A few more reflections on victory conditions seen elsewhere. A victory points condition. Seen in many board games but there are also video game examples. Settlers 7 is one example. Humankind another. Northgard's fame conditions is also similar. Their beauty is their flexibility. You can achieve dominance in more than one category and can shift your focus depending on how the game goes. The downside is theme. It can feel really artificial for one player to win because they achieved eno
Shadowhal
If you are interested in victory conditions, here is an article with some interesting reflections: https://explorminate.co/seals-victory-in-age-of-wonders-3-mechanical-wonder/ A few of my own reflections on victory conditions, though they may apply more to full-on 4X games: 1. I'd want them to kick in/be achieveable reasonably soon after it's clear who has won. Some way of forcing the re
One problem that I sometimes had in Sins 1 was to quickly determine my opponent's fleets' strengths and weaknesses. It would take me a few moment to interpret how many of each ship type they had and what that meant for what I should counter them with, or whether I had the right fleet to counter them at the moment. I thought that a more visual display of the information would make those decisions easier. I mocked up an example of what I meant below. This chart should clearly and quickl
Thanks for the reflections. I definitely see the planet snipe brodar2012 described as tempting strategy - and a very frustrating one for defenders. Might be mitigated by maluses to using far jumps in combination with garrisons. But I also see how it would be difficult to balance between making it useful (and not just outright dumb in every occasion) and not overpowe
I think the occupation victory was a good idea in Sins 1 but also that it could be more balanced if it wasn't just one victory planet but a handful, scattered around the centre of the map. The blue print I have in mind here is Age of Wonders III's seals victory which had a few elements to make it exciting: As mentioned, it was typically a few map markers of interest (seals) that would generate victory points rather than just one. This would give all/most players a stake rather
As an optional extension of the idea, one could link phase jump range to anti-matter. That should introduce a risk-reward dynamic in that the farther you jump, the more depleted your reserves (and therefore combat ability) would be. And you may not have the means to return home. Such a change would require additional changes to other game play systems (not all ships have anti-matter. How to tell ships to leave enough anti-matter to retreat from a battle? what about anti-matter draining weapon
A controversial (and maybe silly) idea: now that we have rotating planets, could it make sense to have the strategic choke points determined by proximity rather than the (slightly arbitrary) phase lanes? What I mean is that each ship has a jump range around 1.5 - 2x the standard difference between planets in Sins thus far. And that ship can jump to any planet within that range. But not farther than that and it also bypass a planet if it
I remembered that I might still have dormant Stardock account so re-posting here, and with a few t
I have some more, this time based on current version of LH: 6. Could we get a direct button to the trait selection menu similar to the description, equipment or trade window? So far I found no other way than to take the detour via the general character overview. Not that it is needed so often, but it would be nice in case I sit down and want to plan my champion / sovereign. 7. Could we get some theoretical indicator of negative unrest? I want to know whether I create sufficien
If I may add one: Many of my stock Resoln unit designs have the "chain mail proficiency" or "plate mail proficiency" traits, e.g. axemen, swordsmen etc. Given that this faction can neiher research nor use this type of armour, it is a waste of resources. Are these generic designs for all factions? I thought they were specific per faction. And if so, I see no reason to keep it. Maybe just get rid of those traits altogether for them.
I have found a ( so far reproducable) bug. My neighbor nation has a city of which I can see only part - not the "actual" city square. I can still select this city and see the options. However, if I try to click "details" then the game crashes. Please take a look. I will in the meantime look for a way to attach my savegame. [edit: still no attachment option. should I just send it via email to you guys?]
Hm, looks like some nice changes. The new hero recruitment system certainly goes into a less random, more decision driven system. Does the leveling system mean you can pick any of those traits, save for the usual tree prequisites and maybe some specialisation unlocker? That would move it more towards e.g. diablo II which I would enjoy quite a lot. It also appears that there will be a lot more traits, in particular for improving quite specific aspects (extra healing, extra dama
I have some thoughts on diplomacy. 1.A concentrated overview of what relations other factions have between them would be rather nice. Civ IV was pretty good with this, on the one side with the line graph showing either neutral, open passage, vassalage, defense treaty, alliance or war relations. On the other side with the big "at one glance" table. Do I need to post screens what I mean or is it clear? You could also see the factors impacting their relations. Unless a closer vie
Like previously stated, here a collection of ideas on the interface. Please don't be mad should an idea be repetitive to other peoples' posts: 1. A break down of the factors for "food per grain" and "production per material" would be useful. E.g.: 20 Food per grain base + 15 due to bakery (local) + 20 due to butchery (city A) +5 due to grocery (city B ) ... (or the correct values of the improvements, should I have made an error). <p
Hey there developers, I just wanted to drop a post to say that I got FE a few weeks ago, have been playing it since then and .... I love it! It builds on one of my first strategy games I ever played (LoM), takes elements from several other games and improves on them. Quite a lot to love and yet more potential. Now, with the pleasantries out of the way, I would like to create some posts with ideas what could be improved and I think I have a bug report or two (may be out of date
now I am also not sure any more. long time ago ...
I am not too good with balance things, but here some notes on that from me too: I have the impression that the trade port structures are in the very most cases the better choice of a logistic structure. even if resources are needed, it can make sense to build a trade port and then buy resources on the black market. maybe something could be done there to promote choice. after all, refineries are a more expensive structure and in some cases higher in the tech tree. oh, and do sth about
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="6" id="2905293"]Yes, limited resources existed for the majority of the beta, it was re-done for the last beta phase. It worked fine while resources were coming in, but after they ran out the only means to get them was refineries and buying on the market. This slowed the economy to a crawl and made it very difficult to do anything. And it would be very difficult to try to balance trade posts/refineries around this to not be overpowering while resources exist, and
I had some more ideas for improvement: 1: I suggest that in the short display window of fleet strength, the ship types are sorted by how many ships the faction has. or how many fleet points it consumes. this way, it is quite easy to quickly tell what an enemy fleet is composed of mainly. and whether you are equipped to deal with it. I attached a screenshot to show what I mean: <img src="http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee259/Shadowhal/ScreenShot_16.jpg?t=1299352987"
yeah, a new game of that kind would be really sweet. too bad they don't make them any more. not good quality anyway. I also enjoyed freespace series a lot, though it was slightly different.
without now reading all comments: wow! this sounds very interesting. and it is a big surprise for me, I did not see it coming at all. some content questions: will factions be dynamic? that is, do you have to fear parts of your empire breaking off? or is it more factions to pick from, e.g. like the factions in red alert 2 or to a degree in C&C generals? if titan ships are so powerful, will you make changes to starbases? so far, they were able to hold off dec
Attention: monster post. But I think it is worth reading. Obviously, due to the difference to the current system, this would only make sense for a potential sequel. but since some sins 2 ideas are mentioned in the consolidated OP, I thought it would be a good place to post them. For Sins 2 I propose the following fundamentally changed economic model
sry, I post now and read all comments later, so my suggestion may have been mentioned already judging from the topic title, but: what about richer and larger cities have a higher chance of breaking away ie seceding? sounds maybe illogical at first, but historically, it was often the case that those regions that want to seced are wealthier, resource rich ones who think they are better off alone than supporting a generally poorer central state. these tensions could be countered
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="5" id="2531040"]The line is accurate, but confusing. The number of points is the same across the board, 75 * number of players, but lower-difficulty AIs have slower rates of accumulation. Unfair and up don't get a cheat, so they stay at 1x multipiler. It's the lower AIs that go slow. As for negative points, it's just a display issue. All the math works with the negatives as you describe, so if you have -3 from missions and -1 from military and -1 from
many thanks. nice treat. keep being awesome guys.