Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Great Order]

It's like signing up to be a stripper only to find out that the strip club isn't a strip club, it's a sex dungeon and the people in charge have questionable ideas about safe words.

[pisskop]

So that movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBsDWgQqBfA


but I supposed it rough they damand your habitable systems and charge more for expansion.  It's supposed to be both a good and bad start, that offers story, challenge, and flavor.

I suppose if they implode you should be able to gobble them up?

[Great Order]

Nope, they'll still have their huge fleets. They start off as what I'd describe as an advanced start's advanced start. If you find one, it's actually a good idea to be all buddy with them and form a research agreement early on and get boosts for your fist 20+ techs.

[LoSboccacc]

overlord mechanics are kinda rubbish on corner cases. i.e. a ideology war doesn't flip conquered subject sectors, so I spent the fleet fighting a 5 year war on a large subject, conquering most its worlds, only for three systems of its overlord to flip

game could have explained better (I joined the war from a federation proposal if that matters)

[MrRoboto75]

My game when the vassal system came out was a doomsday start that ended up with me subjugated by a machine intelligence early on.  It wasn't that bad.  I remember negotiating a new vassal deal basically whenever it was on cooldown; I think the overlord can't make a deal on the same cooldown.  The overlord being a hivemind might have given me an edge on loyalty when it came to negotiating a deal though, I could dump my surplus resources to them but keep alloys and research, plus eventually the right to expand freely.

Taking the ascension perk to raid planets was also helpful.  No matter how dumb the war my overlord dragged me into I could still pull a profit from stolen pops even if I couldn't get actual territory from the war.

[Lidku]

Do you guys think ground combat will ever be reworked?

[Great Order]

Probably not, there's only been a handful of changes (Removing attachments, adding a combat width modifier) and I can't see that changing. The rule's always going to be "Bomb the enemy planet to shit and then dump 50000 armies on it"

[MrRoboto75]

I dunno how you *would* make ground invasions more interesting.

[IronyOwl]

Replace it with periodic stacking rolls like excavations or Imperator sieges

[Telgin]

The game designer has said recently that he had no plans to rework it, so... no, probably not.  I think he said if he were to change it he'd just find a way to get rid of it, and while I don't like the idea of ditching mechanics I can't say I really fault him for it since it's just a chore.  I find myself not even building armies in a lot of games.

One thing I saw someone suggest on their forums was to add repeatable techs or some other empire-specific modifiers to increase combat width, and I think I could get behind that.  At least it would make the 6K armies less of a Warhammer 40K story of endless war.

[LoSboccacc]

I dunno how you *would* make ground invasions more interesting.

Just plain copy of distant world universe

[Loud Whispers]

I dunno how you *would* make ground invasions more interesting.

Instead of just being a series of timers you have to overcome, just add more meaningful choice into the whole mix. So planet defenders get access to things like defences they can place on the planet that can shoot at bombarding ships, launch missiles or fighter craft, where you place your defending armies is more important than how many you have, and the attacker can then have more organic choices to strike (e.g. this industrial district is too well defended, so let me make my planetfall on this farming district and move out from there)

[pisskop]

My Micromanagement fetish approves

[Robsoie]

Some kind of Imperium Galactica 2 rts-styled planetary invasion/defense would be great.

[Rolan7]

Rather than add complexity to the invasions, I'd focus on the soldier job.  I like the army-limit-by-species-pop mechanic but it doesn't go far enough.

I've had a lot of false-starts thinking about this but I think armies ought to use the same "naval" capacity produced by soldier jobs.  Conquering a lategame stronghold planet should cost more than the couple dozen energy upkeep on a massed army (and the one-time investment of a few thousand minerals).  It should be a trade off of army investment vs orbital devastation- most of which is already implemented, if poorly balanced!

As a sidenote, I never build barracks/strongholds.  I get all my naval capacity from anchorages.  I think the existence of anchorages should be entirely scrapped.  I'm not saying they're overpowered, mostly that I don't understand the fluff of a civilization with NO soldier class but a galaxy-dominating navy, oh and also as much ground army as I care to make.

Going too far:  I'd like a "mobilization" policy which sets the number of soldier jobs per barracks.  These soldier pops would be specialists, partially because I think it's accurate... but also so that demobilization leaves a bunch of specialists ready for tech jobs *or unemployment/relocation*.  There are multiple mechanics for handling such pops, I think that's an interesting and fluffy thing to deal with post-war.  If you even demobilize - militarist empires should get unity from them regardless.

I also think it'd be cool if having excess naval capacity/soldiers could aid in boarding enemy ships to neutralize/capture, potentially as a counter to artillery battleship spam, but I haven't nailed that down and I guess the devs are already rebalancing that with the new ship categories.