Various Game Suggestions

[GazBot]

Planet Generation.

1. When you select "Haven of Calm" or "Severe Violence" you get an extreme of one or the other, Fro example if you select Haven of Calm all Major and Minor Regimes are basically Farmers....Even the Nemesis.

If you select Severe Violence - all Minors are basically Religious Fanatics or Raiders.....

It would be good it this simply changed the ratio from say 50:50 to say 75:25 as opposed to 100:0 as currently seems to be the case. So for example if selecting neither these options - then you basically get an equal probability of Radiers, Farmers etc (50:50)....But if you select Haven of Calm then you get more of a 75 (Farmers) : 25 (Raiders / Fanatics) type distribution. The opposite would apply for Severe Violence....

2. Be cool to be able to generate a more Dune type planet - its really hard to do - I can never get enough sand....

General Game Play

3. Autocracy Profile seems very under powered.....The use of Fear is great and the stratagems are good as well - Just far to expensive....for example Call to power can cost over 50pp and can only cause a max 2000 enemy troops to rebel....you then need to play this 2-3 times do get enough rebels to actually deploy and thats assuming you have a good covert ops guy.....AS you get very few Feature bonuses like the other profiles I think the Stratagems need to be much cheaper to use ....especially the call to power stratagems of give their effects a boost - ie more rebels or smaller Bn sized rebel groups will always deploy (with at least 1 Bn as a minimum....)

4. In line with the above I think Autocracy should have some espionage stratagems ie where you can subvert relations of Regimes with other Regimes....so manipulations relations between other regimes and pushing regimes to war against other regimes, cancelling pacts and exchanges etc........

I think this would add more variety to the game in terms of diplomacy.....

5. Tank Defensive Stratagems - Im pretty certain only the Fist Profile has HQ Stratagems that gives armored forces a defensive bonus (Ambush and Glorious War (which is just a generic buff for attack and defense,,,))

I think their should be at least one defensive armored, mechanized stratagem in each of the 3 main profile groups...

This would just add more flexibility and balance to the game play...

For example Enforcement Profile could have say a Card that allows Armour ed and Mechanized forces to entrench (Vehicle Pits)....

Meritocracy could say have a card "Preset Target References Laid out" - giving a defensive attack buff but reducing Readiness or AP....

6, More entrenchment bonuses for bunkerisation - and prehaps allow entrenchment of Arnoured / Mech formations in a bunkerised hex

Cheers

Gary

[Cassini]

General Game Play

3. Autocracy Profile seems very under powered.....The use of Fear is great and the stratagems are good as well - Just far to expensive....for example Call to power can cost over 50pp and can only cause a max 2000 enemy troops to rebel....you then need to play this 2-3 times do get enough rebels to actually deploy and thats assuming you have a good covert ops guy.....AS you get very few Feature bonuses like the other profiles I think the Stratagems need to be much cheaper to use ....especially the call to power stratagems of give their effects a boost - ie more rebels or smaller Bn sized rebel groups will always deploy (with at least 1 Bn as a minimum....)

4. In line with the above I think Autocracy should have some espionage stratagems ie where you can subvert relations of Regimes with other Regimes....so manipulations relations between other regimes and pushing regimes to war against other regimes, cancelling pacts and exchanges etc........

I think this would add more variety to the game in terms of diplomacy.....

I think Vic's 'bias' against autocratic styles is demonstrated with the 'weakness' of the profile...

One way to make autocracy more appealing, is to add some skill bonuses like the other profiles possess.

+30 Covert Ops, +30 Intimidate, +30 Investigate. +60 Covert Ops, +60 Intimidate, +60 Investigate

This would make autocracy more appealing for the 'Machiavellian' play style...

Another thing... the Investigate Leader card is practically useless (as presented) to do anything but bring down a leader's seniority so that they can be dismissed without too much of a hit to other leader's happiness and then retire them cheaply. By the time corruption starts to be an issue, there are enough credits floating around that grabbing the credits of a corrupt leader isn't necessary - and the expense in PP just isn't worth the result (the card is just too damn expensive).

Here's what needs to be done with the investigate leader card...

Have a successful investigation result in a one-half reduction in the target leader's corruption (methods of stealing revealed after all).

Then all other leaders in the SAME category as the successfully investigated leader (Governor category, OHQ category, Director category, SHQ, Advisor) have THEIR corruption reduced by one-third (stealing methods closed down, fear of being caught increases).

Finally, all remaining leaders outside the category of the successfully investigated leader have their corruption reduced by one-fourth.

By targeting the 'low hanging fruit' (the leaders with low authority ratings), a few successful investigations will knock down the corruption levels of practically ALL leaders by about half to three-quarters. One leader in the same category and two in different categories will mean corruption will be down to 0.5 times 0.75 times 0.75 = 28 percent of original corruption remaining in leaders.

Only a successfully investigated leader would lose seniority though (innocent until successfully investigated).

[Elver]

Another thing... the Investigate Leader card is practically useless (as presented) to do anything but bring down a leader's seniority so that they can be dismissed without too much of a hit to other leader's happiness and then retire them cheaply. By the time corruption starts to be an issue, there are enough credits floating around that grabbing the credits of a corrupt leader isn't necessary - and the expense in PP just isn't worth the result (the card is just too damn expensive).

It really depends on how much corruption has occurred. In one game, after a long Decade of Corruption, I had multiple leaders with 10s of 1000s of stolen funds. Draining their pilfered hoards gave me upwards of 80k credits and absolutely wrecked their seniority.

Your proposal seems like it's way too strong and would more-or-less make corruption a non-issue to eliminate even after it becomes endemic, which seems very, very wrong.

(It also feels like your comment in its entirety would lead to autocratic regimes being excellent at preventing corruption - which seems even more wrong.)

[Cassini]

Another thing... the Investigate Leader card is practically useless (as presented) to do anything but bring down a leader's seniority so that they can be dismissed without too much of a hit to other leader's happiness and then retire them cheaply. By the time corruption starts to be an issue, there are enough credits floating around that grabbing the credits of a corrupt leader isn't necessary - and the expense in PP just isn't worth the result (the card is just too damn expensive).

It really depends on how much corruption has occurred. In one game, after a long Decade of Corruption, I had multiple leaders with 10s of 1000s of stolen funds. Draining their pilfered hoards gave me upwards of 80k credits and absolutely wrecked their seniority.

Your proposal seems like it's way too strong and would more-or-less make corruption a non-issue to eliminate even after it becomes endemic, which seems very, very wrong.

(It also feels like your comment in its entirety would lead to autocratic regimes being excellent at preventing corruption - which seems even more wrong.)

This is part of the problem with corruption in the game - basic principles of accounting are NOT being followed. All those hundreds and thousands of credits that appear in the leader's pocket are NOT actually deducted from the regime's balance - if they were, the regime would be wiped out. They are 'magical mystery credits' created out of nothingness (much like the whole trade network).

If a governor's corruption pool increases, it shows as population unhappiness with the event, but NOT as an actual deduction from the zone's credit pool (GAAP doesn't apply in the distant future it seems).

Yes, you can hit the leaders with MULTIPLE investigation cards (to get all those 'free' credits), but the cost in PP means you cannot do anything else with those PP's expended.

As far as giving an autocratic regime the extra tools to deal with corruption - yes, having those tools AND using them is quite effective. However.... the more PP expended on investigations means less to be expended elsewhere (GAAP DOES apply here...)

It would enable autocratic regimes to stamp out corruption IF the resources (PP) were to be expended on investigating corrupt leaders instead of everything else PP can be utilized for..... a decision to be made by players.

[Elver]

Thing is, autocratic regimes are historically the most corrupt. Your proposal is that they should have the least trouble eliminating corruption. Corruption isn't "this one cool trick" that gets shut down, it's pervasive and systemic. Additionally, Autocracy already has its own exclusive "one cool trick" to get rid of corrupt leaders, and it doesn't care about seniority, and fits with how autocrats operate: you can assassinate corrupt leaders. It is, bar none, the cleanest, easiest, and least politically expensive tool to re-arrange your cabinet.

I'd add that saying Investigate Leader isn't free balances making it far more powerful doesn't make sense. Most stratagems aren't free, but that by itself doesn't balance them. The balance comes in their effect versus their cost. You can argue IL isn't strong enough - and you have - but arguing that your proposed solution would be balanced simply b/c it's not free makes no sense. You're proposing a card that impacts more leaders than anything except the Cabinet Retreat, etc. cards - and to a much more dramatic degree than them - for far less than most of those cards cost.

[Don_Kiyote]

In one game, after a long Decade of Corruption, I had multiple leaders with 10s of 1000s of stolen funds. Draining their pilfered hoards gave me upwards of 80k credits and absolutely wrecked their seniority.

Interesting situation, that. But eventually an Elliot Ness came along and mopped them all up.

Cassini seems to be imagining a kind of corruption like embezzlement, which simply debits the regime accounts with the stolen sum. But it is also possible for an official to be stealing from the public directly. Is the individual corrupt official just functioning normally as a part of a corrupt regime, or are they rouge, renegade, isolated instances of criminal behavior in a generally just and smoothly functioning system, and which interpretation is more realistic?

In this game, the stealing seems to be from the public, and I imagine that is why they are unhappy: something that used to work, doesn't anymore. Maybe something like the water: its not clean and safe anymore. And the people know that is because the corrupt official has somehow profited instead of maintaining the service. They know that their lead poisoning is the price they pay for the Governor's new land yacht.