My Reaction / Consider These Ideas

[jdmillard]

My thoughts after 5 minutes: "how many kinds of aliens are there? (in a good way)"
My thoughts after 30 minutes: "Now that I fully understand how the farmers/miners/workers/scientists work, I need to start over and do this right."
There are a lot of things that I absolutely loved about this game. I love the units, the alien life, the UI... the list goes on. This will likely be my favorite strategy game. The ways that it's different from SMAC are really great! However, if the developers are as good as the quality of this game suggests, then they'll me much more interested in how to make it better (I mean that as a compliment). I'm confident this game will be amazing-er when released. So let's get to it. First, I have to say that I refrained from reading the other posts in the beta forum so that my opinion and point of view would be independent. So my apologies if I say some things that have been said already or if these have been addressed already and will be added or fixed upon release.

1. The first thing I noticed was how long it took to load the game. I have an SSD and pretty much everything else loads ridiculously fast. I figured that the "loading meshes" was doing some calculations and rendering too (requiring cpu time) but I also have an excellent CPU and more than plenty of RAM. This isn't that big of a deal to me. I just thought I'd mention it.

2. Tips. The tips themselves are fine, the system needs to be improved. I recommend a "got it" system that has been used by many different software developers (not just Google). The whole screen fades a bit grayer and you can't click anything except the tip. There are arrows pointing at stuff. You can click "got it" to remove the tip and go back to normal view or click "?" if you need more details or information. Let's face it: there are a lot of little symbols and things to take in at first. Don't get me wrong: I absolutely LOVE the user interface, the symbols, buttons, the controls, the overall feel (don't change it, it's amazing). It's just a lot to soak in at first. Also the tips get all stacked up if there are a few of them at the same time and if you don't click "okay" soon enough. Pretty soon you are reading tips about the unit workshop when you aren't looking at it anymore. I personally don't care about this, but the tips are one of the first impressions of the game so it might be worth some adjusting.

3. All the other enemy, friendly, and alien units move at the same time in between turns. Some people will like this to save time, but it should be an option. To me, it was really annoying especially when the game is underway and there's a lot of units everywhere. I would rather watch the attacks as they occur one at a time. I think it would be better if each player could decide in the options how all the other turns happen. EDIT: I've decided that I don't mind if they move at the same time. I would like to see the battles individually.

4. When clicking+dragging to move units across the map, it would be really handy if there was a number displayed by the cursor showing how many moves it takes to get where you are pointing (considering roads, mountains, ect). The curvy arrows that appear on the ground should fade to red in the blocks that are out of reach this turn. The player could still command the unit to go where the arrows are red, but the movements required to arrive there would be completed the next turn(s). I really feel like this is necessary. EDIT: this was addressed in the 11/05/13 patch.

5. Removing an item from the production queue is easy: just click. However, it's too easy to accidentally remove the current item. This is annoying when you accidentally clear an item that had 1 turn left. It needs a confirmation box when you clear an item that has some work done on it.

6. If I discover a new unit and decide that I want to add it to the end of the production queue that's easy enough. But if there are 4 items in the queue already and I want to make the new unit first or second in the queue, then I have to clear the whole queue and then rebuild it. It's really annoying. I suggest that you add the ability to click and drag the items that are already in the queue (to slide them above and below each other). It would make swapping two existing items much much easier.

7. Wealth is when you convert production into credits. I find that this can come in handy. However, I wish that when you add it to the queue, you could decide how many turns it will be there so you don't forget about it. (There would still be an "indefinite" option to leave it on Wealth forever or until you decide to change it). This is less important.

8. Diplomacy: I liked it but it could be A LOT better. First: the diplomacy window. I like the little white dots that rated each faction in different areas. However, this still gives me no idea of who is getting pummeled. The first game I played, two of my friends were eliminated without me even knowing they were doing so poorly (this was pretty early on and I didn't have their land discovered yet) They seemed to be doing fine because they had good tech and military but they were running out of bases without me knowing it. I usually try to help my friends or at least protect their last base. Anyways, I would like to see some charts. I want to know population compared to other factions. Or number of bases, or number of territories... take your pick. Perhaps other factions won't be added to the charts till you talk to them. What if we put charts in other windows instead of Diplomacy? Example: Put a military strength comparison chart in the military adviser window... and the others in the appropriate places. Just ideas.

9. More Diplomacy: I loved the Alpha Centauri feature of "sworn pact to serve" where the AI factions come crawling on their hands and knees begging you spare them. In some games I would accept and then build them back up a bit afterwards (giving them some of their bases back with some tech and money). Then they'd always have my back when others attacked me. I also like the option to trade cities or or give cities. I used this strategically all the time. If my friends were getting pummeled, I'd trade or buy a base closer to the action, then use my money and better tech to supply the battle with good units without needing to transport them across the map. I also used it to protect my friends who were about to die... I'd give them one of my smaller bases for free. Diplomacy was the weakest part of the Pandora Beta. It needs more versatility, more options.

10. Every 4X game struggles with the infamous "AI-factions-that-get-left-in-the-dust" phenomenon. It's always about two factions (different ones every time) that just really struggle to keep up and never end up really affecting the game. So here is the new idea: In real life, you can only keep technology secret for so long. So Imagine a button in the Research window that says "black market". Here's how it works: When a new technology is discovered (by anyone), it is kept secret (off the black market) for X number of turns (others may research it normally still, but no black market availability). After X turns, it hits the black market for a high amount of money (anyone can buy it if they have the prerequisite techs). That high cost decays over time and eventually becomes pretty cheap. This does two things: It presents a challenge to those who want to stay on the cutting edge (because it will cost a lot) and it allows the "left-in-the-dust-factions" the ability keep up; but they will still be behind everyone else by a margin. If you are a "middle-of-the-road" faction that is still formidable, then waiting for the cheap prices will take more turns than just doing the research yourself. Before you think that this idea stinks, remember: The rate of decay can be adjusted until it feels right (or perhaps it could be in the options... if the player wants everyone to basically have the same tech, then make the decay really fast. The option would be called "black market tech cost"). Also, the current price for each tech on a given turn will be discounted by a certain amount for each opponent faction that already has it. So cheap tech will be the tech that has been discovered a while ago and is known to multiple other players. Also, the high initial price (the cost when it first hits the black market) will be higher for more advanced tech (perhaps proportional to the research points required to discover them). But the human player doesn't need to understand the all the math. He/she simply clicks the "black market" button in the research window and the tech tree background changes to some other design and prices appear over each tech that is currently available. In this mode, you are selecting purchases instead of a tech to research. Clicking the button gain returns to normal view where you pick to research. If people don't like this, add it to the options to disable black market tech purchases. This isn't supposed to change how research works, it's supposed help the "left-in-the-dust" factions so the game doesn't decay into the two most powerful factions fighting each other. If it makes you feel better, don't call it black market, call it "Espionage" with the same ideas. The longer the tech has been out and the more people have it, the cheaper it is for you spy teams and hackers to get their hands on it. Call it what you will, I think the idea is worth a discussion.

11. Steal tech on conquer city. I would have liked this, but I it's not that big a deal. But if you consider adding it, just make it an optional rule so people can decide whether or not to play with it.

12. It would be nice to know how much progress had been done on terraforming improvements while they are being constructed. Assignable hot-keys for terraforming improvements wouldn't hurt either. EDIT: The hot-keys were added.

13. The autosaves are in the same folder as the normal saves. This is fine, but I think it's a good idea to make the text of the autosave titles blue or some other color so that you can easily tell which saves are which. This is important because all the saves are ordered by "last modified" and they get all jumbled. Another fix would be to add an option to sort alphabetically.

14. I had more screen tearing than in any other game. vsync didn't help. Yes, I have good drivers. I don't care that much about it... just thought I'd tell you.

15. I found it particularly difficult to grow my cities. All the AI cities were always considerably larger than mine. I wasn't taxing very high and I never ran out of nutrients. It was even harder when I played Noxium with it's faction penalty of -2 habitat. EDIT: This was discussed below and I learned that this is affected by your expansion style.

16. What is up with North/South poles? I don't mind if the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, but if there is tundra at the top and bottom then you are suggesting that by passing Greenland, you can jump into Argentina. What about that whole hemisphere on the other side? Then again, I suppose that one explanation could be that only one of the poles is frozen and it is the pole that is at the top and bottom of the screen and the rest of the map is wrapped around the rest of the sphere with the other pole being right in the center of the map (a warm pole). That explanation is a bit of a stretch though (pun intended). This flaw isn't the end of the world for me (pun intended), but I had to ask.

17. It is possible to create a zero-power unit. Let me explain: create an infantry unit and give it a sniper weapon (I forgot the weapon's real name... it's the one where the enemies don't retaliate). Don't give him armor. Don't produce the unit in a base that has a training facility. Don't test this as a faction that has a natural rank bonus. Upon production, this unit will instantly die. The bodies will even fall like they are being attacked. The workshop needs to disallow creation of units with zero power.


AESTHETICS:

18. Auto-mute sound when game is minimized. (or make this an option).

19. When changes are made to a unit in the workshop, the rotating model instantly "snaps back" to the original orientation. This feels unpolished from a development perspective. To make it more polished, have it continue to rotating. Or make it slide back to the original orientation ...or slide forward if it's done 180 degrees already (the slide speed would obviously be faster than the default rotation speed). I like the slide idea most because then it will be clearly obvious that the change has "registered", and it will also feel polished. Just more ideas.

20. Customization of factions' colors. I really struggle to differentiate colors that are close in shade. Blues and purples are the devil. I'd like to be able to pick faction colors at the beginning of the game. Keep the faction symbols the same, but dye-able. It would also be nice to customize the name of the faction that you pick to play.

21. The farm image could be improved. I don't have a good suggestion though.


Don't take any of this in a negative light. I absolutely loved the game so far and I'm really excited for it. If any of these ideas are good but you don't have time to implement them before Nov 14th, consider them in a post-release patch. I'll help program it I know enough programming to be in intern.

EDIT: I added comment 22 in post 6 below.
EDIT: I added comment 23 in post 7 below.
EDIT: I added comment 24 in post 11 below.
EDIT: I added comments 25-27 in post 21 on the next page.

[dalves]

A lot of good suggestions

Just wanted to point something:

What is up with North/South poles? I don't mind if the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, but if there is tundra at the top and bottom then you are suggesting that by passing Greenland, you can jump into Argentina. What about that whole hemisphere on the other side? Then again, I suppose that one explanation could be that only one of the poles is frozen and it is the pole that is at the top and bottom of the screen and the rest of the map is wrapped around the rest of the sphere with the other pole being right in the center of the map (a warm pole). That explanation is a bit of a stretch though (pun intended). This flaw isn't the end of the world for me (pun intended), but I had to ask.

If the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, it isn't a sphere anymore. If we strech a bit, we can make it a torus. Maybe the tundra is in the inner ring?

[Strategia]

A lot of good suggestions

Just wanted to point something:

What is up with North/South poles? I don't mind if the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, but if there is tundra at the top and bottom then you are suggesting that by passing Greenland, you can jump into Argentina. What about that whole hemisphere on the other side? Then again, I suppose that one explanation could be that only one of the poles is frozen and it is the pole that is at the top and bottom of the screen and the rest of the map is wrapped around the rest of the sphere with the other pole being right in the center of the map (a warm pole). That explanation is a bit of a stretch though (pun intended). This flaw isn't the end of the world for me (pun intended), but I had to ask.

If the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, it isn't a sphere anymore. If we strech a bit, we can make it a torus. Maybe the tundra is in the inner ring?

This has really bugged me too. I loved Civ IV's solution, where if you zoomed out far enough (on an east-west wrapping map), the map would deform into a sphere, like a real planet, with the unreachable poles under a massive ice cap. It's still kind of iffy how travel in tiles means that, say, infantry at the equator are much faster than planes at the poles, but that's one of many unfortunate side effects of trying to map a 3D structure (a planet) to a 2D plane. Wrapping the poles like this, however, is really a poor solution, it's counterintuitive and confusing.

Or maybe that's why Dr. Schreiber keeps talking about how his maps are mapped to tori? (which, btw, is the proper plural of "torus" - "torii" are something else entirely)

[jdmillard]

A lot of good suggestions

Just wanted to point something:

What is up with North/South poles? I don't mind if the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, but if there is tundra at the top and bottom then you are suggesting that by passing Greenland, you can jump into Argentina. What about that whole hemisphere on the other side? Then again, I suppose that one explanation could be that only one of the poles is frozen and it is the pole that is at the top and bottom of the screen and the rest of the map is wrapped around the rest of the sphere with the other pole being right in the center of the map (a warm pole). That explanation is a bit of a stretch though (pun intended). This flaw isn't the end of the world for me (pun intended), but I had to ask.

If the screen wraps horizontally and vertically, it isn't a sphere anymore. If we strech a bit, we can make it a torus. Maybe the tundra is in the inner ring?

This has really bugged me too. I loved Civ IV's solution, where if you zoomed out far enough (on an east-west wrapping map), the map would deform into a sphere, like a real planet, with the unreachable poles under a massive ice cap. It's still kind of iffy how travel in tiles means that, say, infantry at the equator are much faster than planes at the poles, but that's one of many unfortunate side effects of trying to map a 3D structure (a planet) to a 2D plane. Wrapping the poles like this, however, is really a poor solution, it's counterintuitive and confusing.

Or maybe that's why Dr. Schreiber keeps talking about how his maps are mapped to tori? (which, btw, is the proper plural of "torus" - "torii" are something else entirely)

I was just about to say something similar. My (ridiculous) "theory" about a sphere with 1 frozen pole would only work under the following assumptions and would have an even less realistic travel discrepancies: The only way this could work geometrically is if the top, bottom, left, and right edges are all 1 point and the rest of the map stretches out in the shape of a sphere. (I know this is ridiculous... but that's my point). Imagine taking a balloon and poking a hole in it (without loosing air, though it's pretty irrelevant). Then without anymore ripping, stretch that hole larger and larger and larger that the rest of the balloon becomes flat. Now stretch the shape into a rectangle. Now draw hexes on it. Now let the balloon go back to how it was (same amount of air inside) and seal the hole. There would be a huge concentration of hexes near the hole. So each hex (on the square map) near the frozen pole represents a tiny tiny plot of land and the ones in the middle of the map would be representing small continents. Also, traveling along the edge of the square map from one corner to another would be like spending years walking in a tiny circle. With this explanation, traveling is already messed up, but there are still two huge flaws. First, if the left and right edges are part of the frozen pole, wouldn't there be tundra there too? (or at least a vertical stripe of tundra somewhere on the map? Second, what kind of orbital mechanics would this planet have in order to have 1 pole that is cold? The only explanation would be if the planet rotated such that during orbit, one side always faces the sun (like our moon to us). But that side of the planet wouldn't support human life. (and it wouldn't be a frozen pole, it would be a frozen hemisphere.)

I understand that this isn't what the developers were going for. I was just showing the implied assumptions. Their best bet would be to make different map wrapping options available to the player upon game creation.

[jdmillard]

I was thinking about my #10 in the original post. I actually like the term "espionage" over "black market". I think it fits the game better and the math behind it still fits. Like I said, the longer a tech has been discovered and the more factions that have it, the cheaper it for your spy network to get their hands on it. Plus it just sounds cool.

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks for all the feedback. Please do not worry about feedback sounding negative. It is only when we know what people don't like that we can fix it. It doesn't help at all to tell us the game is great if there are ways you feel it could be better. I'm not saying will will always agree or be able to make the changes but we do want your honest thoughts and we have thick skins so don't hold back!

[jdmillard]

Thanks for all the feedback. Please do not worry about feedback sounding negative. It is only when we know what people don't like that we can fix it. It doesn't help at all to tell us the game is great if there are ways you feel it could be better. I'm not saying will will always agree or be able to make the changes but we do want your honest thoughts and we have thick skins so don't hold back!

You guys are awesome. Anyways, I do feel like the game is great and will get even greater. Keep up the good work guys.

I also had another thought:
22. I felt that the orbital bombardment operation was a good idea but it can be overwhelming when you're up against Imperium and he's got like 10 of those things. So the second you show your face, you're gone. The operation is good because it forces you to be more tactical (keeping your units in different hexes and approaching from different directions). However, it can be very powerful when stacked so many times. What if there were diminishing returns of bombardment damage when deployed in the same hex on the same turn? So the second one would still be effective (just a little less), and so on... I'm not suggesting that bombardments lose the ability to destroy units though. This idea makes sense realistically because after the first bombardment, the units would take cover in trenches, trees, or whatever (thus protecting them a bit from the next wave). Just a thought.

[jdmillard]

Here's another one:
23. Idea: For captured alien life, keep the faction hidden to other factions and make it appear like a normal native life. This way, you could send them rampaging into enemy or friendly territory without diplomatic repercussions. You could target their colonizers and formers, or just send them as a spy to see what their cities are like. This obviously isn't that important, but maybe a fun idea.

[Strategia]

Their best bet would be to make different map wrapping options available to the player upon game creation.

This does seem like the best option, IMO. I liked that option in Civ IV too, being able to wrap the world to a plane, sphere or torus. It also means the current generation algorithm could be kept in place (though more customisable parameters, like age, temperature, moisture (affecting ratio of plains/tundra/desert vs. grassland/snow, prevalence of forests), occurrence of special features (make 'em rare so it's more worth fighting over, or ubiquitous for a faster-paced game), fungal bloom (and perhaps its shape too; dense clumps or snaking tendrils, or even a massive "hub" full of hives with tendrils extending all over the planet), coastline/continent shape (longer, smoother coastlines/islands or bays and peninsulas everywhere), etc. would be great to have, although probably much (much) more time-consuming to put in).

22. I felt that the orbital bombardment operation was a good idea but it can be overwhelming when you're up against Imperium and he's got like 10 of those things. So the second you show your face, you're gone. The operation is good because it forces you to be more tactical (keeping your units in different hexes and approaching from different directions). However, it can be very powerful when stacked so many times. What if there were diminishing returns of bombardment damage when deployed in the same hex on the same turn? So the second one would still be effective (just a little less), and so on... I'm not suggesting that bombardments lose the ability to destroy units though. This idea makes sense realistically because after the first bombardment, the units would take cover in trenches, trees, or whatever (thus protecting them a bit from the next wave). Just a thought.

I believe orbital bombardment already has diminishing returns, although much less so than e.g. snipers or artillery. I've noticed that second and third followup bombardments (or nukes) do less damage than the first. Granted, it could be more pronounced (although nukes already feel more like tactical warheads, given their fairly low damage to a city full of units, than strategic ones, tbh).

Here's another one:
23. Idea: For captured alien life, keep the faction hidden to other factions and make it appear like a normal native life. This way, you could send them rampaging into enemy or friendly territory without diplomatic repercussions. You could target their colonizers and formers, or just send them as a spy to see what their cities are like. This obviously isn't that important, but maybe a fun idea.

This would be fun indeed, and make capturing aliens (at least the lower-tier ones like drones and scites) more worthwhile. It gives players the ability to keep other neutral or even friendly factions in check early on, slowing their expansion without risking a costly war. Besides, how awesome would it be to send the Aspidoch or Leviathan to go harass enemy shipping? :p

[jdmillard]

Here's another one:
23. Idea: For captured alien life, keep the faction hidden to other factions and make it appear like a normal native life. This way, you could send them rampaging into enemy or friendly territory without diplomatic repercussions. You could target their colonizers and formers, or just send them as a spy to see what their cities are like. This obviously isn't that important, but maybe a fun idea.

This would be fun indeed, and make capturing aliens (at least the lower-tier ones like drones and scites) more worthwhile. It gives players the ability to keep other neutral or even friendly factions in check early on, slowing their expansion without risking a costly war. Besides, how awesome would it be to send the Aspidoch or Leviathan to go harass enemy shipping? :p

And you'd wonder if aliens attacking you are send by other factions. Maybe a satellite sweep would reveal the controlling faction?

Anyways, one might ask, "how do you explain how this works to the human player?" Well, when you select an alien, you'll notice that they don't have armor or devices (naturally). I would suggest that when you capture an alien, a "device" is added to it that has the "hidden faction" explanation on it when you hover your cursor. The "device" is simply there to explain how it works... there would be no other bonus. Obviously, when enemy factions select the unit, they wouldn't see that there's a device at all.

One time I captured a Leviathan or Aspidoch (I don't remember which one). I was all excited to dominate the seas when I found out that the upkeep was 16 credits a turn . This was still early in the game and that was 4 times the upkeep of my best units. Needless to say, I wasn't too disappointed when he died. I'm not suggesting that it be lowered; It was just a fun little surprise.

[jdmillard]

Here's another one:
24. I usually like a challenge, but I did one test run on easy. I wanted to see how the AI city sizes compared to mine without any morale boost. I played it all the way to then end of the tech tree. Their bases still grew much faster than mine. I had zero pollution and holo theaters. I never ran out of nutrients and I didn't raise taxes. Why does it take so much longer to grow my cities even on easy? Is there something about of population growth that I don't understand? I wish I could attract immigrants from other factions.

It makes sense that morale doesn't affect overall growth of the faction, but does affect the growth of individual cities due to immigration. So it's not surprising that my test run on easy would yield the same city size results as my other games. The morale difference affected other things, but not faction growth. My point is that the difficulty is irrelevant to the issue that the AI can somehow grow their cities faster. I made more comments in my post below.

EDIT: After the discussion below. I experimented with a different expanding strategy with seemed to remedy this. So this point is less relevant, but see the discussion below for details.

[dalves]

I will have to echo that comment. I had this exact experience in my last game. That's why I suggested to make the computer more aggressive. It can already out-produce me.

[jdmillard]

Tell me if I'm wrong:
-Positive morale boosts how much food, minerals, production, and research comes out of a given city. Negative morale does the opposite.
-Morale determines emigration/immigration among your cities, but does not affect the overall growth of your faction... Morale is useless when it comes to growing your entire faction because good morale can be used to grow particular cities, but they will simply be taking away growth from your other cities.
-Habitat does not affect the growth rate until there isn't any left. It's value essentially sets a cap on the city size.
-Food does not affect the growth rate unless you run out of it.
-There is that operation that boosts the growth of a chosen city for 10 turns.

Is there anything else that I'm missing? I feel like there's something I'm missing. I do everything I can to get decent sized bases, but I'm always so far behind my opponents. Often times their bases are twice the size of mine. This gives them such an advantage in research (among other things). I find myself needing to dedicate much of my resources to research in order to keep up. I also need to skip many techs; I know this is common strategy, but I'm forced to skip extra ones that might be nice to have.

[Balois]

Is there anything else that I'm missing? I feel like there's something I'm missing. I do everything I can to get decent sized bases, but I'm always so far behind my opponents. Often times their bases are twice the size of mine. This gives them such an advantage in research (among other things). I find myself needing to dedicate much of my resources to research in order to keep up. I also need to skip many techs; I know this is common strategy, but I'm forced to skip extra ones that might be nice to have.

I have been having a similar experience. At some point in the game I simply cannot compete because I cannot build my cities soon enough, or big enough. It helped when I went to a hugh map but still ended with me being overwhelmed by an enemy AI that spammed my cities with Troopers. My large mechs were eventually beaten down by literally dozens of storm troopers.

[jdmillard]

In my most recent game, I decided to try expanding slower. I focused on that first base for a bit while I explored. (Difficulty was on hard and high alien aggression). I waited to expand until I got a free colonizer from that one tech (On this tech tree, it took a bit longer). Obviously, this base had zero emigration because there were no other bases. This city grew incredibly fast. Before long, I had a size 10 base early on. After getting that free colonizer, I build another one too. So now I had 3 cities. The problem returned though. My bases grew slowly again, not to mention that I gave the other factions a head start. Later, when I met up with other factions I saw that they again had no problem growing. I had 1 enormous city, a few small ones and they had enormous cities and many of them.

On a different note: I like how the difficulty works. An overall morale boost doesn't change overall faction growth (as discussed in posts above). It allows the factions to produce more and/or tax more. I think it's a genius way to make the game more difficult. However, I find it extremely annoying that the AI factions have such a huge growth bonus (regardless of difficulty) that's hard-coded into the game. I'd rather have a game where human players' cities can grow the same rate as the AI (sure the game will be a bit easier but keep reading), and simultaneously give the AI an even greater morale boost (they can produce more and/or tax more making it harder).

What's my point? I don't mind be out-produced and out-researched, but I do mind that I can't do anything because all my bases are size 6 and theirs are 14. I can pull off a decent defense, but that's it. If the AI needs to keep a growth boost for some reason, it should at least be drastically reduced.

[void]

Hi guys, thanks for the feedback!

The AI does not receive a growth bonus. Maybe it took over another empire?

If you are in a situation where you feel the numbers can't be correct, please provide a save game.

[jdmillard]

That's good to know.

I guess there's just something seriously wrong with my play style or there's something about growth that I don't understand. In every game I've played, every AI faction has had more bases than me and they were all much larger than mine. I'll see what I can do about a saved game.

[drakm72]

I guess there's just something seriously wrong with my play style or there's something about growth that I don't understand. In every game I've played, every AI faction has had more bases than me and they were all much larger than mine.

Yep. I have the same problem as you have with all of my games. If I concentrate in growing my cities, then AI faction declare war on me and crushes me; if I try to build a larger and improve army (without playing Imperium faction), I lose the game because of either the techno or economic domination by another faction. And if I try to always improve in all the key aspect of the game, an AI faction will eventually win anyway by superior military, economically or science development.

So my guess is that I'm not understand completly the game or I'm a very bad player at this. Maybe both.

[Fimconte]

When are you guys expanding?
If you do it too soon, it's somewhat crippling for your capital.

Also scouting is very useful, to get a good visual on where the AI is and to see when they expo. Once I see that most factions are dropping their 2nd city, I make getting a colonizer out a priority as well, either by tech or building it.

I don't like to deploy a colonizer before Capital pop ~7-8.

I think another thing to consider is AI special tile control.
Having a a +50% production tile or +50% science one is a huge boon (too big even imho, they can drastically increase the output of mid/late-game cities).

[jdmillard]

You are right. If you read my earlier post, you'll see that I did a test game where I expanded slower which resulted in having a very large capital. I think the reason that it didn't work for me in the long run is because when my capital got pretty big, I built 2 new cities at the same time (one from colonization fervor and one from a produced colonizer). The both grew really slowly.

This morning, I started a new game (hard difficulty, very aggressive native life, medium map). I tried this strategy again but expanded only once when my capital became large enough. My capital was 8 or 9 when I expanded. Expanding slowly goes against my grain, but it didn't bother me this time around because of the intensity of the native life (set it highest on purpose for this reason). This new base grew quickly enough with all the immigration to it (as expected). I waited to start the third city. This worked out nicely when I got a third city because it now had tons of immigration to it from the first two. I repeated this pattern and found that my growth problems were solved. It goes slower in the beginning, but once you get a few cities that are size 8 or higher, the new ones grow and catch up pretty quick. I put an emphasis on research this game. I have to admit that it was the first time that my faction was the first one to reach Mechanization Era (because it was the first game that i had decent sized bases). My cities' sizes are comparable to those of the AI factions . I don't know the math behind the emigration/immigration numbers, but it certainly works better this way.

If I establish 5 or 6 cities early, they grow very slow and the AI passes me very quickly. Example: If you had 6 bases of equal morale and equal size, each one would grow "independent" of the others (because there would be no migration). I still don't understand why a base under such a condition would grow slower than a base that is the only one in the faction (no migration by force). Both examples are migration-free. What is different between them? This is just out of curiosity, it actually doesn't bother me now that I know this new strategy. I actually kind of like expanding slower now that I've figured out how to do it effectively.

This is unrelated, but: Because my research output was so good, everyone agreed to a research pact. I didn't care too much about the bonus, but it allowed me to keep an eye on how much research output everyone had per turn by looking at how much of a bonus I was getting from each faction compared to what they got from me. I made sure that I always had the highest output per turn. Now that I have some better military, my next move it to betray the faction that is in second place for research. We'll see how it goes.

@ Balois & drakm72
Try this. It worked for me. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Also, this topic was originally supposed to be just another point in my list. Had I known that it would be discussed this much, I'd have started a new thread. My apologies.