In the spirit of games like Civ that have a 1 city challenge: you can only colonize one world. It will need to be huge, so the starting world doesn't count, and you gimp it. Custom race: -25% to ship defense and attack; heavy-g, subterranean, master architects, small home world, poor home world, repulsive, easily seen, -10 GCB, dictatorship; +2 research, production, and culture (or substitute BC for one)--these aren't going to be OP since they'll only apply to one colony; uniques as you want, I'm going with Clairvoyance to find my one colony faster and Enlightenment because I like Space Culture and it's going to be gimped. The idea is you build one perfect colony on the first huge world you find, and that is your only colony. You can go to war, take outposts and destroy fleets, but try not to take any colonies until it's clear you've won the game anyway. On Impossible level, though you can set yourself at Viceroy to have some chance of finding a huge planet for your one colony. No rushing weapons or defense--focused on techs to make that one colony the perfect colony. If you find a ship in ruins, either reload or send it off somewhere to never be used. For every resource tech decision, you have to choose the colony boosting side. For an extra challenge, no researching any missile tech--maybe your home world is so gimped from a thermo-nuclear war, and now your culture has sworn off every building missiles again and only close quarter combat is honorable.
Is this directed at me @PlotinusRedux ? I've actually fired up the game just two days ago, playing for fun and in preparation of a new post, "Smashing the barrier", hopefully it should be enlightening. Reviewing the game parameters you propose, I can see where I would accept some, but others would turn the session into a chore for me, I'll think on it and give you some feedback. I'm not averse to a single colony, better yet, a single system...Sol. As to the rest. let me make a counter proposal shortly, I'll give you the set up, you generate the start and pass it to me. What do you think?
@Konstantine Yeah, it was directed at you, you used to propose parameters to make the game more challenging if I recall. Proposing your ideas sounds good. One modification might be--I forgot you can raze colonies, so that could be allowed, just not capturing them.
So I tried the one system version on Impossible starting with Earth and a custom race with gimped combat to get Architects and Subterranean. I'm not sure I'm going to count this one, though, I got lucky and it was too easy. I started right next to a black hole, got anti-matter, and rushed Planet Construction. I was at war with the humans for some reason but they accepted my peace treaty after my 2 frigates fled a few times. The first leader that shows up has the Genius trait, pumped all their points into research and flew through the tech trees. Turn 69 I'm settled on Jupiter which became a Huge, Terran, MedG, Rich, Eco 2 planet--I've never seen a Huge start as MedG before. There was an immediate colony event that turned it into a Desert, Eco 0, Ultra Rich which set me back a bit. Ah, and when I settled Mars turn 1 it got a colony event that turned it from Desert to Terran. Mercury and the Asteroid Field both turned into Medium Terrans with Sufficient. Turn 107 and Sol has 1 small, 4 medium, and 1 huge planet, 4 of them Terran Sufficient, Jupiter will be Terran Ultrarich in 2 turns, and I haven't bothered with Venus yet. The AI hasn't bothered me at all even on Impossible--I've still got just my 2 starting frigates and one I built just to have a place for the 3rd ship leader. I'm going to play it out more, but my sense is I'm so far ahead of the AI on tech that even with my gimped combat I'll steamroll them when I get around to it. Starting right next to Antimatter for planet construction wasn't really in the spirit of the challenge, though.
Hmm, so a minor set back. I seem to have underestimated the AI on Impossible level--I hadn't tried that level yet. I had actually found one source of each strategic resource, all 3 empires were Pleased with me, thought I was doing pretty good and completely neglected my military. Then the Kaek declared war and wiped out all my outposts except the ones in Human territory in 1 turn. I can see a fleet of BS + 2 CR + 3 DS + 4 FR--a single one of his DS's made short work of my entire fleet of 1 DS + 2 FR at an outpost. Fortunately I didn't lose any ship leaders since I had sent them all on spy missions to get XP 2 turns before. I don't see any assault ships, but will be blockaded and any ship I produce will immediately die if he sends that fleet to Sol. Hopefully he hasn't discovered Sol yet--the Humans are between us. Really wishing I had taken the unique ability that allows forcing peace....
@PlotinusRedux I can make the game challenging enough, especially at the strategic level (as documented in my last two AARs). In my games, I never get close to matching the production or research of the AIs, that isn't the issue. The issue, (and I'm not sure it really is one), is this. My ship designs are clearly superior to anything the AI puts out, regardless if my tech is lower, regardless of how many improvements come from each new release. The reason is simple, my designs are balanced and as such are hard to counter. This then directly correlates with the tactical level of the game and how I use those well designed ships. Similarly to when I led squads as a contractor IRL or play games such as Battle Brothers, I treat the fights as small unit engagements. This means my forces fight as a unit and the ships are complementary to one another, the sum is greater than the parts. The result is that my technologically inferior and often outnumbered fleets win most battles, (I even documented one where I destroyed over 20 vessels while only scratching the paint on my own ships, and yes, mine had much lower tech). The AI cannot match this. The thing is how much of this is me? I was heavily involved in this game once upon a time before my relationship with Adam turned icy, I sunk so many hours into ISG that it became easy for me to identify and exploit deficiencies at the tactical level. More than that, fighting may way through overwhelming odds is rather fun. Other games steamroll the player in similar situations, in ISG, if you keep your cool, you can overcome some very difficult situations. I know 1.3 will be out soon, I'll wait for that and give a nice report on a session then. Finally I want to make something clear, not just to you but to anyone following this. The game is an excellent example of software engineering that took tremendous talent and effort to achieve, pointing out a flaw here and there should not detract from this, or be taken out of context. We all have our talents, and a player's ability to constantly outfight the AI means no more or less than that. I trust my meaning is clear. See you around.
@Konstantine Ah, I understand. You are certainly playing at a much deeper tactical level than I (and I suspect most players).
Perhaps... Here, take a look at this Read that tip. On the surface it sounds reasonable yes? But think about it for a minute. What is being implied here? The first half is actually obvious and the second half very misleading to a new player or someone that doesn't delve into tactics deeply. In contrast I tend to do the opposite of what this tip implies. Were I to focus heavily in a single weapon type (Kinetic, missile or beam), I would be putting out the same type of designs as the AI, designs that can be countered. Focus too much on missiles and PD will negate you, too much on beams and neutronium can leave you un-armed, too much on kinetics and you can be picked apart by long range weaponry that is more accurate as well as missiles and torps. By early mid game I have designs that feature Kinetic main guns, missiles , and beam type PD weapons, (and that is on every ship from destroyer on up). If I encounter missile using opponents my ships group tightly and the PD weapons are focused on the most threatening enemy barrage. If my opponent has no missiles I hold distance and fire my own while his accuracy (and range) negate his more technologically advanced direct fire weapons. If my opponent takes full advantage of Neutronium it means nothing to me, my direct fire weapons aren't affected. In other words I do the opposite of what this tip implies (and what I suspect the AI does). This is part of the key to developing balanced ships. Mind you I do not research every weapon type possible, but I do make sure to focus on each of the possible groupings.
@Konstantine But that you make balanced ships now is already a massive improvement over the early days when there was no reason to use any weapon other than missiles (which I still mostly tend to do)--that any game rewards balance without a simple rock-paper-scissors scheme is quite an accomplishment. Given your background and focus, there is no AI that is going to be able to really challenge you, even if you spent a lot of money on deep learning evaluating all your games to teach it you could just slightly change your tactics to still easily beat it. I suspect even if multiplayer was added no one could give you a true challenge. After playing you a few times, I would learn some of your tactics and throw them back at you--and while you have focused on tactics and ships, I have focused on perfecting colonies and research--in my one system game on Impossible level I have now overtaken the AI in both tech and production, so I might eventually get good enough at tactics that you'd have to not completely neglect the colony/tech side of the game, I might get good enough that with 50 more advanced ships I could beat 10 of your less advanced ones.... But the colony side is much simpler, and you'd quickly erase my advantage there. You haven't focused on it because you've had no need to, and may be intentionally gimping yourself there to get more of a challenge. My point is I doubt you would find even human players challenging, and no AI in a game with this many variables is going to be able to compete with human intelligence. Could the AI be improved? It always can be in any game. But my point is it's already pretty damned good and challenging for the vast majority of players--especially on Impossible level with the production and tech bonuses. And the improvement over the past 2 years is night and day. If the AI could challenge you tactically, very few of us could ever beat it.
I think you are being overly generous, I consider myself an above average player but that is about it. Tactics here are rudimentary and basic, there is no terrain to consider, no LOS, elevation, cover, frontage...none of that. Here in ISG I view it as an infantry engagement in basic form. Yes it's a space based game, but due to the 2D nature of the battles, infantry tactics work. Yes that is true. I don't really develop planets and I settle some very crappy worlds, my race has a -50% population growth rate. I can easily change all of that but there is no need as you say. I have a very hard time with five to one odds in battle, don't sell yourself short, I think you would crush me in such an event 100% agree with you. A player can design a potent race and min max his way to a cakewalk, even on the hardest settings. I think some slight adjustments to race creation attributes could help here but in the end there are too many variables. I think many players have an easy time fighting the AI but here is what I think can be done. The over-all kill ratios I achieve are too high, 50-1. This can come down and it doesn't take tremendous work or effort. Check this short thread when you can https://interstellarspacegame.com/forums/index.php?threads/lopsided-losses.1489/ These type of battles could at least be made costly to the player.
@Konstantine I wish we could play a multiplayer game--but once you open that can of worms the game becomes a series of "balance" updates because humans figure out ways to abuse something--maybe Ion Dischargers, I don't know, but some abusive tactic would be found then nerfed, then the next....
@Konstantine so my one system on impossible level challenge is going interesting for me in that I love perfecting colonies and getting ahead on research and culture. The AI was satisfied just taking all my outposts then accepting peace--which I offered right after taking them back with frigates while they were undefended. With Planet Construction, etc., Sol is now the most perfect system I've ever had in a game--1 small, 4 mediums, and 1 huge, all terran and ECO 3, maxed infrastructure and huge pops. A side effect of that was my colony leader leveled insanely fast and with the genius trait now has a 32 research skill. I'm far past the AI in tech at this point--I could roll over them with 3 battleships with combat jump and heavy death rays, they don't have anything that can keep up with my shield regeneration even without PD, etc. At this point I'm researching Ultra Weapons 3, want to get Death Ray small enough to fit 2 heavy's on each BS along with battle sensors and jump--not because I need too, I could just build twice as many BS's rather than fitting 2 death rays on each, and really just one invulnerable BS with a single hvy death ray killing one ship a round would work--perfecting stuff like that is just the kind of thing I enjoy. The combat part is going to be extremely boring if I do it--I'll probably just take their capitals for the heck of it then take a diplomatic victory. I've got 13 ship leaders many with spy skills I'm using to take away the few leaders they have--I already stole all their tech, and I've built every wonder in the game. The custom race really didn't even help me out much--I took Subterrean and Architect and gimped everything else to get them--but Subterrean is actually hurting me more than helping from the overcrowding morale penalties, and the extra infrastructure is kind of going to waste. The only other benefit I took was +1 RP/pop, which is dwarfed by the leader with 32 research at 16 RP/pop. Though I did get lucky starting right next to anti-matter so I could use Planet Construction, and in 1.3.0 maybe the AI will do more than just take my outposts and actually invade my home system. Really I'd like a tech victory option--that's what I go for in most 4x games--though the extra votes from the "ultra" techs giving a diplomatic victory is sort of a tech victory I guess.
@PlotinusRedux I've been insanely busy these days IRL and haven't done more than install the game, sigh. Your approach in general is opposite mine, I let them keep their tech and production leads, I develop nothing except some ecology levels... I just take everything they have in battles. Now I am setting up a game, a low tech game at that as I want to see some things. Specifically the new additions of aggressiveness levels, (do they help or hurt the AI?), how the surrender function plays out, and of course the big one. Each release promises better performance from the AI factions, this one is no exception. With all due respect to the devs, I need to see it. So I don't know if I will go through a full AAR or a more abridged type of post, but expect something soon that will look deeply into 1.3 and how it plays out. P.S. You are not the only one to put auto-fire on PD, though I rarely have more than a single bank in a ship.
