Since the start I have harped about the issue of finding enough good planets in the early game. I think most think it is fine as it stands. To me 4x games,especially space ones, get shelved by new players when they have little early rewards. Yes die hard's will fire up a space game and work like a dog and enjoy it. Too many will get bored with lack of action and satisfaction. Once they learn that game, then no problem, too many do not get that far, hence small sales currently on many 4x space games ( a shame). I now have the latest update and to me having found no planet of my type that was not either poor, ultra poor or the wrong gravity and often had two of these factors slows the game too much. I have discovered about 65% of the map. Two planets added, both with the wrong grav. Fixing the gravity is a big issue in this game. I can recall very few games that was not more or less like this map. A really rare start to find a planet that is your type and grav and then it may turn out to be tiny or poor. Moo2 had options to set two factors of the map, that helped in generation of the galaxy. You could tune it a bit to make it worse or better. On a different subject, I think the artist have done a great job on the look of the game. I really like the scenes/pics for the transitions. The game has made some great strides so far.
I have only played humans and a human based custom race (removing the charismatic thing) and in that case, it's remarkably easy to colonize and terraform desert and swamp planets. Usually I will colonize a large or huge one of those instead of a medium or tiny earthlike planet, since planet size seems to be the largest factor in the desirability of a planet OTOH, the AI seems to have trouble with finding enough decent planets. I think part of the trouble with having each AI have a different preferred planet type is that there are too many types (Also not really sure a swamp planet makes sense, but no ocean planets)
Seems reasonable. I was running the Sulak that uses Lava lowG. I still do not know, if the planet grav gen can even change to a lowG. I hope it is cyclic and will go low to med to high and back to low. So a HG could go to lowg. Not tried it and it is not clear, if you can lower gravity.
There is a tech in Construction called PLANETARY ANTI-GRAV GENERATOR. This lowers gravity by 1 level. It does require you possess at least 1 dark matter to build it. For the Sulak, it will make Med-G ideal at Low-G. Heavy-G would go to Med-G and still incur a 25% penalty. I don't know if you can stack ANTI-GRAV generators, but I suspect not. The best way to counter gravity penalties, aside from that tech, is to increase the ECO. It raises both morale (which raises production) and pop growth. You could also look at techs like synthetic food (+25% pop growth), med-bay facility (+25% morale on colony), cloning facility (+50% pop growth on colony), and leader skills.
Thanks for the info. I do not recall all the races traits for gravity, but it would seem lowg is not an attractive one. May not be able to get 1/3 of the types to your desired setting. If you can lower HG twice, it will be more expensive and take more time. Offsetting with extra structures is a serious penalty as well. HG is in the same boat.
Low-G planets tend to be smaller and poorer and it is considered the worst ideal gravity type to have. Heavy-G planets tend to be larger and richer and are considered a better ideal gravity type to have than Low-G. Med-G is considered to be the best ideal gravity type as it is has the most flexibility to adapt to either Low-G or Heavy-G worlds if needed. If you create a custom race, Low-G provides the most negative points (-6), followed by Heavy-G (-2), and Med-G (0). This reflects their relative worth.
Thanks for letting us know about the planet quality, and the number of ideal planets nearby, as with time we tend to forget how beginners may look at the game. You may be right that many may find the game too hard at the beginning due to the harsh world nearby. Part of that was on purpose, but we may have gone too far. Playing in easier difficulties improves the starts for you. So, in Easy you will tend to find more ideal planets, even more playing in Tutor. However, in Normal there will be few Ideal worlds nearby, and the ones found may not have the ideal gravity. This is a departure from MoO2. In ISG the galaxy is harsher, has more the "survival" aspect to it. You need to have the tech to colonize, have to consider the planet type, gravity, etc. Is this too to ask for new players? You may be right and it may be the case. I think the game offers you tools to go around all issues, being it the wrong gravity or hostile worlds, but at the beginning is where a game will be judged upon, so we'll give this more thought. MoO2 had options to generate more mineral rich worlds or more ecological friendly ones, or a balanced approach. That could guarantee you richer planets but would not guarantee you ideal worlds and vice versa. We'll give this some thought. If you have any particular suggestions about how to improve the experience for you, let us know.
