MC Feldon

I agree that the UP resolutions seem too random. They're often more of a surprise than a real strategic option (wait, why are we voting on this?). I think it would be interesting to have an option for a strong UP (or maybe this could be a resolution people could vote on -- "strengthen the powers of the UP? Y/N"). For people who really hate the UP, tthis could be a map option. Also, maybe there should be a list of potential laws that can be passed. Players with high influence sho

This is just a random idea, I just wanted to throw it out there. It's fun to create your own custom race for you, but how about creating custom opponents as well? I know this can be accomplished by modding, but I wanted to suggest if it would be possible to do it normally when you start the game. Maybe each slot on the empire screen can be modified (rather than simply exclude / include) I think you can randomize the personalities of the other empires if you want. But

I like a lot of the comments, just thought I'd throw out a few ideas about the ships pyramid. Maybe one reason to split the ships, rather than use just one generic ship is to force some role differentiation. 1. Speed differentiation: automatic -- tiny +2, small +1, medium 0, large -1, huge -2. This way tiny ships actually have an automatic speed advantage, whereas huge ships have to jam on extra (space heavy) engines to actually get anywhere. The result would be lar

I have usually played Neutral for the reasons listed above (morale, tech) -- I think the bonuses are possibly the best of the three. But from a design standpoint, I think neutral should be the "worst" of the three. It's the easiest to choose, and is in some respects the "default" choice. If you are evil sometimes and good sometimes, you end up as neutral. As such I think "good" and "evil" should be technically stronger than "neutral". Being "good" is hard -- you have to

When it comes time for Senate votes, I generally don't feel that much tension as to who is going to win (my party of course). But this tension is even lower considering the "opposition" splits its vote between all the other parties. My personal preference would be: 1) Fewer (and more distinct) political parties 2) Your average approval rating (or weighted average) over the entire x years is what determines the election. 3) Losing the election means you get penalized, b

I think the general idea is that you want to have tech trees to be reasonably balanced. One tech which I think is a little too powerful is the Factory tech tree. No doubt you have to research this branch like crazy. However, I feel like this tree is also made more powerful by the inclusion of the starbase factory technologies. It just makes researching this tree even more critical. One suggestion might be to split the starbase factory tree into a new technology branch.

Personally, I really dislike the combat movie in the land battles. It seems completely generic, and conveys almost no information. My suggestion: 1. Use the planet buildings as the main "ground" for the battle. That way you can see what sort of buildings the armies are fighting for. 2. Start with an initial attack graphic that shows how much damage the planet (and buildings) sustained. If it's a Mass Driver attack, it should show a big asteroid coming down, and then a

I'm new to the forums -- I tried to look around to see if this had been suggested already. Make the weapons types do different damage based on the hull they are firing on. Missiles: 150% against small / tiny; 100% medium, 50% large / huge Beams: 100% small / 100% med / 100% huge Guns: 50% small / 100% med / 150% huge This would create a weird dynamic with the defenses -- with large ships leaning towards armor, small ships to ECM. I think it

I think the way to solve this is to actually have fewer options. It reduces the flexibility but I think (similar to three-way political parties in the US) the UP should only allow two options. A or B. That way you don't have the sub-obtimal choice problem. Doing a second-choice vote I think would be cumbersome. It also makes the meetings more dramatic / tense I think -- High tax or no tax. etc.

Similar to hitting the "obsolete" function for ships, I'd like the option to hit "obsolete" for ship technologies on the ship construction screen. Examples: Laser 1-4 when you have Laser 5. This is especially true for armor, or life support, etc. I realize there may be times you can optimize to save on cost (if you have free space) but it is too nit-picky, and I'd rather have a streamlined interface. There should just be a little checkbox, which you can hit to remove

I understand some people don't like it -- but I think it should be an "option" for people who do. In terms of the physics... well it's presently a 2D game right? Like Kosty said, you could claim the universe / galaxy / whatever is a cylinder (or a sphere if it is 4-way wrapping). Maybe the gravity at the galactic core is too strong, the stellar matter (or whatever) is too dense there, or it is just a big ball of energy, black holes, etc. I think every civilizat

Has anyone suggesting making the map wrap, like a world map (E-W)? Or four-way (E-W and N-S)? (Technically, I suppose to map would run NE - SW) I think it should be an option when you creating the game. I think a lot of players would like to avoid giving the map "corners". Some old strategy games like Reach for the Stars had maps like this.