Before I start pointing out what I perceive as problems in the game balance, I want to start by saying that I have the utmost respect for Ghazkull for making a game this cohesive and complicated with as few flaws as it has. I could never have done the same, so I don't want to give the impression that I believe myself to be somehow better at this than he is, because I'm not. I'm simply pointing to where I see problems and proposing solutions to those problems, which Ghaz can do whatever he wants with. I don't want to put undue pressure on him to take what I propose. What I say is my opinion only, and is limited to the problems at hand: I am not trying to cast judgement on the creator of this game or any of its players, and I apologize now if I come across that way. If anyone wants any clarification on things I say, feel free to chime in.
Also, I would like to note that these are all based on my understanding of the rules. If I am wrong, I apologize.
Now, starting from the top of my list of perceived problems:
Problem: Piracy in this game is both incredibly broken and enormously unrealistic compared to historical events. To start with, if you invest six more influence than your opponent has to spare, your pirating fleet remains somehow invisible for the duration of the raid despite any number of powerful escorts with scanners being on site. It doesn't matter how many ships are guarding the trade route: the pirates somehow steal the goods and burn the ships right under their noses, without the escorts noticing. This is completely broken and silly, since, to use an example, Uboats in WW2 were not able to destroy entire guarded convoys without engaging the escorts, even if they were unnoticed initially due to Britain not cracking the German code (a real-life example of an influence check). However, they were able to slip in, destroy a few ships, and get out, as well as picking off stragglers that were near the edges.
Solution: To fix both the realism and brokenness of piracy, I would propose the following changes:
1. Influence is used to hide the pirate fleet on the way there only. If you lose the influence check fails, the defender does not know your identity or the composition of the fleet, but is informed of your raid before it happens and is allowed to move any warships in a sector crossed by the trade route to defend the trade route before the attack happens. Then, a battle would ensue between the guards and the pirates, using normal space battle rules. All influence checks for piracy would need to be rolled at the same time in order to give the player all notifications necessary at the same time. Should the pirating fleet lose, the identity of the attacker will become known.
2. If you succeed on your influence check, then not only are your fleets not noticed as they approach the trade route, but you the option not to fight the guards. If you choose not to fight them, you can destroy and take the goods from a number of trade ships equal to the number of ships you deployed to attack the trade route. However, a number of trade ships equal to the number of escort ships are automatically protected from your raid. You can also choose to directly engage the defending fleet, with the advantages that they didn't get to redeploy guards and, should you have to retreat, there is only a (insert percentage here) chance that they will discover the identity of the attacker.
Example: Ardas sends 10 level one ships to raid a trade route with 20 trade fleets moving on it. The trade fleets are guarded by one level four ship and nine level one ships. Ardas succeeds on his influence check, and chooses not to engage the guards, since they are more powerful than his own fleets. Ardas destroys 10 trade fleets and steals the goods from them. If, however, the defender had one level four and 10 level one ships, Ardas could only destroy nine ships, since 11 were protected from his ability to destroy them.
Influence in general is incredibly broken in this game. The actions you can take with it are tremendously powerful and can nullify anything you can do with any other resource. You can sabotage fleets, assassinate leaders, destroy resources, steal tech, and other things. While I love all of these concepts, the fact that they can be done by anyone with six more influence than their target without fear of reprisal is ridiculous. The system is fairly broken right now, and needs some changes to make it less overpowering.
Proposed solution: Every espionage action performed with the minimal amount of influence against a target with no influence in counter-espionage has a 50% chance of being successful. This chance can be increased by putting additional influence into the action: if you put 2 additional influence into the action, the action has a 52% chance of success. Every two points put into counterintelligence reduces your chance of success by one: if your opponent put four points of influence into counterintelligence and you put no extra into the action, you would be at a 48% chance of success. This would allow people with a low amount of influence to still have a chance of both success in actions and success in blocking actions, while simultaneously still giving a benefit to players with a lot of influence.
For the sabotaging fleet action, all ships in the same place performing the same action (for instance, ships guarding a trade route) use the same roll to determine success. For instance, if there were two level three ships guarding a trade route and you wanted to sabotage them, you would spend six influence for the fleet and any additional influence you wanted to put into it. Then, when the espionage turn was being run, there would be one roll to determine the outcome of sabotage on the entire fleet.
Some actions, such as planetary revolutions, should have either decreased chances of success or increased costs to perform, as 10 per planet is ridiculously low. Perhaps 10 per planet per two points of population, maybe?
I have another one, but it's going to have to wait until I talk to someone further about it. In the meantime, there they are.