How to make expansion less interesting

from GalCiv3 Forums

Ok, I am new player of GC3 (which I like) and a fairly seasoned player of the Civilzation series (started on civ 1 when I was 9 ;-). Have played a few other Stardock's 4x.

Many players recognize that today, there is no "strategic choice" around expansion / mass planet spamming. You should just go for it. A 4x gets cool when you are confronted with tough strategic decision (going tall vs. wide  / rushing cool techs vs. taking the time to build some defense in case you get attacked / eXploring or building buildings...)

In GC3, when you settle a planet you first get the "normal benefit" (like any 4x):

- you block a spot: it is yours and no one can settle it after

- you open an "opportunity" to get long term benefits (research, prod...) once your city is built a bit taller

- you get influence / zone of control / expand borders 

But you ALSO get HUGE benefits which are specific to this game:

- it expands your ship range. Suddenly your whole fleet around the galaxy can travel there, even with no life support -> get access to new eXploration opportunities / strategic ressources. This gives the massive advantage to meet more civilization with whom you get nice trades (tech...)

- you get ideology points (and unless you have zealots, 99% of your ideology points will come from there. The +0.1 / 0.2 buildings dont do much). Idealogy points gives cool benefits

- smaller impact: you get immediately some luxury stuff (which you can trade or simply get benefit from). Maybe you should have to build a small low cost building to obtain them 

(I probably missed other stuff, sorry I am new ;-)

Also, the way planetary invasion work: enemies cannot attack you very early. No need to defend at the start.

And the cost for expanding is very small, at least compared to civilization and most 4x

- buying or building a colony ship does not cost much. You can buy at game starts and get easy money from trades. It is not a constraint resource (at Civ, you have less money so buying the first settler is not in the early game ; others get easier).

- it cost you some population. That is a very interesting feature. However the population is not lost, just transfered. Also, given how population works, having 2 small planets (the one who built the colony ship and the newly founded one) will create more population per turn that having a bigger one (sorry if I am wrong ;-)

- Usually, in a 4x a settler / colony ship is very fragile. You only let it travel alone if you are 200% sure that there are no barbarians / ennemies nearby. Here I fell that it is not an issue. If you are unsure of the area you fly, you just keep one movement point to retreat if you have a bad encounters. Hence, no need to escort -> you save money compared to most 4x 

 

Suggestion of ways to mitigate this:

1) I love the population cost. Maybe you should "loose" 2 population units when the planet is settled (makes sense: not easy to colonise a new planet). So colony ships could contain 3-5 population at start, then transfering 1-3 to new planets

1) 1 bis: colony ships could cost more money / production time to be built 

2) The exponent on the population does give an advantage to go tall rather than wide. But early game, you still have the issue that 2 planets make more babies than one. So it is worth to eXpand agressively. Maybe for the first 20 turns, a new planet should have lower population growth rate.

3) Happiness / morale is the classical way to balance wide strategies. In most 4x, you cannot expand too fast compared to your tech tree (which unlocks hapiness buildings). Here, the idea is present, but you need to tweak the variable a bit to make it more painful. In Civ, below -10 happiness, it gets messy, even for an ICS strategy. 

4) Ideology: maybe you should also get it from going tall rather than wide ? Once you have settled your e.g. 10 planets, you know that you wont get much ideology anymore. It's a bit sad. Maybe a few buildings / trigger events in tall cities could give more ideology. (to balance the fact that otherwise, only going wide gets you mass ideology)

5) The range expansion on all your ship has a massive impact (given that meeting new civs is a huge source of income due to tech trade, hence a source of buying new ships). Maybe new colonies should only give low range during the first e.g. 20 turns

6) Maintenance cost should also be painful at the start to make zero income planets a bit less appealing. But for me, in a sense, this maintenance burden shall already be included in the cost ob building / buy the ship. No need to add complexity

7) you can regroup item 2 and item 5 (tbd 6) by calling a new colony an outpost (idea come from another post), which lasts like 20 turns. Outpust has lower population growth, give less ship range (and tbd has a maintenance burden)

8) adress the "no need for escort". Pirates should be faster to have a chance to get them. (and maybe they would really focus those and avoid e.g. scout)

9) planetary invasion should be done earlier ? so that you actually want to defend and not just ICS ?

 

What do you think ? Vote for the best mitigant and have the Devs implement it ! Personnaly, I would go for all of the above (except 6 and 9 ; on 6, the more general topic, already debated is to make maintenance cost / income in general more important ; currently, beeing in positive or negative in GPT has very little impact compared to e.g. trading techs)

Abbadon

17,460 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I don't know I kind of think in the "Age of Expansion", Expansion is kind of intended to be key and it does kind of make sense that occupying more planets gives you access to a lot more resources.

But you are right in that the ideology system and it's power along with colonizing being the best way to get more points in it early game, does kind of mean nothing else matters. I also agree that you don't need a military early on unless there is a pirate base fairly near and even then you can sometimes evade.

 

So I like the suggestion of giving pirates a speed advantage early game, I don't like the idea of bringing the planetary invasion tech forward though, I just don't think it makes sense early game. I would also change the events system some, so that not every planet you colonize gives you an ideology point generating event and so that some anomalies do. I also think that some methods of planetary invasion should generate ideology points, e.g. biological weapons are probably more evil than information warfare.

 

 

 

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

All good points and the primary notion, that there is no strategic choice other than expand early, is correct.  At least not if you want to play in a way you'd play vs a human...you can always role play or whatever.

 

For improvement to the system I would change 3 things (2 of which you mentioned).

 

First and most importantly is maintenance.   This is a game wide problem where money isn't an issue and is easy to make.  I suspect maintenance values will go up but I would also tack a hefty cost to just the capitol building.  It represents the start of a colony after all and it gives you significant power.  If you want to use ICS as a reference it fits perfectly.   Most of those strats abused the free production you got just from a size 1 city and the bonusses you could stack.  The same thing applies to galciv3 where the 5 production just from a size 0.5 planet with nothing is still pretty good.  The colony center should have maintenance of 5...basically keep it resource neutral.

 

Second I would do something to the pragmatic 3 constructor ideology.  While it's not broken per se it is pretty much the definition of overpowered.  No competitive, I'd play this versus a human for a cash prize type strategy exists using any other tier 1 ideology.  It simply is better than everything else.  Either make the constructors bare bones cargo with 1 module...that way upgrade costs might be more...or just reduce it to 1 constructor.

 

Third I would do something to range as you indicate.  I'm unsure of what can be done within the game limitations but I would suggest something like planetary range is halved vs starbases.  Make you pay for more life support or starbases in order to fast expand.  Otherwise perhaps lowering range overall might work.  In general this is not going to be a strong option/effect.  Perhaps more of a gentle tweak.  Numbers 1 and 2 are by far more important.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I also think something should be done about easy colonization. I like your idea with reduced range. I really dont think ANY planet should increase the range of ships. Only shipyards and/or starbases.

Because for increased range, the ships would have to land on a planet. Landing is dangerous, takes time, damages ships and outright destroys ships which are not built for atmospheric landing (which I guess, none are in galciv3).

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Goatmeal, reply 2

First and most importantly is maintenance.   This is a game wide problem where money isn't an issue and is easy to make.  I suspect maintenance values will go up but I would also tack a hefty cost to just the capitol building.  It represents the start of a colony after all and it gives you significant power.  If you want to use ICS as a reference it fits perfectly.   Most of those strats abused the free production you got just from a size 1 city and the bonusses you could stack.  The same thing applies to galciv3 where the 5 production just from a size 0.5 planet with nothing is still pretty good.  The colony center should have maintenance of 5...basically keep it resource neutral.

End of Goatmeal's quote

 

I've tested this, and it works well to limit expansion early, without locking it out late. Research probably needs a buff to compensate for the large increase in the number of cash planets.

 

Second I would do something to the pragmatic 3 constructor ideology.  While it's not broken per se it is pretty much the definition of overpowered.  No competitive, I'd play this versus a human for a cash prize type strategy exists using any other tier 1 ideology.  It simply is better than everything else.  Either make the constructors bare bones cargo with 1 module...that way upgrade costs might be more...or just reduce it to 1 constructor.
End of quote

 

Actually, the changes in 1) make this less of a problem - gaining 3 colonies early becomes unhelpful in the extreme when they cost more than your total income.

 

Third I would do something to range as you indicate.  I'm unsure of what can be done within the game limitations but I would suggest something like planetary range is halved vs starbases.  Make you pay for more life support or starbases in order to fast expand.  Otherwise perhaps lowering range overall might work.  In general this is not going to be a strong option/effect.  Perhaps more of a gentle tweak.  Numbers 1 and 2 are by far more important.
End of quote

 

I'd give no range from a base planet (it's a chunk of rock with a tiny outpost, it generates no fuel and probably can't store much) but have a building line that unlocks bonuses. I'd do the same for planet sensors, tbh.