The core counts can be a bit deceiving. I have played this game with a i7-6700k and GTX 1080 on a 3440x1440 screen and had little problems with performance (even with the max size galaxies). The only hiccups occurred when zooming into many ships, but that has also gotten a lot better now. For super ...

You can edit policy-files ("Ackadarin.xml" ) in the "policy"-folder. Each file has rules regarding what intelligence missions they use:
<IntelligenceMissionAllowSabotageConstruction>true</IntelligenceMissionAllowSabotageConstruction>
<IntelligenceMissionAllowStealTerritoryMap>true ...

The colony prevalence settings adjust all colony qualities by a a fixed multiplier. Setting low colony prevalence basically removes all high quality planets. Since income is very tightly bound with planet quality/suitability, you are going to have a lot less credits to work with.

The setting does ...

The answer is: no.

Reserving 10% of income is generally a bad idea and you should only do it if you desperately need a small sum of credits and your private sector is in a bad spot.

You have to micromanage your spending in the early-game (I try to make sure that research is always at 100 ...

Glad things improved.

One note on the terraformer: it has a high support cost, but you only have to pay it for a few years. Once it has finished terraforming, you can scrap it and keep the quality bonus.

It's the low suitability. Colonisation and terraforming techs make a big difference and you should get them as soon as you are able (no imminent military threat). There are also buildings that can boost income, but they don't matter so much for smaller planets (800M is still small).

However, the ...

Well, invasions do cause damage to planets (quality + pops), but that is very seldom significant enough to warrant a a large defensive army. Colonies also get militia based on pops, but since ground combat is pretty much all-or-nothing, they end up not doing much. The invading troops can just ...

Yeah, the basic problem is just that the AI is wasting a ton of income. Mostly on troops (trying to protect all planets from invasions, which is very inefficient) and ships (they are fast to build so you only need a lot of ships during difficult wars). It also wastes a lot of credits on crashing ...

This depends on what the explorer is doing. If it is actively exploring a system, it should not go back to re-fuel (a return trip with no fuel takes 3X longer, but having a re-fuel trip means that you have to make at least three trips and you also have to take in docking times). Also, a lot of ...

Some nice testing. I've also stayed away from missiles due to too low max damage values.

However, there should be a chance that damage bypassing shields can also damage hull/components. This should missiles some more usability by potentially taking out components. Have you noticed this happening ...

Well, the PD weapons can sometimes help (shoot down torpedoes/missiles/bombers before warping out) and there is at least one use for the heftier weapons (harass AI construction ships in debris fields without having to bring military ships). They should definitely not be prioritised over reactors ...

Fair points, but the problem is mostly mid and early game, where resources are few and constructors even rarer. I've seen this happen: I needed Silicon for my shipbuilding, but my wonderful automated constructors instead of building a mine at the neighboring Silicon planet, they went to the other ...

Note how I said *manually manage my fleets" then you say "automatically make their way to the new fleet".

I want you to try and move 4 Frigates from fleet A to fleet B. That's all you need to do to know what I'm talking about.

You can't multi-select ships within a fleet and give orders to them ...

3) In DW1, adding/removing specific ships to/from fleets was pretty straightforward. In current DW2, moving ships from one fleet into another is a complete micromanagement mess. I dont need to expand on this point to anyone that tries to manually manage any amount of their fleets, which begs the ...

The name "Envy" is a bit misleading since it's more about being concerned that some empire will overpower others. It's suppose to bring some challenge to empires that grow too powerful (get close to victory). As is, it's not really doing what it is supposed to do.

It gets going way too early (it ...

This can indeed cause some frustration. However, the situation is not quite as bad as it might seem.

First of all, you can change the mining ranges. Go to the ComponentDefinitions.xml file in the "Data"-folder. All large mining engines have an "ExtractionRangeAsteroid"-setting. If you set it to ...

Es78 wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 1:32 am Always build space port. I am playing on the hardest difficulty and you need them for one reason.

Reseach

This. Research potential is limited and gives stacking benefits. You want to maximize it at every opportunity.

<t> In terms of game mechanics, you really need to have some kind of feedback between taking resources from the planet and using the resources for the planet. That is the strategic choice the player makes and if it's not possible, then planetary development is effectively trivial.<br/>
<br/>
Yes ...

<t> I personally would not pay for just bigger and prettier. Such things can be nice, yes, but it's the inside that counts...<br/>
<br/>
DW has many things right. Details of space determine your strategic actions. There aren't many artificial constraints (like sudden unhappiness after some ...

<t> I have been thinking about planet development and how to make it more interesting without compromising playability. Here is a few thoughts.<br/>
<br/>
In DW, planet development is highly idealized. The planet uses it resources as efficiently as possible to improve itself and the player just ...