Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

who's to say I can't drop a mining station inside someone else's sphere if I want. if you're strong enough to remove it go ahead and try. the brinksmanship and escalation is missing given the rules and insistance on total war or total peace.

I strongly disagree. It's the "brinksmanship and escalation" (as you put it -- personally, I call it bulls***) that I can't stand.

I still have just vanilla DW, and whenever another race colonizes or builds a mine that's clearly in my sphere of influence more than their own (and/or is obviously closer to mine), it drives me up a wall. It feels very "gamey" to me, and detracts from what is otherwise a great sense of immersion.

Maybe the SOI introduced in Legends is also gamey in a different way. However, from what has been said about this feature so far, it "feels" right....or at the very least, more right than my neighbors being able to build a shed on my proverbial front lawn!

ORIGINAL: Torgrim
Yes colonizing range is very much needed, I always get a little hurt inside when I see AI Empire have colonies all over the map just because there is no range limit for colonizing planets.

Are you kidding? Let's suggest other delusional proposals to game.
I totally agree with sbach2o. SoI at this form is something strange, artificial and illogical. I'm not against SoI, but it needs a lot of tweaking.

My modest suggestions of tweaking. Please, support [&o]

- Permit colonization and mining in SoI, but with big reputation/relation hit. The ships of intruder can be destroyed without warnings and reputation of defender is not affected.
- Add to diplomacy warning about colonizing and mining on my territory with threaten war or trade sanctions.
- Add to diplomacy colonizing rights for 1 or few planets for exchange money, technologies of something else.

ORIGINAL: WiZz

ORIGINAL: Torgrim
Yes colonizing range is very much needed, I always get a little hurt inside when I see AI Empire have colonies all over the map just because there is no range limit for colonizing planets.

Are you kidding? Let's suggest other delusional proposals to game.

Please elaborate.

If this feature would be implemented it will simplify game greatly for HUMAN player, no AI. How can it explain logically? And MasterChief said right thing: "If your fuel allows for long rang colonization then it should be allowed."
And let's imagine some situation. In game your empire are surrounded by enemy empires and there are no good planets for colonization, but you found a few fine planets far from th home. How you feel cannot colonizing them?

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just to put everyone at ease, one of the things we're considering for Spheres of Influence is a setting that allows you to adjust their strength or weakness to your liking.

Regards,

- Erik

What would the ETA be on this? When this is done I will be happy.

ORIGINAL: martok

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

who's to say I can't drop a mining station inside someone else's sphere if I want. if you're strong enough to remove it go ahead and try. the brinksmanship and escalation is missing given the rules and insistance on total war or total peace.

I strongly disagree. It's the "brinksmanship and escalation" (as you put it -- personally, I call it bulls***) that I can't stand.

I still have just vanilla DW, and whenever another race colonizes or builds a mine that's clearly in my sphere of influence more than their own (and/or is obviously closer to mine), it drives me up a wall. It feels very "gamey" to me, and detracts from what is otherwise a great sense of immersion.

Maybe the SOI introduced in Legends is also gamey in a different way. However, from what has been said about this feature so far, it "feels" right....or at the very least, more right than my neighbors being able to build a shed on my proverbial front lawn!

I respect your opinion. In fact, my personal games are large sandboxes with few starting races. No goals at all.

That said if you think it's "gamey", it's gamey in way that supports a real suspension of disbelief...

"US warships head for South China Sea after standoff"

ORIGINAL: WiZz

If this feature would be implemented it will simplify game greatly for HUMAN player, no AI. How can it explain logically? And MasterChief said right thing: "If your fuel allows for long rang colonization then it should be allowed."
And let's imagine some situation. In game your empire are surrounded by enemy empires and there are no good planets for colonization, but you found a few fine planets far from th home. How you feel cannot colonizing them?

The feeling is damn I need to research better engines that's my feeling, it works in Armada hell it even worked really well in old Master of Orion 1 and 2 so i don't see why it cant work here.

And with your example it's like crossing straight over your AI Empires to colonize a distant world sounds to me pretty unrealistic, best approach in that scenario is get allies and wage war instead.

ORIGINAL: WiZz

If this feature would be implemented it will simplify game greatly for HUMAN player, no AI. How can it explain logically? And MasterChief said right thing: "If your fuel allows for long rang colonization then it should be allowed."
And let's imagine some situation. In game your empire are surrounded by enemy empires and there are no good planets for colonization, but you found a few fine planets far from th home. How you feel cannot colonizing them?

so, what's the problem with an adjustable setting as I proposed?
clearly there are some people who want the game to be less messy and some who are content with its actual state, so why not introduce a customizable solution that satisfies both?

ORIGINAL: MasterChief
Hmmm... this brings up an interesting possibility.

First - I don’t agree with limiting colonization limit. If your fuel allows for long rang colonization then it should be allowed. Examples in history include the ancient Phoenicians and Greeks who colonized to the extreme limits of their technology (and yes this made for some messy boarders and diplomacy).

However, there should be tradeoffs. Besides an increase in maintenance, colonies at extreme range should be more susceptible to rebellion and establishing independent colonies (Ancient Carthage and the not so ancient USA are great examples) [;)]

So before chartering that colony ship you would need to consider if it is worth the extra money, naval and troop presence and governor character assignment that would be needed to keep the colony in the empire.

wouldn't the correct comparison to real life be phoenicians and greeks colonizing south east asia and ancient china grabbing some colonies in europe, whilst the arabs colonize every available desert between mojave and gobi cause they are the only ones capable of living there [;)]

ORIGINAL: hal9000
wouldn't the correct comparison to real life be phoenicians and greeks colonizing south east asia and ancient china grabbing some colonies in europe, whilst the arabs colonize every available desert between mojave and gobi cause they are the only ones capable of living there [;)]

[:D] this made me laugh... a lot.

ORIGINAL: hal9000

ORIGINAL: MasterChief
Hmmm... this brings up an interesting possibility.

First - I don’t agree with limiting colonization limit. If your fuel allows for long rang colonization then it should be allowed. Examples in history include the ancient Phoenicians and Greeks who colonized to the extreme limits of their technology (and yes this made for some messy boarders and diplomacy).

However, there should be tradeoffs. Besides an increase in maintenance, colonies at extreme range should be more susceptible to rebellion and establishing independent colonies (Ancient Carthage and the not so ancient USA are great examples) [;)]

So before chartering that colony ship you would need to consider if it is worth the extra money, naval and troop presence and governor character assignment that would be needed to keep the colony in the empire.

wouldn't the correct comparison to real life be phoenicians and greeks colonizing south east asia and ancient china grabbing some colonies in europe, whilst the arabs colonize every available desert between mojave and gobi cause they are the only ones capable of living there [;)]

Distant worlds colonization logic in a nutshell...lol

We are playing a game so please stop asking that everything be super-realistic ( it's spaceships in space that go pwee pwee for God's sake [:'(] ).

I just don't unersyand why are some people so against SOI?

Hopefully, Elliot can just crate an On and Off switch an that can be the end of the story.

ORIGINAL: HectorOfTroy

I just don't unersyand why are some people so against SOI?

They obviously want the computer players spamming mining bases in their home system. [:D]

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller

ORIGINAL: HectorOfTroy

I just don't unersyand why are some people so against SOI?

They obviously want the computer players spamming mining bases in their home system. [:D]

I say they can play the original DW [:'(]

Yeah, great fun that. Got enough of it in original DW and RotS. [8|]
Sois "realism" may be debatable (we are in friggin' near infinite space, not on relatively tiny earth), but gameplay wise it makes DW a lot more manageable and interesting to play, and makes enough common sense to be a justified feature.

In all fairness there are a variety of opinions on the SoI. Removing it completely is an extreme position and not one I could ever support. I like SoI's and like them to be kept strong (even in war... but I think that discussion is a lost cause now) otherwise what is the point?

The size and expansion rate of SoI's is a trickier question. I think partly it has to do with map settings. The same size SoI in a cluster vs on an irregular map encompasses a significantly increased number of systems. On a cluster map outside of a cluster it may well encompass nothing. Then throw in number of systems and map sizes and what a SoI covers in pragmatic terms (ie. system numbers rather than distances) varies a great deal. Of cause expansion rate also has markedly different effects depending on the density of systems in the region. So I think that sometimes we are comparing apples and oranges.

Hmmm... If Elliot will make a button, which totally turn off SOI, it's acceptable for me.

They obviously want the computer players spamming mining bases in their home system.

In rots I didn't look such events.

I say they can play the original DW

*facepalm*

Yeah, great fun that. Got enough of it in original DW and RotS.
Sois "realism" may be debatable (we are in friggin' near infinite space, not on relatively tiny earth), but gameplay wise it makes DW a lot more manageable and interesting to play, and makes enough common sense to be a justified feature.

I told not only about realism. This feature totally kills action and unpredictability in a gameplay. It simplifies game a lot. I found simple and effective tactics. Now I can just colonize bad planet and my territory covers pleasant planet which can settle in future. AI can do in answer nothing. Especially, it's very easy for races, that can colonize volcanic and ice planets from the start of game. Somebody can say that colonizing of bad planets hurts my budget, but it's not true. I check it many times.

Well, the AI doesn't do that. So, since its a single-player game, the only thing stopping you from using that exploit would be YOU.

If SoI was done logically this exploit would not have been. Can you remember that situation in rots?

ORIGINAL: WiZz

If SoI was done logically this exploit would not have been. Can you remember that situation in rots?

No, but RotS was hardly devoid of exploits you had to avoid using. C'mon, man.. It's common sense. The AI doesn't do it. Those planets don't even show up on your list by default. I'm sure it never even occured to anyone but you to even try that! That's the thing with this game, you'll never plug all the holes. It's just way, way too big for that. But by making the decision not to exploit it, you can vastly improve your enjoyment of the game. I promise!