JorgenCAB

I only would like to add... Do not disregard population and approval ratings since they can add up some serious raw productivity to the planet with some very few buildings. A content world with 5 pop give you 11 raw productivity while a 20 pop world that is very happy has a raw productivity of nearly 35. Each station now also add a further 10% so if you have say three stations in the vicinity of that planet that is a raw productivity of around 40-

Overall there are balancing issues with the economic model, that is for sure... money is mainly needed for maintenance and trading with other civilizations. Aside from that things are just too expensive to invest the energy into money producing planets. More science and not to mention more production is way more important overall. That said... when you play in a game with a -50% production penalty money actually is worth double the amount and become more important than

Two fundamental problems are that the AI seem to be quite oblivious how to build efficient worlds and focusing on either Production, Science or Money generation. The second that most players don't understand the mechanic and will suffer for it quite immensely, unaware most of the time though. I would say it still is a healthy reason to keep your worlds in the green for approval since it increase your raw productivity of up to +25%. It is even so important that you s

Yes... I'm fully aware of this... but how many people understand this at all...?!? Why complicate things and have two different tools that practically does the same thing just efficient in different stages of the game? In my opinion... just keep the empire wide tool and loose the individual tool or at least tie it into some other fundamental game mechanic to limit how they can be used in some way.

Here is a simple test from my current game on an Insane map with -50% production and -75% technology and 20 opponents. I have eight developed planets and I'm about 70 turns into my game. When the sliders are set they way I want them to for my current efficiency i have... Wealth: 72 Science: 181 Production: 125 If I set the empire wide sliders to 33/33/33 i get... Wealth: 72<

Yes, mathematically it is more or less double as efficient to only build one type of resource. The thing is though that you want to avoid wasting resources as well as SOME diversification on some locations can be useful but you NEVER want to mix Money and Research on the same planet. Production on the other hand is useful in some mixes. There can be a reason for why you want to keep a few extra Industry on a research or money planet such as if you

The problem is that if you can have a planet churn out 200 production and 200 tech points then two such planets would produce 400 of each together. The problem is that if you focus one planet on just production and one on just science you get maybe 600 to 800 of each from those two same planets, that is the issue. The ONLY reason to diversify a planet is to avoid over production... I find that I need a few really giant industry planets to build really large ships but ot

That depends on how you scale the diminishing return. If you do it like I described there is no problem with better technology...

To be perfectly honest I find it alright for everyone to view their area of influence as their space even if there are no legal bound to that idea before the UP resolution. Your area of influence are no more yours other than your Diplomatic, Trade or Military might behind your words.

That completely depends how you view it... bases can very well be represented by private or semi private businesses that venture into space and set up shop to earn money. Who gain the tax or control/influence over the base is another thing. The other is that influence borders are not considered political borders so you should not view them as such. The only thing I would like is for colonies to exert a short zone of control where no enemy can buil

In my opinion the AI should regard it as offensive as a player would when someone tries to overtake you with influence and try everything to stop it, including going to war if nothing else works.

At least there should be diplomatic options of warning the AI from establishing bases near your territory (within your influential borders). The borders in the game are not political borders so it is a fine line exactly what you may ask... but I definitely think that building a base near someone else colony should give some sort of casus belli for going to war or getting some sort of diplomatic options to negotiate. I also think that different AI should react differently depen

I think the balance is somewhere in between the best sensor ship and the best bases/planets as is now. I really think that dedicated sensor ships have too great a range and bases too low. The mechanic should be balanced so we end up somewhere in between. I also think stations should potentially have better range to balance up the fact they are immobile, not to mention it makes sense.. :)

I would like to know if you will balance the game in a way to make mixed focused worlds between money, science or production a possible option? The current system with the ability to focus 100% on one area makes it very inefficient to build both money and science structures on the some planet. Industry is either a couple of tiles or cover the whole planet with them. It is quite easy mathematically to come to the conclusion that you either spend 100% in either area almost

I don't agree that influential "borders" should stop anyone from using resources inside them. I do however think that colonies and star bases should exert a five radius "border" in which no one cold create a colony or use any resources without declaring war on that faction first. The "borders" of the map are only the areas where you have cultural influence, there are no real borders in space no more than you can patrol and enforce. There should be diplomatic tension when another f

[quote who="GalCivius" reply="51" id="3540422"] Large text mass... :)[/quote] Well... I think we just feel different about how to play games... me personally like a challenging game and abusing loopholes in the mechanic to gain huge advantages is something game balance can fix as is the case here... if it is done then you don't have any "artificial" limits anymore and need to adapt to the new situation. You can still use sensor scouts just with more reasonable range. It is fo

[quote who="GalCivius" reply="48" id="3540380"] Gamey? In a game? Unbelievable! [e digicons];)[/e] And in the end it's a trade off. Sure you can build a sensorships from turn one, but it's rather unwise, as you don't even have a survey module at this pont, and it means you put less resources into other fields (like colonization) at this point. Later building a sensorship means you don't build a combat vessel at this point. I agree

It is clearly (in my opinion) boring and gamey to use super sensor ships... makes the game WAY too simple for the player. I also think it makes the game less fun overall if you can just cram 10 sensors into a freighter hull from turn one... just not fun... :( Currently I simply relegate myself to a maximum of two regular sensors and a survey module for maximum effect by survey vessels. I also play exclusively on insane size maps. I also think that sensors should

Would it be possible to add the Social Production and/or Sponsoring capacity you have depending on the setting of the slider for shipyard sponsoring? It is quite often I want to keep a specific amount of production on a world as not to waste any of it too much. Now I have to either use a calculus to set the amount of sponsoring or flicker through many screens to find the actual sponsor value or social production value. I would really like to see t

Well... you can't really compare the two. GalCiv designer are more for show while Stardrive is a tactical tool. In GalCiv you create actual ship models... where you place modules and weapons have no impact on the ships performance so you can just clamp equipment wherever you choose and even hide them so the don't show on the actual model if you don't like it ir just want the stats. It is much harder to create new ship models in GalCiv

No one that has a clue what is causing this behavior?

Ok... you may choose to play inefficient because you can't find the strength to go through the tedium of doing it... that is your choice. This is my exact gripe with this mechanic to begin with. That and the fact that it reduces the strategical choices of how to develop your planets. I'm well aware that most players will not fiddle with the sliders too often but the result is that they handicap themselves for no god reason other than it is

I would like an option where the game simply don't EVER create or show any ship design except those I designed specifically during that game. I always design my own ships and they may vary greatly from game to game so it is very irritating to have to obsolete ships and yo have to do that every time you research a new technology no matter if that technology unlocks a new ship component or not. This becomes very tedious... I save my designs as t

Exactly... I would prefer the tile placement of buildings and remove the focusing tool altogether, it would be much less micromanagement changing the slider from 100% production to either 100% money or science all the time. It would also make planets more interesting to develop in general since specialization is not that necessary in the same way anymore. It is more up to bonuses ad the layout of the planet that decide what you want to build.

Was I asking for advice?!? ;) I am fully aware how it works... I'm complaining it is an unnecessary and very gamey mechanic that just increase micromanagement and that make long term strategy less important than min/max the slider all the time. That is if you want to play the game efficiently... ;)