Minor races conquering vs membership

Supremacy; support/discussion/questions

Moderators: thunderchero, Iceman

User avatar
Hebrewhammer
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:29 pm

Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Hebrewhammer »

I have been playing as the Klingons lately and have been embracing conquering minor races over diplomacy. However aside from being quicker to bring them into the empire and not be bribed away are there any other advantages. It seems that if you are willing to go the diplomacy route you can get a lot more out of minor races then conquering them.

This is especially true since conquered races never go above content and if you use the special buildings for increased dilithium opt put and mining/ship building, then that minor race could be constantly disgruntled or even rebellious no matter how many time you use police state on them. So is there really an advantage of invading or just stick to diplomacy even as Klingons?
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Yes, we still need to make subjugation a bit more appealing vs membership. Membership has been made a bit harder to get in several releases, but we might still need to do more.
We discussed this topic in this thread some time ago, proposing things like having differentiated tax income (tilted towards subjugation).
Any suggestions you might have, they're most welcome!
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

To notice that the empires have different global morale modifiers for subjugation and membership, according to their favored playstyle - pretty much the same as in BotF.
The Klingons only get +1 global morale (to all colonies) when a minor race is membered, but they get +3 if it is subjugated. Once they get a static global morale bonus, it is more efficient (in morale terms) to subjugate than to member.
The Federation is somewhat the opposite, with +10 / -10.

I just noticed that the subjugation modifiers are +3 for the Klingons and +4 for the Romulans (with the Cardassians also having +4); are these correct? Or should they be swapped, +4 for the Klingons and +3 for the Romulans? The Romulans don't have any Subjugated type buildings.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

A few more suggestions about this topic I'd like to get input on:

- credits from taxes being affected by morale level in member colonies, and unaffected in subjugated colonies; subjugated populations do not get to choose if they pay taxes or not?

- member colonies choose their own research field (according to the minor civ's needs), and research from subjugated colonies adds to the controlling empire's chosen research field(s); subjugated populations do not get to choose what they research?

- structure upgrades having different conditions for being available, member colonies being limited to the minor civ's current tech level and subjugated colonies only limited by the controlling empire's tech level; subjugated populations do not get to choose what they build? (*)


(*) Currently, in all non-native colonies (whether member or subjugated), only Production Facilities are limited to the native civ's tech level; Buildings, Shipyards and Orbital Batteries are not, they're only limited by the controlling empire's tech level.
User avatar
Hebrewhammer
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 9:29 pm

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Hebrewhammer »

Those would be interesting changes to implement and give some positives to subjugation vs membership. I wouldn't be against these changes to test out and I'm sure others would have feed back as well for balancing if any is needed.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Thanks Hebrewhammer!
- credits from taxes being affected by morale level in member colonies, and unaffected in subjugated colonies; subjugated populations do not get to choose if they pay taxes or not?
With a change I made in the current patch in mind:
- low morale colonies will never produce less than 50% max taxes (to help with bankrupcy)
do you guys think it could be interesting to take this a bit further, and do something like

- native colonies will produce at least 50% taxes (as current)
- member colonies do not have this limit, and can go all the way down to 0%
- subjugated colonies can either be unaffected (like proposed above) OR also have the 50% limit (or some other value)

or would that be too much, and not bring anything relevant to gameplay?
Adding complexity without a relevant (interesting) effect is pointless, and only adds to turn processing time.
User avatar
Warp Core Breach
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:30 pm

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Warp Core Breach »

Hi All,
FWIW, my suggestion would be to maybe make a military victory a little harder (thus giving other powers more time to win it diplomatically), but then let the special building(s) be built. Haven't played Feds yet, but if they are advantaged in diplomacy, as in the original BotF, that's a huge advantage to them. Of course, if the intent is to make the game progressively harder to play according to major power, then this is one way to make Feds the easiest... Some of special buildings (ex. research bonuses) are really valuable, so being forced to play nice to get them feels like an imposition on my playing. Lower tax revenue and lower morale makes sense; the occasional sabotage event makes more sense.
Thanks!
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Hebrewhammer wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 9:15 pm This is especially true since conquered races never go above content and if you use the special buildings for increased dilithium opt put and mining/ship building, then that minor race could be constantly disgruntled or even rebellious no matter how many time you use police state on them.
Should we try removing the -1 morale bonus from those buildings? Subjugated colonies already have a permanent -1 morale penalty, so this might be too penalizing.

These buildings kind of "replace" the minor civ's unique buildings in subjugated colonies, but they need to actually be attractive - or at least not be unattractive. For the civs whose playstyle is geared towards subjugation, ofc; the other civs don't get either these buildings or the minor's unique building, which works as kind of a deterrent.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Warp Core Breach wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 9:50 pm FWIW, my suggestion would be to maybe make a military victory a little harder (thus giving other powers more time to win it diplomatically), but then let the special building(s) be built.
At some point, the AI will put up more of a fight. :wink: Right now, AI empires don't have a global strategy, they just kind of defend themselves, and snipe at targets of opportunity. A lot of work still needs to be done on the AI front, but it is improving steadily.

Haven't played Feds yet, but if they are advantaged in diplomacy, as in the original BotF, that's a huge advantage to them.
They are.

Of course, if the intent is to make the game progressively harder to play according to major power, then this is one way to make Feds the easiest...
That's something to be avoided! Each major power should have it strengths and weaknesses, but the intent is to make them all be relatively balanced.

Some of special buildings (ex. research bonuses) are really valuable, so being forced to play nice to get them feels like an imposition on my playing.
That's something that is not desired, so we need to have subjugaton bring other advantages. That's what we need to try to come up with.
User avatar
Warp Core Breach
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:30 pm

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Warp Core Breach »

Perhaps subjugation should have an ongoing cost. Rebellions to put down using military assets (ships, transports), or at least an ongoing drain of funds, enough to limit how many subjugated worlds an Empire could maintain. That would force the player to be choosy about it, at least.

Each subjugated world (or perhaps the difference in the #, if comparing 2 powers who both have subjugated worlds) should also have a diplomatic impact with other major powers. For example, the Feds would never agree to ally with a power with 1 subjugated world, and would never agree to anything above Cease Fire if they had 3. You could also reduce the penalty for the Feds declaring war on a power with multiple subjugated worlds.

In exchange for these costs, the Empire gets access to the special buildings without the time/financial drain and risks of a drawn-out diplomatic dance.
As things stand now, I've stopped invading minor powers because the buildings are too important, I feel. Maybe I'm over-valuing them?

Also, it appears that currently, capturing a major power's home system doesn't seem to give benefits from any special buildings that survived the invasion. Capturing Daystrom Institute intact (for example), should give you the Computer research bonus.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Warp Core Breach wrote: Mon Nov 08, 2021 12:09 am Also, it appears that currently, capturing a major power's home system doesn't seem to give benefits from any special buildings that survived the invasion. Capturing Daystrom Institute intact (for example), should give you the Computer research bonus.
You are correct!
You don't get the global bonuses (research) but you do get the local bonuses (+morale, -dilithium).
Will look into it.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Fixed!
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Ok, so if we allow subjugated colonies to build the minor race's unique buildings, should we then scrap all the current differentiated treatment that member vs subjugated colonies get?

Currently,

- taxes from Member colonies are halved (full taxes from Subjugated colonies)
- full intel produced in Member colonies, halved in Subjugated colonies
- full research in both
- Member colonies get morale from global events, Subjugated colonies don't

(can't recall if there's anything else)
User avatar
Warp Core Breach
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 9:30 pm

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Warp Core Breach »

Hi Iceman
The other differentiators make sense to me, except taxes. I'd suggest full taxes from members, but less (half) for subjugated colonies. The cut
represents the extra resources it costs to control the masses in general - bribes to local officials, buying police loyalty, extra patrols, etc.

As the dominion (and I image for the Feds as well), it is tough keep subjugated planets happy. Having to regularly impose martial law ("cull") as morale doesn't remain steady. There are no buildings that can be added to them to counteract the -1 subjugation penalty. I think this works!

Taxes and morale hit seem like penalty enough for subjugating a planet. As I'm playing through, the only planets I'm subjugating are major powers', all others I'm making members.
Iceman
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 3296
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:00 am

Re: Minor races conquering vs membership

Post by Iceman »

Warp Core Breach wrote: Thu Nov 18, 2021 10:58 pm Hi Iceman
The other differentiators make sense to me, except taxes. I'd suggest full taxes from members, but less (half) for subjugated colonies. The cut
represents the extra resources it costs to control the masses in general - bribes to local officials, buying police loyalty, extra patrols, etc.
The rationale was that member civs keep half the taxes for themselves, and contribute to the empire with the other half. Subjugated civs don't have the luxury to decide where they'll use their tax money :twisted:

Since Subjugated colonies don't get any global morale bonuses (and geta permanent -1), and only produce half intel, won't half taxes too tilt it more towards memberhip?
Also, since the Feds have the Trade Centre for extra credits, and Subjugated colonies usually have neg morale (which affects taxes), this was also a measure to try to balance things a bit more.

BTW, in BotF IIRC membership grants a +15 morale bonus to the colony - right, SCT ? :wink: I haven't implemented that in Supremacy (yet?) as I didn't want to tilt it even further towards membership... but if subjugation is made more balanced, might revisit this if we find it a good addition.

As usual, it's all up for discussion!

As the dominion (and I image for the Feds as well), it is tough keep subjugated planets happy. Having to regularly impose martial law ("cull") as morale doesn't remain steady. There are no buildings that can be added to them to counteract the -1 subjugation penalty. I think this works!
The Feds do have a +1 Morale Empire-Wide building, at TL5 IIRC. All empires actually, except the Cards (which have an universal +2), and now the Dominion (which got a +2 Morale instead in Links). The Feds also have the Private Farms, but they don't usually go subjugating other civs :wink:
But yes, this should make it interesting.

Taxes and morale hit seem like penalty enough for subjugating a planet. As I'm playing through, the only planets I'm subjugating are major powers', all others I'm making members.
Let's try to change that. :twisted:
I'll release a new patch soon, and then you can build the unique buildings (doesn't require a newgame).
Post Reply

Return to “Supremacy”