Capitals Per System?

System based capitols got taken out.

Right, now how the heck do I get em back in

dunno...

System capitals would actually be a very good idea, sad it got taken out.

I hope they rework the loyalty system.

Agree. The current loyalty system is horrible for large games. Anything further away then 5 or 6 jumps is nearly useless and not worth colonizing/expanding since you'll get nearly nothing from it anyway.

And with multiple solar systems or large solar systems you get this kind of situation quite often (even if I move my capital planet to the best possible location).

The loss percentages per jump need to be decreased...

agreed, and I'd like an increase due to # of ships in system, a garrison bonus if you will.

Agreed this is a big issue towards the end game. You eng up having to wipe a enemy out of the star system and then split your fleet to hold or a large section of the planets and then just hold and wait until the influence falls away.

It should be that when I destroy the main planet and hold the controlling planets that my influence in the area should be gained faster. Maybe having a ship with some kind od proproganda bonus would help. That way I can block the influence in the area and take the planet for my own.

IIRC, the devs have admitted that the system needs tweaking, they're just working on how they're going to tweak it.

Keep posting the same request until either they add it in or you get banned.

Seriously though, I like the idea as well.

Because of how it works now, it's doubtful I'll play another multi-system game until there are improvements. It's hard enough the way it is to manage multiple systems, but the culture system in it's current state sucks out the fun.

... and waiting for fleets to clear the star's gravity well and travel time is as much fun as watching turtle racing or golf on TV.

I think its fitting , as the gravity well is quite large... Imagine the battles, the BATTLES!

Which is part of the reason I just love fighters, and carriers, so much. Hehe.

I know. I wouldn't change it either.

I think the devs said multiple capitals were unbalancing. Personally, I favor the solution of system-level sub-capitals along with a single galaxy-level capital.

Don't get me wrong but doesn't this seem like an anti-steam-rolling tool?

I really like this the way you have described. It gives other players a chance to reorganize after loosing a planet to you (and vice versa!).

In most strategy games this is the biggest problem; as soon as one amasses one huge fleet (army) he can't be stopped if others put their money into research etc. more than just building ships. It seems to effectively prevent the rushing as well.

So what exactly is the problem with this need to stop and breathe?

How about, it makes games taking forever?

How about, it doesn't really stop me from expanding and exterminating the enemy, it just makes it impossible to colonize those planets. I can still kill him.



This is what is called bad strategy and planning on the losing players part, if he doesn't invest in defense, he'll get killed. No need to change that.



No, it doesn't do that. I'm able to overrun you before you're able to build up enough culture (this is rushing after all, ie. attacking with the cheapest ships as soon as possible). The culture deadlock happens mid to late game, not early.

I see your point.

What could be done to prevent the steamrolling effect and deal with the extreme culture...

Perhaps the fleet upkeep should go WAY up with the distance from the closest planet with a certain structure built? This way preventing the fleets to go on indefinitely and destroy all in their path. Also simulating the supply line I guess. The colonising could not even be restricted by culture (culture could have an effect on pirates or income of the plante though) since even with the colonisation the fleet could go no further than before untill a "certain supply structure" - I guess one or the other type is already suitable for this - is built.

Just an idea.

(moved to beta feedback since everyone's discussing captials/loyalty rather than modding them)

Actually, I kinda like this idea. Let's make it so, that when (for example) fleet support lvl2 (the existing planet upgrade, I'm not sure about its name right now) is build on a planet it decreases ship upkeep from this planet on.

I.e. if your fleet is one jump away from a planet with lvl2 fleet, you pay like 1 credit per click per ship, two jumps it costs 2 credits, 3 jumps 3 credits/(click*ship).

This would simulate fleet support over long distances. And lvl2 fleet support would be necessary for the infrastructure to support a fleet.

So, if you have a large fleet entering deep into enemy territory, this could bankrupt you quite fast if you don't have the credits to pay for it, subsequently slowing you down. This would force you to colonize planets on the way and building them up a bit, before you could advance further.

But if you would be very rich and have a large account, you could still attack deep into enemy territory, you would just have to pay for it, giving you a bit of a disadvantage against the defending player.

How about that idea?

I like it. Supply lines, maybe. More realistically it would be the limitation on command and control distances. Rationalization being: Dang it costs a lot of money (antimatter) to boost our communications signals all the way to that system or star. Then make the intersteller broadcast upgrade/research drop the costs.

Great that i got some stuff going   one thing that becomes an issue is that realistically a large empire would have supply depots, planets ect. Rather than allowing ships to roam free create a zone that borders off how far u are allowed to go until u can logistically resupply. I don't like the idea of charging money for phase jumps because when u have a large fleet jumping to wipe out ur enemy if u get bombed into nothing then u now have no money to rebuild ur fleet!  then ur screwed.

I agree with that reasoning, this supply/logistics range limit sounds very similar to the logistics mechanic in Gal Civ II. Which was good, but kinda annoying late in the game. I like the idea of effective limits imposed by scaling costs, rather than hard barriers to distance traveled such as in Gal Civ II.

But hard barriers are unrealistic. In reality you can go on and on with your army if you have the means to pay for it and the logistic to support it (and it is not destroyed). But the further you go, the more it costs. EDIT: And don't worry about the money for rebuilding a lost fleet; once it is destroyed you don't pay for it's upkeep anymore. No upkeep -> more money -> new fleet.

This is the same as with the capital ships debate. Making a hard limit (ok, you can build... three capital ships per planet or whatever) will limit them but it will have a bitter taste really. WHY can't I build them? Game mechanics should prevent you from building it with cost and upkeep. You want huge capital-ships-fleet? Fine, but your economy should collapse pretty quick because the upkeep of those ships is (should be) huge. What happens is quite evident in Russia today. Their warships are rusting in all of their military ports. They are unusable. Perhaps the game could simulate this with ships decay as well.

Yes the Gal Civ II was a great game at this, and while the hard barrier did get annoying(that one little corner of the map was unexplorable!!!) it would be interesting to try it out.

i do agree with Space about going where u want, a tecnology (aka transporters ect) could become a tech tree addition that would allow extra travel beyond a point, in large galaxy though u wouldn't be able (unless u were evil) to just send an undersupplied ship into the unknown without a hibernation stais ect tech.

let ships travel where they may... give us back regional capitals that have a modest effect. (they give a boost in relation to their distance from the capital) lets say they have the effect of redusing the effect of jump distance by 2 or 3 jumps.