1. Constructors should have a visible radius about them showing the area a starbase built in their current location would effect. (Mentioned above, good idea.)
2. Multiple scanners are too powerful. A transport hull loaded up with scanners (and a few engines and life support) is a disturbingly effective scout right off the bat, much better than the default scout, and not much more expensive. I suggest the following:
Scanner Range = ShipSizeFactor * ( Longest range scanner + sqrt(sum(all other scanner component's scanner ranges)) )
ShipSizeFactor sould give a bonus for smaller ships, and a definate penalty for nonmilitary hulls. This will help compensate for the inability to use lots of scanners as efficiently for longer scanner ranges.
This will also tend to encourage scouts that look like scouts, rather than transports full of scanners. (Later on, battleships full of scanners might be a possible, if expensive, alternative.)
This is similar to the armor equation, and should be easy to implement. Not sure of balance concerns.
(3. moved to the bottom, since it is getting long.)
4. When I click on the money button, it should automatically try to adjust the amount to the best deal (for me) that the AI will accept. I can do this manually, but why should I have to. Painful MM. Ditto influence button.
3. Tech sharing is too easy and too much of a requirement. You have to do it to stay competitive, and it becomes painful MM in a game with many AIs. I the motion of a "no tech sharing" checkbox.
I also reccomend some combination of the following, but they are probably not "1 Hour" solutions. Please dump them in the longer term suggestion box:
3a. Tech trading costs both parties (say) 10% of the flask value of the tech in credits - this represents the effort required to transfer the knowledge. Will require AI tweaks.
3b. Tech trading just gives the recieving party "blueprints." They still need to research the tech at (say) 25% of the base cost.
3c. Tech requires infrastructure to support it. (You need educate people about gravity even after you have discovered it, for example.) You lose some flasks (or credits) to "education" for every tech you own. 0.1% to 1% of the base value of the tech might be a good range. This penalty would accumulate in the later game, but could be compensated for by lowering the costs of later techs. This would reward players for specializing to some extent, which is good IMHO.
3.c.i Also to reward specialization - at least in terms of the weapon armor paths - allow for a building, tech, or SB improvement that makes specializing even more attractive. Right now adapting to what your enemies are using is pretty easy, at least early on.
3.d. Tech trading should be easier with people who are allies, trading partners, or significantly influenced by your culture. It should be harder with people who don't like you or lack borders with your civilization.
3.d.i There should be tech sharing treaties, where you automatically give an ally all techs you research, or all nonmilitary techs (assuming they want them, given the restraints of sharing above), possibly with an agreed apon payment (0-100% of the "market value" they would have paid for it in negotiations).
Hope this isn't oo long and boring,
martinl
