labgnome wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:07 pm
planets with low enough stability will be lost, probably following something like what was brought up in the topic here
. Basically the worst-case scenario would be that you would loose your planets with that species. Working this out in detail is certainly something we should do.
If going IEU gonna piss off your hierarchical species (that are 30% of your empire) by -10 Stability, meaning you'll get -25% production on such planets (and -25% resistance to foreign influence, etc.), which in turn means 1.2*0.7+0.95*0.3=1.125 overall production, you can do it. And if you can't, maybe what is good for you is concentration camps for those horizontal jerks.
This makes me think, do we considerer relatively "complex" mathematical problems to find optimal strategies as funny games or boring ones? I myself like them.
Boosting the population at the capitol is certainly more interesting. I'd primarily go for technologies though.
Technologies to boost only the habitability of a single planet (or system) seems weird.
In any case, to get to build the Arcology or Dyson whatever, or to apply any policy, you first need to research certain tech. I mean, techs are for granted.
If what you suggest is to provide permanent boots like the ones we are talking about tall vs wide empires just from researching a tech, then the answer is no. We want to add situational choices, to enrich strategies. Bonus from techs alone can't be switched, just stacked with the rest. In the example about big capitals (vs wide empires), if you impose requirements with drawbacks and give the player the ability to remove (and reapply later) the effects of a tech, via buildings and policies, you let the player decide if he wants to go wide or tall. If getting the extra big capital only takes some research, the only question is when to research it (sooner or later you'll want that permanent bonus, when there is no other more important to take first), but not whether you want to research it or apply it at certain moments.
So I would go only for buildings and policies when it's about stuff to diversify strategies.
Actually, many of the current permanent boosts in the tech tree are expected to be moved to policies.
"Central Planning Complex", "Capitol University Dormitories" and "Galactic Broadcasting Studios"
Economic Central Planning, Capitol Research University and Galactic Broadcasting Corporation
Side note: some of the items might not be clear to everyone. I'd ask you to add brief fluff explanations (or notes helpful to grasp the concept and inspire someone else to write a nice fluff description).
Side note 2: GBC looks like an interesting thing to relate influencing foreign planets or resistance (or vulnerability) to espionage.
If we were going to do a multi-stepped Dyson structure, I'd do the policy at the beginning, and have the building boost for all planets in they system.
Yes. They would be the ultimate population boost structures (and maybe defence boosts), require quite a bit of upkeep and certain policies in place that also impose some restrictions on the colony systems that are supporting the gargantuan Dyson structure.