Testing Government and Influence

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
User avatar
LienRag
Space Dragon
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#31 Post by LienRag »

Okay, I finished this first testing game.

So, first question about this new Influence mechanism : where’s the fun in it ?
Right now, one has just to put one on three planet to Influence focus : what does it actually bring to the game ?
Where is the strategy ? Where is the challenge ? What does it change in the decision process of the player ?

It’s not even preventing snowballing, it just reduces its speed, as it reduces everything in the game.

All planets cost the same Influence : how can that bring new strategic thinking into the game ?
If the first planet cost 0,1 IP and the second 0,2 then the third 0,3, that would make some sense, but right now it doesn’t make any.

Yes, with Centralization policy the Empire shape is to be taken into account, and that forces the player to think more about what he wants to colonize and what he’ll leave aside. But that’s basically all.

All planets bring the same Influence, whatever their Population is. I guess it’s to avoid snowballing of the IP production when population-boosting techs appear, and I can understand that concern.
But still, it doesn’t seem to me to be the right way to do it. Yes, the Interspecies Design Academy brings a bonus to Influence focus if one chooses to switch from Research focus, and that’s a clever idea ; but that should’nt be the only one.
Right now it means that a player will use the lamest planets (tiny, without specials, …) for Influence focus, which leads to colonizing even these lame planets being a valid strategy, which reinforce the « colonize everywhere » we try to get rid of.

Influence-boosting specials are not very difficult to implement, but that’s a minor thing ; what we need is a real Influence topology, that will both be the basis of careful thinking by the player that builds it and create opportunities for opponents to wreak havoc to an Empire by aptly crafting their attack.
I’m thinking of having Influence-focused planets reduce IP cost by 0,1 on all connected planets of the same Specie, reducing cost by 0,2 on all planets in the same system, getting one more IP produced if there is another planet set to Influence in the next starlane hop, getting one more IP if there is a planet set on Logistics focus in the same system, getting 0,01 IP by population under the right Policy, whatever.


The Policies themselves now : yes, I know it’s a work in progress, I’m not expecting perfection on first try, but still the only thing I can comment right now is what exists in the 0.5 testing version.

First, they really need more fluff and work on their coherence : there’s a reason why they’re called « Policies » and not « random boni »…
For example, I don’t really understand how adding one fuel can be a « military policy » : game-wise, it is indeed interesting, but immersion-wise, it doesn’t work at all, at least for me. It’s possible to test with these flaws, but imho it’s something that need to be fixed before release.
Ir seems to me that there need to be some real design work on « what is a Policy », and how they fit in the game.

I do think that, at least to my preconceptions of what Policies would be (fundamental choices made by an Empire), there are too many Policy slots at endgame.
I may be wrong, but having a maximum of two Policy slots of each category seem to be the better design goal in order to make each choice count. Exceptionnaly, through clever and specific strategies, a third slot could be made available (like George the Medio’s proposal to have independant but friendly Natives offer a Policy slot ; or, if my War and Peace proposal is implemented, reaching a specific threshold of Supremacy ; maybe some specific Influence success could do the same ; maybe a Social slot could be offered for 50 turns of peace, or something similar).
Actually, Native-acquired Policy would be imho much more fun if they were specific slots (« Interspecie relation slot » for example) rather than ordinary slots….
For ordinary slots, having one by the building Military Command seems good to me ; a second one should imho be given by a more advanced technology than Military Robotic Control, and as written above getting a third slot would need very special occasions, not just researching a Tech.
That would mean more choices of Policies, of course : rather than having five Military slots a typical game would have only two, but Policies would combine bonus and malus in different ways, so there would be a good variety of gameplay.

I understand why some Policies cannot be used together, but I still think that’s a mistake.
Finding a way to concile seemingly opposed concepts is a staple of innovation in politics, and could be a fun part of the game.
I’d suggest to go more for synergies between Policies, for example having a Centralization Policy could give more bonus when used simultaneously with an Industrialization Policy, and specific Military policies could also have more effect when used with Industrialization...

The fact that Policy costs rise when the game advances (depending on the number of planets affected, if I understand correctly) is a two-sided aspect. But the fact that there is no way to predict what the cost of a Policy will be in a few turns is a real problem.
Having costs grow prevents the « everything gets cheap in endgame » issue, and that’s of course an important point.
It also makes more important the early choices about which Policy to adopt while there is still more Influence points available than need for them, which is quite good (though a bit harsh for less experienced players who will have a hard time correcting their initial mistakes).
But the constant race between IP production and rising costs is tedious imho, and prevents real flexibility with Policies : changing Policies should have consequences, not be nearly impossible.
It should be a strategic choice made with caution, not something so expensive as to be prohibitive.


I quite like the GUI, actually.
One big problem though is that the button to clear the Policies is where the « OK » or « validate » button usually is. This lead to a lot of reflex clicking on it…
The fact that there is no way to cancel the clearing of Policies is a problem also. When I cleared them by mistake I tried to replace the same Policy since effects usually apply at the end of the turn, but it still cost me Influence points as if I was changing the Policy.
Apparently it’s not possible to clear only one Policy, it’s either none or all (I think that's what Freem was pointing ?). Is that a bug or a feature ? It makes very expensive to change one Policy mid-game, when most slots are occupied…



I’ll comment each one now (with my limited experience of the game, of course) :

Centralization : Interesting idea to exchange some boni for constraints on the Empire shape, but the Research bonus at start for a Production-oriented specie, and the Production bonus for a Research-oriented specie, makes using this Policy quite a no-brainer except in very specific situations. Especially since at start there are no real alternatives, it’s Centralization or nothing.

Industrialization : Interesting idea to have Production-focused planets more stable, but isn’t the Production bonus quite huge ? It seems to me that it’s a no-brainer for a Production-oriented specie, when the Research bonus gained from Centralization is no more a must have.
I wasn’t able to see which Technologies were cheaper with this Policy, though.

Scanning Continuuously : I really like how this Policy (the only Military one that makes sense, by the way) works very differently from other mechanics of the game, and the trade-off between detection and stealth. But if your opponent is Laenfa or Sly (which was the case in my game, the first neighbour was Laenfa) it becomes a no-brainer…
And if you’re Laenfa or Sly and your opponent uses this Policy (which he will if he understands the game), then you’re toast.

Terraforming : Why not ? The worst problem with Terraforming is not really it’s duration but it’s cost, so I didn’t use it even if I terraformed a lot.

Environnmentalism : Also, why not ? I didn’t use it anyway.

Marine Recruitment : Well, that’s sort of a bit weird with the fluff – or lack thereof – that is offered for it, but game-wise it can be interesting. It’s a bit of a « meh » Policy though, which imho there should’nt be (not optimal Policies yes, Policies without real flavor no).

(more when I remember what the other Policies are !)

Magnate
Space Dragon
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#32 Post by Magnate »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:36 pm You can set colonies to influence focus to produce more IP.
Please can someone put this in the Pedia entry (Meters->Influence). I spent about four hours playing last night and couldn't work this out - it didn't occur to me that it's an available focus! I guess there will in future be techs that provide boosts to influence production (I couldn't find any), and races whose preferred focus is influence, but in the absence of any of those it would help to spell it out.

Also, are there going to be penalties for negative influence? Other meters can't go negative so it's anomalous, and it feels wrong to be conquering the galaxy with -900 influence ...

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#33 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 am this new Influence mechanism : where’s the fun in it ?
Right now, one has just to put one on three planet to Influence focus: what does it actually bring to the game ?
Where is the strategy ? Where is the challenge ? What does it change in the decision process of the player ?

It’s not even preventing snowballing, it just reduces its speed, as it reduces everything in the game.

All planets cost the same Influence : how can that bring new strategic thinking into the game ?
If the first planet cost 0,1 IP and the second 0,2 then the third 0,3, that would make some sense, but right now it doesn’t make any.
Yes.

All that has been discussed in several threads, e.g. see

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11363
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11652
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11739

Current implementation is in development and does not include all of what has been decided yet, including a colony influence upkeep that goes up with distance to capital.

Yes, with Centralization policy the Empire shape is to be taken into account, and that forces the player to think more about what he wants to colonize and what he’ll leave aside. But that’s basically all.
I disagree. Centralization policy is brutal, it needs rebalancing to make it less annoying, for it costs you more than it returns in most cases. Again, everything is under development yet.

Right now it means that a player will use the lamest planets (tiny, without specials, …) for Influence focus, which leads to colonizing even these lame planets being a valid strategy, which reinforce the « colonize everywhere » we try to get rid of.
I'm not that sure. If you can choose between a big and a small planet, you'll grab the big one even if what you need is a IP-focused planet. You can later find out another planet for influence and set this new one to production when it's population is greater.
If you have nothing but a small planet to colonize, you'll get that planet even if you are looking for another research/production planet.
If you can choose between getting a new small planet and not getting anything (reserve PP for later, or build army, or whatever), you'll get the planet when it does not mean falling behind on other areas (like defense), regardless of influence.

But I do agree that this way is probably not the best way to encourage less colonization.

George the Medio
:lol:
I don't know why I find that hilarious.
I understand why some Policies cannot be used together, but I still think that’s a mistake.
Finding a way to concile seemingly opposed concepts is a staple of innovation in politics, and could be a fun part of the game.
Except when you are talking about obvious opposites. You can't encourage growth and discourage growth and expect to get anything good from that.
Either you allow opposite policies to cancel out each other effects (and so you are wasting two policy slots for nothing) or you disallow placing certain policies together. The former would piss off certain players ("why does the game let me do that stupid thing?").
I’d suggest to go more for synergies between Policies
Seconded.
the fact that there is no way to predict what the cost of a Policy will be in a few turns is a real problem.
You're probably right.
the constant race between IP production and rising costs is tedious imho, and prevents real flexibility with Policies : changing Policies should have consequences, not be nearly impossible.
It should be a strategic choice made with caution, not something so expensive as to be prohibitive.
The strategic choice was to set (or not) some more planets to influence focus some turns ago. Impossible would be only if you mismanage your planets.

there is no way to cancel the clearing of Policies
Worth opening a feature request.

Apparently it’s not possible to clear only one Policy
You sure? I think, I'm not sure, I was able to remove Centralization when it was depleting my IP pool.
Is that a bug or a feature ?
If that's how it works, then it's bug IMO.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3028
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#34 Post by Oberlus »

Magnate wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:02 am Also, are there going to be penalties for negative influence? Other meters can't go negative so it's anomalous, and it feels wrong to be conquering the galaxy with -900 influence ...
I guess so. I think lack of influence will cause stability drops, and thus colonies stopping production.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12764
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#35 Post by Geoff the Medio »

LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 amI do think that, at least to my preconceptions of what Policies would be (fundamental choices made by an Empire), there are too many Policy slots at endgame.
The plan is for policies to replace a lot of the bonuses from having a tech researched. Two or three slots per category would be reasonable mid-game, but by end-game, four or so per category is probably more reasonable.
...like George the Medio’s proposal to have independant but friendly Natives offer a Policy slot
Sounds like an important contributor to the project.
The fact that there is no way to cancel the clearing of Policies is a problem also.
That button can be removed, or a confirmation popup added.
Apparently it’s not possible to clear only one Policy
Double click a policy in a slot. Works for me.
When I cleared them by mistake I tried to replace the same Policy since effects usually apply at the end of the turn, but it still cost me Influence points as if I was changing the Policy.
I can't immediately reproduce this. I quickstarted, produced a military command, adopted Centralization and Continuous Scanning. Cycled a few turns. Clicked clear. Double-clicked Exploration, and it cost me IP. I double-clicked to remove it, and got the IP back. I then double-clicked Centralization and Continuous Scanning and re-adopted them at no cost.
I’ll comment each one now (with my limited experience of the game, of course) :
Specific suggestions, or a pull request, to fix balance issues would be helpful.
Scanning Continuuously : I really like how this Policy (the only Military one that makes sense, by the way) works very differently from other mechanics of the game, and the trade-off between detection and stealth. But if your opponent is Laenfa or Sly (which was the case in my game, the first neighbour was Laenfa) it becomes a no-brainer…
And if you’re Laenfa or Sly and your opponent uses this Policy (which he will if he understands the game), then you’re toast.
Probably needs some balancing then, to make it more useful for other cases but not on its own defeating the stealth-focused species, especially at the start of the game.
Terraforming : Why not ? [...] I didn’t use it even if I terraformed a lot.
So... you don't see a reason to use it, or you don't see a reason to not use it? Either way, what would make it more balanced?
Environnmentalism : Also, why not ? I didn’t use it anyway.
Don't know what that means.

User avatar
LienRag
Space Dragon
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#36 Post by LienRag »

I forgot to mention two points that I’ll adress first before answering the various remarks :

- The initial +3 Influence Points bonus for the Capitol is way too low. There is absolutely no point in having to put the fourth planet on Influence focus. +5 is a minimum, +10 would probably be better.

- Enemy Capitol Independance Movement : I get the idea and I approve of anything that breaks the (boring) uniformity of Influence cost as it is now, but I disapprove its implementation.
We want, I think, to reward the capture of enemy Capitols ; so a temporary penalty to influence can be interesting, but a permanent one goes contrary to the game logic.
We can make Capitols easier to defend and as such harder to capture, we shouldn’t make them a lesser prize for their conquerors.
Having the IP production bonus come from the Library (kept after conquest) rather than from the Palace (destroyed after conquest) would be more logical (the captured central administration helps assimilating the newly conquered planets into the Empire) and a high incitation to conquer enemies.
A Resistance Movement could happen on all conquered planets as long as the Palace stands, and decay slowly after the Emperor’s head is put on a spike. An Independance Movement could happen on the conquered Capitol (with a value higher than the IP production bonus given by the Library) and decay over time – we could even have it go back to full power (so full Influence cost) each time a loyal ship enters its space. That would make more varied strategies possible and/or necessary around captured Capitols.


Oberlus wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:36 am Yes.

All that has been discussed in several threads, e.g. see

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11363
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11652
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11739

Current implementation is in development and does not include all of what has been decided yet, including a colony influence upkeep that goes up with distance to capital.

Yes, I’ve read them and was surprised to see something very different in the game. If it’s a WiP, I guess it makes more sense.
Influence upkeep that goes up with distance to Capitol is definitely one way of creating some topology in the game, it shouldn’t be the only one.



Oberlus wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:36 am I disagree. Centralization policy is brutal, it needs rebalancing to make it less annoying, for it costs you more than it returns in most cases. Again, everything is under development yet.

Maybe I didn’t express myself clearly : I didn’t mean that’s the only thing that Centralization do, I meant that Centralization (and his opposite Confederation) is the the only thing that force some thinking in the Influence management.



Oberlus wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:36 am
I understand why some Policies cannot be used together, but I still think that’s a mistake.
Finding a way to concile seemingly opposed concepts is a staple of innovation in politics, and could be a fun part of the game.
Except when you are talking about obvious opposites. You can't encourage growth and discourage growth and expect to get anything good from that.
Either you allow opposite policies to cancel out each other effects (and so you are wasting two policy slots for nothing) or you disallow placing certain policies together. The former would piss off certain players ("why does the game let me do that stupid thing?").

You are right when talking about Policies that do only one thing. That was not what Policies were supposed to be in the earlier discussions (at least as I understand them) and that is not imho what will make Policies fun and strategic to play.
Not only Policies (at least early ones) should have one negative point as well as a positive one, but imho they’re more interesting if they have more than one positive point : so instead of « I want to do this so I pick that Policy » we’ll have « I want to do this and there is that Policy that gives me a bonus in that direction : should I pick it and then try to optimize the second bonus, or should I pick instead this other Policy that gives two unrelated boni that work better together but don’t really help me on my initial objective ?».
As long as Policies do many things, combining them becomes possible and sometimes useful, even if some part of one Policy contradicts some parts of the other (and basically, Terraforming+Environmentalism exists IRL, it’s called green capitalism).



Oberlus wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:37 am
Magnate wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:02 am Also, are there going to be penalties for negative influence? Other meters can't go negative so it's anomalous, and it feels wrong to be conquering the galaxy with -900 influence ...
I guess so. I think lack of influence will cause stability drops, and thus colonies stopping production.

As I wrote elsewhere, I’m not sure that’s the right way to do it. Having mechanical consequences that will prevent ever going into deficit to be a viable strategy makes for a boring game (I mean, being able to halt Research for a while or to go full Research without much Production makes for a more varied game, even if the consequences can be dire if the opponents are able to take advantage of these choices).
I really think that Influence deficit should render an Empire more vulnerable to enemy actions (mostly, but not necessarily only, enemy Influence projects), but not have direct immediate consequences on Production or Research in absence of enemy actions, so going into IP deficit would be a high-risk but viable strategy.



Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 amI do think that, at least to my preconceptions of what Policies would be (fundamental choices made by an Empire), there are too many Policy slots at endgame.
The plan is for policies to replace a lot of the bonuses from having a tech researched. Two or three slots per category would be reasonable mid-game, but by end-game, four or so per category is probably more reasonable.

Oh, thanks for the explanation.
Can’t say that I’m happy with that, though.
Getting boni from researching techs is a staple of 4X games (yes, FreeOrion doesn’t have to do what other 4X games do, but on this precise topic I don’t see what FreeOrion would get from departing from this standard) and is more intuitive and enjoyable imho than constantly having to choose which bonus to get.
I mean, once a player was able to research a Tech, he gets a definitive bonus that no one can take from him, and which adds to any other that he can get by other means and other Techs.
There’s some irreplaceable satisfaction in that achievement, and it makes the game go through successive phases, which makes for a more varied experience imho.

Also, I still think that it’s more fun and interesting to have to choose a small number of Policies having varied boni (and to juggle with how to combine them) than to pick the exact Bonus one would need.


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
...like George the Medio’s proposal to have independant but friendly Natives offer a Policy slot
Sounds like an important contributor to the project.
He definitely has Vision, but maybe this Vision is a bit common ? :wink:



Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
Apparently it’s not possible to clear only one Policy
Double click a policy in a slot. Works for me.
D’oh ! Thanks.



Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
When I cleared them by mistake I tried to replace the same Policy since effects usually apply at the end of the turn, but it still cost me Influence points as if I was changing the Policy.
I can't immediately reproduce this. I quickstarted, produced a military command, adopted Centralization and Continuous Scanning. Cycled a few turns. Clicked clear. Double-clicked Exploration, and it cost me IP. I double-clicked to remove it, and got the IP back. I then double-clicked Centralization and Continuous Scanning and re-adopted them at no cost.

You’re right, I can’t reproduce it either, it works as you describe it.
I don’t understand what happened. Maybe I just got confused ? At minimum it would need clearer explanations so as to avoid confusing noobs.





Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 am I’ll comment each one now (with my limited experience of the game, of course) :
Specific suggestions, or a pull request, to fix balance issues would be helpful.

I do when I can, but since I don’t grasp fully how Policies are supposed to work (and globally consider that as of now they don’t really work) it’s not easy to suggest precise and relevant corrections.


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
LienRag wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:41 am Probably needs some balancing then, to make it more useful for other cases but not on its own defeating the stealth-focused species, especially at the start of the game.

The only thing I can imagine right now is to have a symetric Policy « Under the radar » that gives more stealth to the detriment of Detection, but it’s not very creative nor fun.
The fun part could come if they had different timing, creating a window where the Scanning player would have the upper hand for a few turns on the one going under the radar, before the tide turns.

Note also that this policy allows for ties in Stealth and Detection Strength : will the code know how to manage that ?



Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm So... you don't see a reason to use it, or you don't see a reason to not use it? Either way, what would make it more balanced?

I’m not sure if it’s a problem of balance, more a problem of flavor ? Like you said, I didn’t see neither a reason to use it nor to not use it. It’s the sort of « meh » policy that we should try to not have, imho – imperfect Policies yes (as an incitation to research better ones), but flavorless no.
Having it reduce the cost of terraforming would certainly make it much more useful, but I’m not sure how it would impact the balance of the game.
If it actually reduce terraforming duration enough to be able to terraform a newly settled planet before the settlers die out, then it gets one useful use case that I didn’t see when making my first comment. I didn’t test that, though.


Geoff the Medio wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:17 pm
Environnmentalism : Also, why not ? I didn’t use it anyway.
Don't know what that means.
That as I heavily Terraformed I didn’t try to use it so can’t really talk about it except from a theorical point of view. And from that theorical point of view, it’s another policy that has nothing against it but not that much for it – the fluff has some flavor, but that’s all imho.



I'll now follow with the rest of the Policies, as promised :

Allied Repair : so actually there’s a second Military Policy that makes sense… It’s interesting as it does what nothing else in the game does, and also fluff-wise it’s quite logical that the logistic necessary to repair allied ships would require a full-fledged Policy.
As I played solo, I obviously didn’t use it.
But with the high costs attached to buying a Policy, is it really worth in multi-player games ?
It’s obviously useful, but that useful ?

Balance : I like the idea, the fluff is absolutely not convincing, not sure if the boni are worth the hassle.

Checkpoints : Interesting idea, the fluff at least exists, a bit limited imho.

Colonization : It’s subjective I suppose, but to me it breaks credibility : I can’t see how a full policy would be adding a +1 fuel to a ship. It’s not uninteresting in the concept, it just doesn’t work imho. Maybe it’s because I didn’t play Laenfa nor Sly and I would probably see its point if I had ?
Maybe it would make more sense if we had a « Colonization » Policy Slot and various Policies to choose from (Stealth, Fuel, Armor, Speed, maybe even Cost) for it ?

Confederation : I get the idea, I still think that Empire shape should be cared for in more creative manners (but I don’t have much ideas about which except maybe for the Nomes I proposed some time ago).

Design Simplicity : Again, interesting idea. At least it brings some variety in ship design. I guess it makes Energy Frigates and Organic Hulls competitive again ? Not sure if the bonus is sufficient though . The fluff is not really convincing either.

Diversity : Interesting, but underdevelopped. As it is it’s flavorless, and the fluff isn’t convincing at all.

Divine Authority : One of the Policies that are the most similar to choosing a Government. Why not, but the fluff is quite cliché.

Engineering : Interesting indeed, hard to grasp the exact effects without a greater experience of the game than I have. Fluff is non-existent.
Also, in the FOCS file I see where the Influence cost of ships is but not where the Upkeep benefit takes place ?

Exobot Productivity : I’m not sure that making Exobots more efficient is a good idea, and as I wrote above find the « I have a problem, I pick a Policy » logic quite boring. Apart from that, I guess it makes sense.

Exploration : Seems too specialized a Policy to justify the cost of adopting it ?

No Growth : Weird but if it has its use case, why not ?

No Supply : Nice way to hide an Empire on the Galaxy Map…

Population : Interesting, but as I wrote above I don’t think there should be Policies that do only one thing. Also, since the Population growth is mostly a problem when it is infinitesimal (at the start of the game), making it grow by a relative number rather than a flat one doesn’t seem to be that useful.
Anyway, I looked at the FOCS code and I can’t understand where the bonus is ?

Racial Purity : I guess it’s useful for Trith or maybe for no-natives Galaxies ? The fluff makes me a bit uneasy but is coherent with the fluff for some species.

Reserve Tanks : Really another « meh » Policy. Is there a situation when it’s worth the cost of adopting a Policy ? Maybe I don’t have enough experience…
Fluff-wise, having a better fuel efficiency would be more convincing imho than having « reserve tanks » - how is that a policy ? Maybe even a growing fuel efficiency the longer that policy is in effect ?

Stockpile Liquidation : Needs work on the fluff, but I guess that it has its use.


So globally, I believe that as I wrote earlier, Policies that do only one thing are both boring in terms of gameplay and not very convincing in terms of fluff.
Many of the ones that give a direct bonus would be more interesting for the gameplay if they had other beneficial mechanisms (I don’t know, like Diversity reducing the costs of some Techs like Xenological Genetics, or giving a +1 Stability following « trade lines » in the Empire) rather than direct boni.

User avatar
drkosy
Space Squid
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:41 am

Re: Testing Government and Influence

#37 Post by drkosy »

At first I have to say that I like that influence mechanic right now. It is still work in progress I know, but right now with my first game I really don't settle every asteroid belt just because I can. As well it gets more important to choose which species you take for colonization. Maybe there could be more differences because nearly all have "good influence". Indeed there is my first attempt. Ether documentation or mechanics are wrong because good influence is listed as 150%. In planetary meters "normal" influence is showed as 4 IP and below the "good" influence bonus is listed with 1,5 IP but 150% of 4 should be 6 (4+2), not 5.5 (4+1.5).
Second thing is the lack of documentation. I searched pedia for that mechanics but did't find how to get new influence slots. I red in a post here, that you get your social slots from architectural psychology and megalith's technology, but did I get a second economics slot?
Since most policies cost more the bigger your empire is, it's best to rush research towards them early. There tech related species like scylor get them more easy witch should be addressed somehow (maybe by setting influence to bad for scylor to need longer achieve the IP for policies).
I think there is great potential in that mechanics and I'am looking forward to see how that concept evolves :D

Post Reply