Ray I don't know if I agree with you.I build them to use culture so I can move them around.I think I actully blasted one planet in all the games I have submitted.Now if Brad decides to remove the lazer and have 2 types then I would agree with you.One evil and one good terror star version.The good star needs a better speed varible though.On gigantic maps it would take one year to move across one sector or 28 years to move across galaxy.Kinda tortoise and hare thing.

With a speed of one, culture terror stars are probably only useful on very small maps. It's much more efficient and cheaper just to build cultural SBs.


~SDC~

Brad, I have questions about the ability to measure influence on the galactic map. Currently, the player can check influence in any sector at any time. This allows for knowing exactly where your rivals are to start a game, and which directions they are expanding as the game progresses, even in distant parts of the map. This information is strategically significant.

As the chief architect of this game, what are your intentions regarding influence readings? Do you intend for players to use this game feature in this way? I could imagine a rationale for it. (Civilians travelling through space reporting back, rumors, a few stargates still active, etc). Or is this effect unintended and undesired?

I'm new on the scene and haven't had this game a whole month yet, but I have played thirteen Maso games and won nine of them. My strategies are not affected by the issues you have fixed for 1.11. I have yet to play with high diplomacy picks, for example, and never tried the 1 IP trick. I've yet to build more than three starbases in a single sector, and some games I've only had a handful of bases at all. I've used only small amounts of destabilization, if any. I've not used a terror star yet, and I am not fond of the "alpha strike" maneuver, because that represents an area of the game where the AI is woefully inept.

What I have done is to choose my allies wisely. Find out who is near me, who has the most/best planets, who is likely to rise to be the big dog, and cozy up to those whose coattails I can ride. If I can make one or two key friends, I am in the game. And the influence readings on the galactic map have a HUGE impact on this strategy. I won most of my Maso games before I decided to use the influence readings, but those are like crack cocaine: one hit and you're hooked, like it or not. Knowing where the rivals are from the outset is like exploring the map and restarting once you've found everybody.

That's why I'm interested in your intentions for this game element. If you see it as an appropriate tool to use, sensible to the game universe, that would end the matter. But if you see it as an unintended loophole, I believe you would have to alter the game and remove the ability to do this.

Here are some suggestions:

1) You could disallow influence readings to be taken in sectors the player's ships have yet to reach. (Exploratory fog of war).

2) You could disallow influence readings to be taken in sectors not currently within sensor range of stars, bases and deployed ships. (Ongoing fog of war).

3) You could disallow influence readings at first, but enable them (in part or whole) with one or more technologies.

If you don't want the readings used to scout out the competition, you have to take them away, at least the aspects that are abusable. If you do want them used this way, telling us so would be helpful, to me at least. Thanks.


- Sirian

3 parsecs between starbases? could this possibly be a variable that is changed with technology and race attributes? So instead of 3, how about (say) 10 parsecs, but new techs gradually bring that down to a minium of 3. Also you could have race attributes that modify this.

Alternative to spacing between starbases, you could simply have a maximum number of starbases allowed in each sector, which, again, could be modifed in the same ways as suggested above.

Also, a suggestion about the FOW shown on the mini-map. It is rather confusing - the moment you see a little bit of one sector that whole sector is "cleared" on the mini-map! That makes it harder to figure out just what you have and haven't uncovered. Could the minimap be more detailed in this regard please?

And another thought while I'm here. I've noticed with smaller maps that some techs etc are almost a waste of time, particularly ones that make the ships faster, increase scanner range etc because it's hardly needed. Could it possile that with smaller maps, other factors such as ship speed and scanner range could be scaled down? So therefore, you would find on a small map the ships move more slowly to begin with and the scanner range is smaller etc. So you could still have the same number of techs to research but the accumulative effect is less overall.

And finally, a completely left of centre suggestion, can we have the option of maps being joined east-west and/or north/south (a round universe etc)?



~SDC~

So Frogboy, you guys (and gals) going to make that new pay-for expansion pack? I sure hope so!!

Sounds good Brad.

Is the other influence bug (the multiplying of starbase influence as oppossed to addition) also fixed?

Paul.

~SDC~

thanks for your work; having played some games i have a couple of suggestions myself:
1.
A huge starbase should be "defendable" gainst excalibur ships (anyways these have an attack value much too strong compared to the defense ... how do you defend against excaliburs anyway?);

2.
... you should be able to trade "maps"

Christian

Wouldn't it be easier to limit the number of starbases in any 1 given sector.. say 4 or 5 starbases / sector .. the same with Terror stars?

I too use the terror stars in a non attacking way.. to move resources and culture and econ bases to where they'll do the most good (well for me anyway)

My main problem is in the end games.. it takes me so long from when I know i'm going to win till i actually win.. LOL if that makes any sence

Just wanted to add my own 5 cents worth of comments to the thread:

1. The 3-square limit to the building of starbases is definitely welcomed. Some sort of limit is needed, and the idea of having starbases clustered together defies logic.
2. Decreasing the AI? Hmmm... I've just started playing, so I wouldn't know about that.
3. Don't increase the speed of terror stars. They're already too strong as it is. AI should, however, be more aware/pre-emptive of terrorstars being built by others.
4. How about adding sensor modules to the starbases to increase visibility?

ANY IDEA WHEN THE 1.11 WOULD BE RELEASE?????

Care to share strategies in the Maso strat thread?
I never use destabilisation myself, nor terror stars or alpha strikes. I won without the 1IP but it makes life easier.

Logistics?

The problem is that if you've saved up enough money and built enough constructors, you can build terror stars and destroy the AI's entire space empire in one turn without him getting a chance to be aware or pre-emptive. I'd suggest there be a three turn delay between building a Terror Star and being able to use it. Then if you built them next to all the AI's stars, he'd have a chance to respond, declare war on you, and try to destroy them.



~SDC~

Well when you think about it, how long would a Terror Star take to build? I'm sure even with all the parts it would take longer than a month Once one was built in an AI's zone of control, it could have a warning flag up, and then as Natthew suggested, the AI could respond in time before it was built (Think Star Wars and the Death Star lol)

Personally, I rather get a kick out of taking an influence resource, maxing out the starbase on it culturally, turning it into a terror star, and then sending the terror star rolling across sectors in cultural conquest.

Actually using a terror star to take out planets should have serious consequences. Just making a starbase mobile should not---terror stars already cost enough that taking a couple culture assault starbases and having them hop over a sector division is pretty expensive.

We'll probably need to do more of this with the 1.11 restrictions and the upcoming logistics ability Frogboy mentioned. So I wouldn't pile more restrictions on use of terror stars. Yeah, maybe they're too slow to do much on large maps, but I rarely play anything bigger than medium.

1.11 is done. We're just waiting for Stardock Central's new servers to get their act together. It's been quite a transition as you can imagine.  This site actually changed computers, databases, etc. all behind the scenes. It's actually a new site just the same data.

luvly

Perhaps, to combat the Terror Star advantage (and generally slow starbases down just a smidge), there should also be a limitation of one constructor added to a given starbase per turn. Then the AI would have 3 turns to see a Terror Star coming together.

I also like the idea of a toroidal galaxy....

Overall 1.11 sounds like a very promising update! Thanks Stardockians! Now get Windows to coop. wit'ya so we can d/l it!

~SDC~

Frogboy - This question, post #25, may have been lost in the shuffle:

Can 1.11 be applied to current games, using the 1.10A.073 version, without causing problems or will a restart be required? Thanks.

I'm kinda curious about the change to minors. I kinda liked not having to worry about them grab planets outside of their home sector if I ran into them early on. What is the limit they can expand based on? Are they capped on how many planets they can colonize or just how far away they can move? If it's movement based, hopefully it's just one sector away from their home sector otherwise expanding out could be a lot more complicated.



~SDC~

Increasing the power of the minors would be really good, it is sad to see you trading with them getting nice income from them and then suddenly the stupid dregins showing up and conquering them, I have decided as a Knight of the Conquer Order to destroy any civilization who tries to conquer the minors, so you all evil civilizations are warned stay away from my minors!!!!!! (When I am tire of them not paying me, then I will go and convince them to join my empire). LOL

No! That would drive me nuts. Starbase management is tedious enough already.

I'd be fine with a one Terror Star module per turn limit though.

elmo3,

I can't give you any official answer, but it's always best to finish a game with the same version that you started it in.

Vincible,

that was my fallback suggestion.

I like the one Terror Star module per turn idea. This should also be augmented by the AI immediately responding the turn after you add the first TS module (it should recognize this as a major threat immediately and respond by attempting to destroy it and/or threaten you with all-out war).

How about a "portable starbase", not as expensive as a Terror Star, but it still moves around?