special moment in the game.

Right now only envoys are implemented, we still need to implement fleet officers and covert operatives. We need to make sure that getting (any of these) agents more frequently will not tilt the game towards any particular empire / playstyle - I mean, if getting more envoys early in the game will not be more powerful than getting (the same amount of) officers, thus making the Feds get an edge over the Klingons or the Dominion, etc.

Having said that, I'm not saying that you are not correct , just throwing some notes for consideration.

I'd also like to hear about other galaxy sizes, to come up with a new/tweaked formula for recruitment (instead of making specific changes).

By how much would you change this, BTW? And would you change the 1st recruitment, or the time following recruitments, or both Some of these values can be modded, BTW. Check \Resources\Data\PersonnelConstants.xaml - if you want to test and propose some values, go ahead.


Thanks for the feedback!

[Iceman]

Currently, when a minor race signs a membership treaty wth an empire, if the empire has an envoy assigned to that minor, the envoy is recalled.
If an empire signs a Defense Pact or an Alliance with another empire, envoys are not recalled.

Question: should there be consistency in these 2 situations
And if so, should they be recalled, or not be recalled

(if they're not recalled, they'll keep improving/maintaining relations between the 2 civs)

I think the status quo for this is the best option.

Another option might be to not recall any envoys (meaning, removing the [current] cancellation for minors), and the making the diplo hit when recalling envoys not apply if the civ is already a member.

[TempestWales]

How do you guys find the recruitment rate of personnel currently? The first agent, and the spacing between the rest.
Is it better, does it need more tweaking?
For each galaxy size!

I think it needs tweaking a bit, very slow sometimes (Usually run Huge Gals) and can meeting 4/5 Minor and 2 Gal Power and only have 1 recruited.

All these agents are meant to give you a *significant* edge in one of the 3 areas, so they shouldn't probably be recruited too frequently. Making them too frequent might also diminish their "surprise" factor, making them "trivial". I think recruiting them should be a special moment in the game.

Right now only envoys are implemented, we still need to implement fleet officers and covert operatives. We need to make sure that getting (any of these) agents more frequently will not tilt the game towards any particular empire / playstyle - I mean, if getting more envoys early in the game will not be more powerful than getting (the same amount of) officers, thus making the Feds get an edge over the Klingons or the Dominion, etc.

Having said that, I'm not saying that you are not correct , just throwing some notes for consideration.

I'd also like to hear about other galaxy sizes, to come up with a new/tweaked formula for recruitment (instead of making specific changes).

By how much would you change this, BTW? And would you change the 1st recruitment, or the time following recruitments, or both Some of these values can be modded, BTW. Check \Resources\Data\PersonnelConstants.xaml - if you want to test and propose some values, go ahead.


Thanks for the feedback!

Understandable. You could always have a starting pool of x amount of Envoys relative to the Galaxy size, then have a lower rate of new envoys, until you hit a certain amount/% of civ contact, and then have a ratio relative to gal size to civ contacts.

I'll check out the XAML files to see what can be fiddled with. Does modifying these values affect previous saved games, or only new games?

[Iceman]

I'm not sure. Should be easy to test though, say by lowering time between recruitments to 2 or 3 (which might translate into a bit more, since there's a formula).

[Misfire]

Currently, when a minor race signs a membership treaty wth an empire, if the empire has an envoy assigned to that minor, the envoy is recalled.
If an empire signs a Defense Pact or an Alliance with another empire, envoys are not recalled.

Question: should there be consistency in these 2 situations
And if so, should they be recalled, or not be recalled

(if they're not recalled, they'll keep improving/maintaining relations between the 2 civs)

I think the status quo for this is the best option.

Another option might be to not recall any envoys (meaning, removing the [current] cancellation for minors), and the making the diplo hit when recalling envoys not apply if the civ is already a member.

I'd think you'd want to leave the ability to have an envoy assigned to a member (but like you said, no penalty from recalling). It could be useful in some situations to still have one assigned. Say once intel is working, maybe an enemy is heavily involved in subterfuge/sabotage/bribing of a minor. Might want an envoy assigned to do "damage control" on relations.