My thoughts on these below. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="3891686"] Trait Benefits Status Self-Determinism --Is this you gain 3 leaders? Or you get 3 leaders show up in recruitment (text clarification) +3 new leaders
I mentioned this in other feedback areas, but I think the way to go is to return the ability to make survey ships (with the original pop cost)....but only allow flagships and commander ships to gain modules. that way, you don't have the tedium of 20 ships all getting modules, but it returns the investment in surveying if you want to go that route.
I also think Food should provide some bonus to growth. Say 10 food = +5% growth on all worlds. Right now there is just no incentive to beef up food (hell there is barely any incentive to even make food, the approval penalty for starvation is almost nothing). It would be good to have a reason to stockpile food like every other resource.
On other idea, what if shields was a "fleet wide defense" only. Aka the shield value of all ships was added together into 1 big shield, basically a "fleet HP" value? Right now, defenses are local, the only way to ensure a ship gets to benefit from a defense is either: 1) For that ship to have it 2) To use combat roles to ensure that ship is never targetted. But of course that last one only works so well. But if shields were a fleet resource, you can always ensu
One other food for thought. For a long time now we have had a system where I can pile on as many weapons and as much armor as the ship can hold. With the though of possibility removing or changing point defense, you could consider moving some weapons/armor into a more "special module" type function. Example: What if Missiles and Kinetics were your main weapons, and shields/armor your main defenses. Again you can pile them on as much as you want. Armor is best against kinetics, shields
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="27" id="3891409"] there are really only 3 things you can do about an attack: 1. Evade it (ideally) 2. Mitigate the damage you get (Armor) 3. Find a way to deflect it (shields). [/quote] I will clarify the language slightly. 1) Avoid the damage entirely (evasion) 2) Reduce the damage through a never ending source (armor) 3) Reduce the damage through a depletable source (shields). now
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="8" id="3891408"] Quoting scifi1950, reply 4 Well, you sure made picking traits a tougher decision by upping the base cost and then upping the cost or remaining picks dramatically with each new pick. I think it would help if you added culture points to the info at the top of the main screen
Here are some notes on the cultural traits, both balance but a lot of it is text changes and clarifications. Overall In general the trees are more compact and I think "meatier". It was a bit too scattered before, overall the core of each tree feels a lot more solid. Punctuation, some periods (.) wouldn't hurt, there are a lot of run-off sentences right now. You use a lot of new terms in your traits that don't match other terms
Recently I wrote about Supernova's new features: Supernova New Features - A Detailed Look » Forum Post by Stalker0 (galciv4.com) And a long while ago I wrote an indepth look into GC IV basic: GC IV - A very indepth look » Forum Post by Stalker0 (galciv4.com) I note these as they can be useful reference points for further thoughts
Honestly I don't like this idea at all. I actually think your current method is pretty solid, though obviously needs polish and balancing. But the biggest advantage to this system is..... it finally divorces culture from expansion. Expansion already has tons of benefits, and its hard to play tall. Culture at least gave some parity between the two styles. If you make it all based on influence, well then the expansion players gain the benefit again, and it means the scaling of culture b
So if I look at what's happened with GC IV to date.....there is to this day polishing and balancing that I wish was done but was never gotten to. So clearly development resources remain tight. To that end, I would much rather have effort spent on the core game than on a campaign.
So I wanted to take some time and dig in on the new changes and features in supernova, to give my thoughts on how well they are working. I am going to focus on how well I think the fundamental mechanic "works", rather than the actual balance (which I will cover in other discussion threads). In other words, I don't care how powerful the mechanic is per say, its more about is it providing the experience that the devs are looking for. Note: This is based on Version 1.51 of the Insider's
I also think its time to take a serious look at Taxes. Is this feature even needed anymore? Lets consider: Most tax values never get used, high and max taxes are very penalizing on approval, and approval is way too important to your core yields. This functionality can mostly be replaced with polices. Now if I want to "go high or low taxes" I can just select policies to do that kind of work. It makes the math of money more complicated than it n
[quote who="V3N0M2583" reply="1" id="3888511"] I frequently forget to even check my culture points [/quote] Yeah this has been my number 1 problem with them. I like the core system a lot, its a vast improvement over the previous one. But I do something save up my culture points and then later forget about them.
If we are talking diplomacy, one thing that I have always hated. I hate that your diplomacy strength actually impacts the main deal. That might seem crazy so let me clarify. To me, good negotiators know the real value of a deal, which is based on their needs and wants. They don't let their emotions influence things too much. So if Deal X is good right now, it should still be a good deal if you love me, or still a good deal if you hate me. Deal-making should be influenced by ho
Yeah I think if nothing else, when you attack a fleet, anything underneath it should "join" the combat (up to the logistics limit). Its a bit silly right now.
I would love a new look at Trade, its the same old system we have had for a while, spam a bunch of ships, send them out, wait forever till they get there, forget you already sent one to that planet so find another ones, etc etc. It would be cool to perhaps integrate your module and starbase systems. Maybe having a trade starbase where every module created a trade route overtime (maybe I could pick the race/races I want to trade with), and your module limit was based on trade route lic
Range v2 Now here is the way I actually would like range to go. All weapons have the exact same range in tactical combat, no difference. However, we add in the following option. Missile: Artillery Barrage (4) - Fire 4 attacks of missiles when you use a barrage attack. Laser: Artillery Barrage (2) - Fire 2 attacks of laser when you use a barrage attack. Kinetics (no barrage). So again the idea is to make missiles the premier strategic bo
Ok lets talk range for a moment, and more importantly, tactical speed. I've already made the case that I think range should probably be dropped, but if we are determined to keep it in, than its best to make it as clear and useful a tool as possible. First, we drop the notion of distances, that doesn't mean a thing to a player. Instead, we change everything in the game to combat rounds. Distance and Cooldowns -> Combat Round A Range of 1 mean
Now as far as communication goes, the simplest way to communicate all of this to the player is..... DPS numbers. Ideally what I would be able to have is a combat estimator, where I could take a fleet, highlight another fleet, and bring up something that says "Effective DPS Dealt: X, Effective DPS Taken: Y". The DPS is my fleet weapons factoring in number accuracy, cooldown, compared to the enemy's evasion, defenses, etc etc. In effect the system would do a little "pre-battle simulatio
We will use our previous example, and now try armor. Again this is how I understand the mechanic: First the weapon rolls a d100. The missile must roll 50 or lower, the kinetic must roll 75 or lower. Otherwise its a miss. Assuming its a hit, the point defense rolls between 0 and 20. If its number is higher than the attack roll, the attack is a miss. (for this example, we won't include point defense). Assuming its still a hit, you roll armor from 0 to its max
Ok so lets dig in. The first problem: As long as combats are long, the variances of different weapons give way to average. In other words, the longer your combats, the more all those variance weapon stats simply become a DPR standin. Take range, if combat was usually resolved in a few rounds, ok firing first could be a massive advantage. But past the early battles, that rarely happens, and so range is almost an afterthought, its a tiny bonus at the beg
First, thank you for pulling back the curtain on some of these mechanics. Now we can actually have a debate! [quote quoting="post"]But as you can see here, a mass of Dreadnoughts won’t do so well against a giant fleet of bombers. [/quote] Why? So its clear that dreadnoughts will take more damage per attack on average because they will be hit more often, but there is nothing that suggets that bombers get any special bonuses here (do they get some accuracy bonus against dr
Ok so now having given some critiques, lets look at some solutions. I think one of the ways you can do this is to further differentiate missiles. Lets go even more different! An example: Lets say missiles have the same range, cooldown, mass, and accuracy as lasers (again these levers sound cool....but they are just all flavors of the same thing.... DPR). Now we make missiles have much lower damage, maybe 1/4 the damage. Missiles have 1/4 the DPR of a laser lets say. We then ma
[quote who="Zabik_2" reply="2" id="3888089"] Hey, thanks for this feedback! As far as I know, the new combat system has not been rolled out in it's entirity. So the issue of communication how it exactly works, is also due to it being in an unfinished state. But this also means, that we can incorporate players' feedback and requests with ease [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] So here is the task at hand: "From the main screen, I should be able to clic
