Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post Reply
resistterra
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:39 am

Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by resistterra »

some suggestions based on 3.27. if addressed then disregard.

UI

projects/technologies need to be grouped under tiers, such as tier 2 drives, tier 3 missiles, and tier 5 reactors. projects should show some basic information without needing to click on them, such as high thrust, medium delta v, hydrogen/rare fuel. clicking on them should show further information such as power and efficiency while also show what further projects or technologies they may unlock. repeatables especially should show potential unlocks and their chances.

drive ratings need to be reworked into something usable, such as delta v rating of 1 meaning 1kps, 10 meaning 100, and 100 meaning 1k and so on. currently rating is useless if not misleading.

weapons should have clear volley size, damage, and reload times with an additional damage per minute value. if damage/penetration varies significantly at certain ranges it should be clearly stated. stats tab should dynamically account for components like laser engines.

there should a refit all option in the fleet ui, allowing you to choose which refit if there are multiple options. refit from the fleet tab should be redesigned and streamlined.

allow us to modify the default priorities of our faction.

post battle screen should be shown in the current battle map with an option to quickly replay the battle.

nations need a new "actions" tab showing 3 lists for current options for war, unification, and federation.

Armies

armies should start at a base of 1 and scale from there. starting at 3 is confusing.

you should be able to target faraway regions or armies. if targeting an army your army should attempt to intercept. attacking should give a rough estimate of outcome.

armies need a patrol option to target nearby hostile armies or Xeno fauna in current nation/union.

navies need better identifiers, such as unique icons. rather than build a naval army, naval priority should instead give an army naval capability.

Fleets

when creating new ships, they should all be added to a dedicated new ship fleet such as "Juliet Alpha", or just "New Fleet 1". Refitted Ships should also be added to such a fleet if it's not possible to send them back to their original fleet.

Refitting costs should in general be lower, and refitting limits relaxed especially for weapon modules. scrapping a ship design should also give back more resources such as 60-90% improving with techs and shipyard tier. it currently hurts experimenting and exploring with new modules and designs when you are punished so harshly for not getting it right the first time.

ships should be divided into sections similar to battlefleet gothic. add a top and lower section for front, body, radiator and drive each with their own hull, armor, component and weapon hp. larger ships can have multiple body sections.

allow us to have the ship attempt face the nearest enemy with a certain section, such as nose, lower front or top body.

allow missiles to have the attack fire mode to be usable in very large battles. missiles also need far larger base ammo to be usable in longer campaigns, currently hard to use them outside of station orbits and ai control. in general missiles should also have a lower reload time but more speed/hp to avoid overkill and further stand out from guns.

each sections hull hp should be shown above armor value in fleet designer.

radiators should only be damaged if they are actually hit. top and lower radiator sections should continue to work independently.

thrust and delta v should have far less combat value if any at all. it currently renders determining actual combat power difficult.

repair modules should allow ships to automatically repair and refuel other undocked ships in fleet.

allow us to choose to deny reinforcements and set starting fleet positions/speed in the battle map.

Councilors

there needs to be mentor positions for old councilors per current council slot, granting their disciple bonus xp and positive trait chance for completing assignments based on their own total xp and traits. once retired they can no longer go on the field.

certain assignments should have the option for councilors to repeat when possible, such as clearing Xeno fauna/bases. once the current Xeno fauna is cleared councilors should look for the nearest Xeno fauna that isn't targeted by another councilor.

councilor types and certain traits should reduce or increase the cost of increasing certain stats. a diplomat should naturally have an easier time ranking up persuasion rather than command. should also modify xp gained depending on assignment.

special orgs should be marked as such and not take up space from total orgs equipped and unequipped org slots. there are also too many orgs in general, consider having orgs take up 1/3/6 stars instead of 1/2/3 and readjust their stats accordingly.


Diplomacy

relations value should be set between -100 and 100, with most actions only having a small effect on relations to avoid wild swings.

investigating or detaining councilors should show us an estimate band of their relations with us and other factions. also give us estimates of the impact assignments and trades will have on relations.

allow us to initiate diplomacy with allies without having to contact a councilor. if an action breaks NAP, we should receive a warning before committing.

allow us to start monthly trades with willing factions, cancellable at any time. allow pro alien factions and the initiative to trade with aliens for exotics.

factions should mainly consider their own needs over relations when trading. having protectorate start trades demanding resources and orgs should be a thing of the past. ai should be much more willing to trade resources when it benefits them.

add 3 unity projects: the Mughals, the Khanate Hordes, and the Ottomans. make it easier for councilors to increase unrest in big nations.

National diplomacy may need a bigger overhaul, doesn't feel right yet.

Factions

more needs to be done to differentiate how they play, such as unique replacements for certain habs, priorities, technologies, councilor actions and components.

immortal leaders need to go. starting faction leaders should have a hidden mean time to death set at game start. a replacement of 2 possible options is given on death depending on how well the campaign is going. a thriving campaign gives you a faction leader who builds upon the previous leader with bonuses and options that reinforce the current direction. a failing campaign gives you the desperation leader with more powerful and alternative options and a modified win condition but with bigger tradeoffs and the removal of certain capability.

certain leader options have a chance to be unlocked upon reaching certain prerequisites, such as researching advanced ai technologies allowing you to upload exodus leader consciousness on time of death, or grafting savant leader with alien DNA.

Technologies and Projects

in general projects need to be cheaper and technologies more expensive. the balance is off here.

it should be clearer what projects a certain technology will grant access to.

allow us to go further into the automation/bio path. give us the option to make fully autonomous ships that can withstand greater g forces and more efficient designs without life support but requiring more mission control and unable to carry marines or councilors. also allow us to build massive autonomous colonies, exchanging life support systems and upkeep with increased energy and mission control requirements.

or go the other path and allow us to have genetically and cybernetically enhanced humans who can withstand slightly higher acceleration, have higher boarding strength, and require less mission control to maintain.

Stations and colonies

There needs to be a much bigger jump between tier 1, 2 and 3 stations and colonies and their modules, on average of 10x the benefit and 12x the cost, crew and upkeep of the previous tier. Partially this is to save our wrist and fingers, but also plays into space efficiency vs cost efficiency. The less mindless repetition the better. It would also allow us to get higher populations into space.

Campaign

ai is bad. really bad. factions are bankrupt without me doing anything to them, and they will not accept reasonable trades due to unwarranted hostility. without sabotaging them they are also far behind in projects. space ai seems to be nonexistent except for extremely basic alien movements.

needs to be a way to disarm alien nukes, even if it has a low success chance. detaining aliens should give a bigger bonus to assaulting alien invasion bases. alien invasion armies need a longer window of vulnerability.

there needs to be more goals and interactions for the early game outside of earth, and the creation of an expansive mid-game. currently it feels like you jump straight from early to early-end game.

the delay to starting viable space economies is also too long. Costs and technologies should also be reexamined to create a better game pace.

alien aggression should scale slower but higher. currently they curb stomp you to the dirt early and then don't do much. this disincentivizes players from fighting aliens early, but also essentially guarantees a win later on. space faction ai is so helpless it's as if it doesn't exist, while alien ai fleets wait to be destroyed or strand themselves in orbits with no fuel. there is no initiative or plan for space, it doesn't feel lived in or contested.

here are some examples of goals and events to liven our campaigns before the end game:

have motherships become dedicated colonizers and repair/resupply vessels, with each one costing the aliens a huge amount of time and resources to replace at their main base and a primary target for the anti-alien factions to hunt down.

have assault fleets be created at dedicated bases spread around the solar system, each one requiring several years to rebuild with a mothership.

have a war on mercury when an anti-alien faction sets up base there, with the savants launching an alien assisted armada to purify it. or the aliens launching a dedicated campaign to cleanse the moons of Jupiter.

or really anything you can come up with that would make for a fun and engaging playthrough.
resistterra
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:39 am

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by resistterra »

some more things that would gameplay/controls better.

Battles
allow players to select and control multiple ships using commonly used methods such as shift clicking.

give us the ability to set control groups and set advanced maneuvers fleet wide such as padlock.

take a note out of battlefleet gothic and allow us to assign priorities to enemy ships. default priority 4, low priority at 5 and up to priority 1. set primary target selects a ship to be priority 1. focus fire attacks priority 3 and below when in range.

allow us to prioritize targeting ship sections such as radiators or weapons when possible.

ai by default should always attempt to point nose weapons at nearby selected target rather than facing body at enemy while strafing.

Skirmish should save last used fleets, show us battle results while in battle screen and allow us to instantly replay fight, campaign likewise. allow us to study ship weapons and modules in detail in skirmish screen and give us more information on current enemy ship state in skirmish battles.


Structures and Fleets

when starting a hab, station or module while paused, deconstruction should be instant and refund the total amount. if done while unpaused, the time to deconstruct and resources refunded should scale with construction progress. replacing under construction structures should follow the same rules.

replacing or deconstructing fully built modules should refund us a portion of their cost, scaling with technology.

ships under construction when cancelled should refund us the whole amount.

allow us to shut down entire hab/station with a click of a button, or to shut down all selected modules at a station/hab. give us an estimated power budget for under construction modules as well.

when not in use certain modules like shipyards and powerplants should enter a maintenance/low upkeep state rather than having us hunt them down and manually turn them off/on.

dry hole/quake events should be rarer, and technologies to reduce impact/frequency added in.

give us the option in the fleet screen to eject stranded ships from fleet rather than having to hunt them down manually. if a repair module is present, give us an eta on when the stranded ships can soar through the cosmos again.

fleets by default should have a "refuel when possible" toggle so they automatically refuel when docked.
resistterra
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:39 am

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by resistterra »

just some broader campaign problems that ruin the experience.

Midgame
a big problem is once you can protect earth from assault carriers and have a base on mercury you have essentially won the game and are only going through the motions for many hours. the aliens do not escalate after being blocked from earth initially, their initial alpha strike is the only real threat in the game. there is no mid game at all.

the current lvl 5 threat from aliens should instead be 2, with each further threat being related to space warfare and access to earth. that means alien response scales harder with more assets in space so it never feels like the game is already over long before the final assault. 1 should be a softer initial attack to give the player more breathing room, 5 should be an all-out space warfare campaign with additional reinforcements and equipment from the wormhole and activating contingency bases and fleets all around the system.

the final hours of the game should be tense with a feeling of desperation and exhilaration, not boredom, repetition and a forgone conclusion. reaching threat 5 should be a major moment in the campaign where you realize you have to end it now or you will lose, rather than something you can reach with almost no space assets early in the campaign and having little meaning or consequence. the scaling and pace are really off.

Faction Relations

factions need to act logically and cooperate tightly when it benefits them. they should have the option of sharing intel on common adversaries and more willing to share projects when it makes sense. humanity first and resistance shouldn't be sabotaging each other without a series of escalations first, neither should the protectorate and the servants. currently they will attack each other completely unprovoked and there is no sense of any strategic thinking of tradeoffs or long-term planning to achieve their goals. they just start fighting everyone because they can.

if playing as the servants it should feel like the anti-alien factions are colluding with each other to destroy you, and that you need to cement an alliance with the protectorate asap. the threat from factions working together just isn't there currently.
DarthVicious
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:38 pm

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by DarthVicious »

With regards fleet battles, if I understand the dev plan rightly, they are planning to do ship groups, or coordinated movements, etc. Remains to be seen how it will be implemented. As it is, it is a bit of micro, but once you get used to it, it works quite well.

I hated it at first, but now I am rather sold. Once you get used to the key binds for pitch, yaw, roll, thrust then it's fine.

The mouse is a bit finicky if there is a lot going on, and it's hard to read damage numbers or get good intel on enemy ships. The mouseovers are rather limited for weapon types, ammo levels, damage, etc. But overall I do enjoy a good battle.
Richard Baxton held off four waves of mind worms. We immediately purchased his identity manifests and repackaged him into the Recon Rover Rick character. People need heroes. They don't need to know he died clawing his eyes out, screaming for mercy.
resistterra
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 10:39 am

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by resistterra »

thanks for telling me, I'm glad it's being implemented. managing large fleets feels impossible currently without spending large amounts of time repeating the same action for multiple ships, especially when armed with missiles.

Larger Alien Threat Range, Research Based Threat Floor

increasing max alien threat to 10 levels would give a much more gradual and natural increase to threat levels and a wider range of alien responses. every 2 threat could also increase wormhole production as the aliens escalate the strategic importance of winning the war against humanity and devote more resources to expanding the wormhole. the harder you push the aliens, the harder they push back as long as the wormhole is still active.

permanent threat floor should be based primarily on global technology levels, with certain technologies deemed a threat to the aliens raising the minimum threat level by the band that they are a part of. say antimatter missiles are part of the threat level 7 band of technologies, researching it would raise the minimum alien threat level 7, or the highest researched threat band. these technologies would be clearly marked with a red border and a "threatening technology" tag explaining how the aliens would likely perceive and react to humanity gaining that capability.

it would be a more realistic way for aliens to escalate their campaign. a bunch of tier 1 mining bases or weak gunships should be a minor concern until neutralized, but once humanity can create titans, antimatter drives and phasers it doesn't matter how many bases or warships they have in operation currently, from then on, they are always highly dangerous and pose a permanent potential threat to their own home world.

having used mc as the minimum threat designator makes little sense, punishing early space gameplay despite being vastly inferior to the aliens. meanwhile researching technologies such as coil guns and plasma weaponry receives no response at all as long as you stay under the hidden mc cap. its unintuitive and obtuse, hurts player choice during early game, and takes you out of the setting with gamey ways to make it irrelevant. you can research end game techs as they watch you master the known laws of physics without lifting a finger to intervene.

servants and protectorate should also be capable of delaying global technologies based on their research output invested in a technology compared to the total, slowing down scientific progress through misinformation, sabotage and dead ends.

other actions situations should also dynamically raise the minimum threat band while active, such as owning all of mercury or preventing alien access to earth. these actions and situations should also trigger tailored alien responses to neutralize these threats to their goals.

Beam Weaponry, Nuclear Flame Throwers And Rail Gun Torpedoes

add research and projects for sustained laser beam weaponry, canister fired fusion blow torches and rail gun launched torpedoes. not because they are practical or anything like that, but because they are cool and seem physically plausible. seeing them implemented with all their drawbacks and advantages in a semi realistic game would be awesome to see.

Rail Gun Launched Colony/Repair Kits

if scientifically possible and feasible, give us a technology that allows us to create a rail gun station that launches automated colony/repair kits to distant stranded ships and celestial bodies. each magnetically launched kit needs to be built beforehand as a cooldown timer and requires resources as well as fuel for acceleration/braking towards their targets. this will allow you to colonize and repair distant targets far quicker in the middle/later stages of the game at the cost of not having a dedicated colony/repair ship that you can reuse. with no crew or life support systems these small kits can go really fast. Maybe allow smaller automated 1 mc ships to use them as well as a quickly deployable strike force.

UI Sorting

allow us to sort and filter modules such as sort by thrust fissile drives, or sort by delta v nuclear missiles.

Councilor Admiralty

allow councilors to lead fleets, slightly improving certain combat abilities based on their attributes and certain traits. mainly to give space councilors something to permanently repeat while in transit, but it also gives some nice flavor and something to do after they are no longer needed on earth.

Diplomacy

faction ai should not base their attitude towards based on our progress towards our goals but based on our efforts to sabotage their own. if I'm far ahead as humanity first why should the resistance care as long as I'm not preventing them from reaching their own win condition. if anything, it would raise their trust and cooperation level as they see me as a competent ally, providing me with intel, coordinated missions and favorable deals. on the other hand, servants reaching their win condition would definitely pose an issue for anti-alien factions, causing them to declare war before it's too late. currently ai hate increasing due to success regardless of whether it aids or hinders them in their goals puts them permanently behind as they no longer entertain trade deals and NAP when they need it most. it's just a slow, inevitable and lonely death spiral.
UberWaffe
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:33 am

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by UberWaffe »

resistterra wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:12 pm allow us to modify the default priorities of our faction.
This can be done under the nations tab, in the section where you can define new custom priority sets.
When editing a priority set there is an option to make it the default.
Though in some cases when control points change hands it still defaults to the default faction default. ;)


UI improvements:

Let me set a default fleet layout.

If a project just finished research AND it was a repeatable research project THEN add a "Repeat and continue" button that queues the same research project again and does not open the tech screen.

If the player had just initiated a change in diplomatic stances between nations THEN do not show the pop-up window telling the player about the change AND do not add a event notice on the left-hand side.
The player caused the action. They know. They don't need three reminders including requiring clicks to acknowledge.

When issuing a mission to a councillor, let me at that point already tick a box for making it a permanent assignment. Don't make me wait (and remember) for the notification that they are done.


Gameplay improvements:

When any fleet bombards any habitat, let ground hab defence soak the damage first.
(Would also bring it in line with how stations work.)

Make HP / armor / etc. of modules configurable via templates.

Give ground hab defence point defence.
(It can be bad against kinetics, but nuclear / antimatter missiles should not be 100% instant one-hit kills. They can be 10% instant one-hit kills. At least there should be some risk of doing nothing to the hab while losing the ship.)

Give better salvage rewards for alien stations and hab when taken over via marine assault.

(Maybe) Make tier 2 and tier 3 shipyards produce some boost?
Using lots of tier 1 shipyards is much easier at the moment.
Would also give a means of producing boost in space.




[EDIT]
resistterra wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:11 pm ...
when starting a hab, station or module while paused, deconstruction should be instant and refund the total amount. if done while unpaused, the time to deconstruct and resources refunded should scale with construction progress. replacing under construction structures should follow the same rules.

replacing or deconstructing fully built modules should refund us a portion of their cost, scaling with technology.

ships under construction when cancelled should refund us the whole amount.
...
Yes, please.


resistterra wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:11 pm ...
dry hole/quake events should be rarer, and technologies to reduce impact/frequency added in.
...
What works well for me (edited the events in my own game) is the following:

Make dry hole + lucky strike twice as common, but halve their effect.
Gives less drastic swings, so you don't feel like your 3 month old colony is now suddenly worthless because of a 50% drop in production.

To be honest, 3 times as often and 3 times less of an effect might be even better, but then it might start feeling a bit too often.

[/EDIT]

resistterra wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:19 am ...
permanent threat floor should be based primarily on global technology levels,
...
Agreed, though I would argue there is 3 main factors that aliens should be concerned about. (In terms of raising hate floor.)
1. Technology (as mentioned)
2. Total fleet combat power in relation to their own. (I.e. Can the humans as a whole actually start challenging alien fleets. A monitor with plasma and antimatter weapons should be more threatening than a titan with basic cannons.)
3. Total fleet production capacity. (I.e. Can the humans match or exceed our rate of production?)

The last one is more in depth to gauge since it is a combination of available shipyards, build speed, and resources available to the humans.
This last check can be based on a relaxed MC check, so that game is still winnable and the aliens don't just snip you at the roots as you sprout.


resistterra wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:11 pm ...
a big problem is once you can protect earth from assault carriers and have a base on mercury you have essentially won the game and are only going through the motions for many hours. the aliens do not escalate after being blocked from earth initially, their initial alpha strike is the only real threat in the game. there is no mid game at all.
...
I think the aliens should have stages of total war mode.

First stage, all out war like it is now.

Second stage:
- Increased resources from wormhole.
- Aliens ramp up mining and ship production on and in orbit of their starting outer system planetoid.
- Builds up separate deathballs that are specifically for attacking human owned shipyard stations (i.e. target stations with most / best shipyards first.
* Activated after alien's fleet power is less than X% of the total, or have lost a hab or station to humans, or their starting planetoid was attacked.

Third stage:
- Increased resources from wormhole.
- Aliens establish more mining habs on outer planets as well as shipyard stations around them.
- Aliens maximise the stations in orbit around their original planetoid.
- Alien constantly use orbital bombardment on earth on all nations not directly controlled by alien nation or servants, whenever possible.
* Activated if on second stage and, alien's fleet power is less than Y% of the total or they have lost most of their forward bases.

Final stage:
- Increased resources from wormhole.
- Aliens attempt to militarise all outer system planetoids.
- Aliens maximise the stations in orbit around all outer system planetoids.
- Alien use antimatter weapons for earth bombardment.
* Activated if on third stage and alien's fleet power is less than Z% of total or alien's lost a hab or station of their original planetoid.
DarthVicious
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:38 pm

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by DarthVicious »

MC is a very good regulator for the scale of human space industry.

What I would suggest though is that certain specific techs give +1 to the hate floor. So the aliens might not care if you research claims or bridges or bonuses to welfare but will take note if you research combat ships or titans or advanced missiles or genetic biowarfare. So staying 'under the radar' becomes impossible if you are spamming military techs, fusion power or advanced drives even if you are not building a fleet.

For military power or fleet combat rating used MC is still a good indicator. If you use combat power you would have to use a multiplier on the order of 0.01 or less, so that a 1k fleet adds 10 hate. The 10 to 20 MC you used to build that fleet would have added that amount of hate anyway. So you end up using a smaller multiplier (0.001 of combat power?) And it just becomes ridiculous. You would have to build a 10k fleet for it to be significant, and then again you would have used a lot of MC to get there. The difference or addition that combat power makes over MC is rather small in my opinion.
Richard Baxton held off four waves of mind worms. We immediately purchased his identity manifests and repackaged him into the Recon Rover Rick character. People need heroes. They don't need to know he died clawing his eyes out, screaming for mercy.
UberWaffe
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:33 am

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by UberWaffe »

DarthVicious wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:13 am For military power or fleet combat rating used MC is still a good indicator. If you use combat power you would have to use a multiplier on the order of 0.01 or less, so that a 1k fleet adds 10 hate. The 10 to 20 MC you used to build that fleet would have added that amount of hate anyway. So you end up using a smaller multiplier (0.001 of combat power?) And it just becomes ridiculous. You would have to build a 10k fleet for it to be significant, and then again you would have used a lot of MC to get there. The difference or addition that combat power makes over MC is rather small in my opinion.
I wouldn't base it on total fleet power, but rather how much you have in relation to the aliens.

Say the aliens want to be at least 95% of all the fleet power in the system. As long as your faction's total fleet power is less than 5%, then no hate.
Once you cross that threshold of what the aliens see as 'too comparatively weak to be a threat', then you should be getting hate.

That way, as the game progresses and the alien fleets 'grow bigger' the room 'under the radar' also grows bigger. Giving you a chance to try a gain a defended foothold somewhere even if you are slower.
DarthVicious
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:38 pm

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by DarthVicious »

UberWaffe wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:38 am Say the aliens want to be at least 95% of all the fleet power in the system. As long as your faction's total fleet power is less than 5%, then no hate.
I like this. So as the Aliens % of total fleet power decreases, they become more agitated. But there are multiple human factions, so it has to be balanced so they each have some room to grow. Perhaps scaled with their affinity for the aliens. So the servants get the most 'allowance' and HF the least. mmmm. Bears consideration.
Richard Baxton held off four waves of mind worms. We immediately purchased his identity manifests and repackaged him into the Recon Rover Rick character. People need heroes. They don't need to know he died clawing his eyes out, screaming for mercy.
Chris D
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:24 pm

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by Chris D »

resistterra wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 5:19 am Rail Gun Launched Colony/Repair Kits

if scientifically possible and feasible, give us a technology that allows us to create a rail gun station that launches automated colony/repair kits to distant stranded ships and celestial bodies. each magnetically launched kit needs to be built beforehand as a cooldown timer and requires resources as well as fuel for acceleration/braking towards their targets. this will allow you to colonize and repair distant targets far quicker in the middle/later stages of the game at the cost of not having a dedicated colony/repair ship that you can reuse. with no crew or life support systems these small kits can go really fast. Maybe allow smaller automated 1 mc ships to use them as well as a quickly deployable strike force.
The current "build in space" mechanic does this already, quicker and better.
Whatever you want is quickly and simultaneously built in the nearest Construction Module / Nanofactory and shipped to you. Delivery time depends upon distance between the place that can build it and where you want it. Shipping stuff within a planetary orbit is very quick. interplanetary shipments take longer. This request would just be a degrade of "Build in Space".
Chris D
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2022 4:24 pm

Re: Gameplay and UI Suggestions

Post by Chris D »

I would suggest that save names or display information automatically include the in-game date of the save, so you can have a better idea of what was going on in the game then "what was I doing 4 hour ago".

Also, I would really love more than 3 autosaves kept. I did a unify that caused a capital to move back to where I had worked to move it out of (which I understand was not a bug, but a purposeful feature change, but still unwanted behavior) and I did not notice for four turns. meaning I could not undo without going back hours to my last save. Having a menu option to keep/display older autosaves (with the in-game date they were made) would be nice for situations where what you have spent hours doing just got ruined and you did not notice in time situations.
Post Reply