That's pretty interesting, CaptainYar. You probably have, but I'll ask anywayz - did you see this thread? Starbase rangr

a Module ala Ascendency that allows a ship to bombard without a planetary invasion, destroying structures.

Anomalies that have morality choices.

A concept you could try is having multiple possible results for morality choices,

for example- if you choose to enslave the native populace you usually gain the production bonus, but there is 15% chance that the people are protected by some energy being who destroys your little colonists!

Now just make sure this result if given after the choice is made... thereby you don't get to simply pick your morality and eat it too. You cant be evil one day for one bonus, and good the next two which are relatively unimportant. It adds a risk factor to it.

Mega Events with choices?

a setting that increases or decreases random events including mega (if mega events happen say 5% of the time, Id like to increase that to say 10 and regular events from say 10% to 50%.

More diverse tech tree... some weapons could be off of the weapon tree and require oddball techs like Heavy Gravity Colonization or Reinforced Hull Design ETC.

More interesting modules, perhaps a 'command bridge' module that increases the ship's luck/courage rolling.

Advanced construction module that allows auto-improvement and improvement construction like the space miner... so I dont have to produce a never ending stream of constructors.

Better invasion graphics - they fight like its the US Revolutionary War.
More building types such as: multiple types of monuments
military building for aircraft
point defence platform to defend against bombardment
orbital defense platform
a presidential palace
Make it where you can play against 11 other major civs.
Make it where a minor civ can take the place of a defeated major civ if the UN votes to accept them.
Make it where it is sometimes profitable to choose the good response.
More starship parts such as squares, rectangles, and pyramids for the SG-1 fans.
Yor's stuff should not look like everyone elses. What do they need farms for.
It would be cool if a spy could on rare occation capture a enemy ship for use and study.
Be able to buy mercenary fleets if one became available.

GREAT UPDATE  

In reguards to yor.. they are machanical but still need parts and energy.. best way is farms to grow crops to make plastic and such?

Now I don't know if you are still paying attention to this post for update requests, however, I think it would be a good option to toggle bonus tiles more common or rare depending on ones liking, as well as planetary bonus' that you recieve when you first colonize a planet.

then the question is who doesn't

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I would like to see more forms of government. Here are a few that come to mind:

Theocracy
Socialist
Communist (I know, it's really an economic system)
Monarchy (absolute monarchs)
Tyrant
Dictatorship
Anarchy
Clans
Feudalism
Kleptocracy
Etc...


Different forms of government would bestow positive and negative values. Theocracy, for example, would grant a +10% population growth, +25% loyalty, +15% influence, +5% soldiering, -15% economics, -15% trade, and -10% luck. Maybe they could get a divine intervention super event lol

Thanks!

A new treaty i guess you could call it. Where someone pays you every turn (amount is negotiated in the trade screen) to protect them. That is you will fight who ever starts a war with them. Or you can pay an AI money to fight for you.

WHY? First this can keep some of the weaker races in the game. Especially the minors. If the Krynn are getting paid to protect one, they won't be so easy to just wipe away when you or an AI feels like having their planet.

second it can be a good way to make more tribute income. or enabling you to concentrate on research and pay some one to fight for you. this is more than just trading cash for a declaration of war. This would be a good use of the Korx who are otherswise no so useful.

The rules can be something like:

- you can not start a war with someone you are protecting. you must first cancel the treaty, and then wait a turn. You will not be able tostart the war, sa screen will tell you that you have to wait a week.

- you have no choice bvut to fight. a questio will not even be asked, but a screen will tell you that due to someone attacking them you are now at war with the other race.and that race is at war with you.


It does look very similar to an alliance, but a weak civ can never form an alliance. Some other differences are:
-With an alliance you can still choose to back out if your ally is attacked.
-This treaty is a one-way street.
-When paying a civ to go to war, its immediate and definite. This is a just-in-case thing.
-In order to even get an alliance you have to be on close terms with the civ. In this case you can even have a civ that practically hates you accept an offer to protect you if the money is right. the stronger your military or the greater the difference in militaries the more you can charge. And its paid weekly until one side decides to end to business relationship. I think some players might like to get rich off their strong military.

I was really thinking of this because of what happens to the minors all the time. This way they can last, and if you are getting money from them you may be able to tolerate their existance longer. But i still think it can work for the majors too.

When you invade a planet, the civ being attacked should have the opportunity to surrender to the attacking force before they are completely destroyed. If they did surrender, the attacking civ would get a bonus. They would own all of their techs, banks, armies and ships.

  

A backdoor deal with pirates to clear out unwanted Influence
Starbases.

Thankx,

Prof.

  

Jamius,

For 3, play a custom game with opponents who have no technology, give yourself no starting techs and set the tech rate to the slowest. It's kind of fun, you've got your three starting ships and nothing else.

Not sure if this thread is still being read, and I apologize if someone already posted this suggestion. BTW: I'm pretty new to the game but I am enjoying it very much, so Thanks!

Suggestion: The "good, neutral, and evil" alignments is a wonderful concept in this game. The idea that you discover ethical situations as you go to colonize a planet is great.

My biggest problem is a blarring inconsistency in the game in which once you research "Xeno Ethics" (which I do fairly early) all of planets magically no longer present ethical dilemmas?!? Why would it be that if you choose a "neutral" alignment planets no longer have hermit scientists or high tech ships orbiting them or pre-industrial populations to be enslaved?

Solution: Ethical decisions should continue to be present after "Xeno Ethics" is researched. If I have chosen "good" and you want to choose the "evil" choice when colonizing this new planet...it will cost you 500bc, if I want "neutral" it'll cost 250bc (or whatever number seems accurate). Heck, I'd like it if once you picked your ethical alignment and you go to colonize a planet there is MORE impact than before you picked your alignment.

For example:
I research aquatic colonization and start the second wave of expansion. The first planet get to has a floating "cities" (think "Waterworld") that space mercenaries and pirates are using as a way-station/hideout.
Here are the options you would get:
"Good": Enforce galactic laws and disband the group of naer-do-wells (-5% morale/population growth as insurgent would rebel)
"Neutral": Live and let live. Turn a blind eye to these ruffians, besides they are only out in the water while we have these nice new patches of land (-3% economy, I mean heck they still gonna be raiding you occassionally)
"Evil": Welcome aboard my friends! (+5% economy, nobody does business like the seedy underbelly)

Now suppose I had chosen "Good" as a "Xeno Ethic" PRIOR to encountering this planet. My REPUTATION would proceed me and the following adjustments would have to be made:
Picking:
"Good": Hatred of your race is amplified by all your "goody-two-shoes" actions, insurgency is amplified (-10% morale/population)
"Neutral": Turning a blind eye goes against your ethical alignemnt, keep the -3% penalty but charge 250bc to bribe the local officials to go along with you.
"Evil": This a violation of our ethical code!! It's gonna take a lot of convincing (ie money) to make this happen (charge 1000bc)

If had chosen "Evil":
Picking:
"Good": Charge 500bc keep -3% penalty
"Neutral": Charge 250bc keep penalty
"Evil": Now this is our kind of planet. Our reputation and experience allows us to maximize these pirates/mercenaries (+10% economy bonus)

OF COURSE to balance this out, you would have to have planets where the ETHICAL thing to do would benefit "GOOD" and penalize "EVIL". Say you encounter a planet with a highly evolved race of super dolphin-like creature that recognize you as good and help your production, but will fight/sabotage you at every turn if you are evil. Or you land on a planet that has a speicies in dire need of medical treatment you can let them die, the evil thing to do, but get no bonuses. Or save them, the "good" thing to do and receive large bonuses, of course if you are "Evil-aligned" this is gonna cost you 1000bc.

I think these are relatively easy changes to make (requires a few more back stories etc) but the code is already in place and it would fix a MAJOR INCONSISTENCY in the game revolving around the "Xeno Ethics" research.

Thanks

because when you choose an alignment the game automatically chooses the ethical dilemmas for you. In your case when you choose neutral alignment from that point the game just chooses neutral for you. But I would still like to see the ethical dilemmas show up anyways so that we actually know that is what is happening.