The ship icons for Vizzini… er, I mean the Cerixx, are confusing. See the shot. Notice that the Cruisers and Battleships share the same small icon, while the destroyers are depicted by three separate icons… which dwarf in size the Cruisers and Battleships. If there is no particular reason why this is so, it should be adjusted. These screens serve as a great tool for quick information at a glance, and the current state defeats that purpose, (I can’t determine what the ship is by the visual only in this instance). It’s kind of confusing.
Does the issue resolve itself on re-load? If not, can you please send me that save or another one with the issue so I could have a look? Thanks.
One thing I was looking forward to was using the original ship skins for my custom humans... alas that is not an option. I think this is a missed opportunity here, and they should be available to custom races, not just the stock humans. Many players have expressed... a lack of enthusiasm for how some of the newer (human) ships look.
I just reloaded it when I saw your reply, and yes it resolved itself. This is the same fleet now, a minor glitch (feature) then.
The original Human fleet set should be available when creating a custom race. Can you please check in the ship sets available when creating a custom race, it should be the last option after the Cerixx and Palacean fleet sets.
Doh! My bad, it's available at the custom race creation screen, I was looking for it here shown below, where it's available to the stock humans.
Perhaps jumping the gun here, as I'm still just feeling my way to all the slight new changes and extra races, ( in other words just goofing off with test games), but I'm seeing significant better performance in battle from the AIs. It appears that they are taking advantage of Missiles much more now in their ship designs, and that is resulting in my taking casualties at a rate I haven't seen in a very long time. I have to study this further and get more data. I also saw some smart combinations of beams, and tractors.
Edit This is the kind of thing I'm referring to, when I say the AI shows better performance in battle. After a few test sessions, I started one for real, slower tech and production for me (50%/75% respectively) with a bonus to the AI (75%/100%). All other settings were the same as in my game eight months ago that I detailed in the AAR section. There were some battles back then, when I fought outnumbered against superior tech ships, and came out unscathed, even when destroying many enemy ships at a time. I'm not seeing that here. This small battle below was against a slightly more advanced but numerically inferior force, I won, but I lost a ship doing so. This was the AI fielding designs that take advantage of the new missile costs, my PD were overwhelmed and I couldn't save the ship. I experienced nothing like this in that game so long ago. This is a very good development in my opinion, it may have just resolved a weakness in the tactical AI if this behavior proves consistent. I'm intrigued...
Additional (random) thoughts/observations The Natural Law DLC is a must, two new races really help make the game universe a richer and more immersive environment. Containment unique ability… the AI’s are not happy with how I use this, what a perfect gift for my play-style, love it. Missiles are used more by the AI now and in better fashion, players beware. I can’t take the Palacean seriously. I don’t mean their lore or capabilities (they generally do well in-game)… it’s just that, well, they’re Lobsters. (Perhaps with their back-story a plant based species would have fit better). It’s a minor thing and subjective… but it’s reminding me of the feeling I had when Ewoks came on the scene… Love the slight nod to the Princess Bride and the Mandalorian. (Didn’t think I would miss that did you?) Love the general clean up and tightening of dialogue and text, though there are minor exceptions. The Moltar saying things like “take you to school” and a hint using the word “strategy” when describing tactics… not that fond of those. AI is fighting better at the tactical level, but now that I’ve got my bearings, only marginally so. Still, this is great to behold. Reducing the effectiveness of miniaturisation to aid the usefulness of late game weaponry… not thrilled about, (though not hating it either). Same could have been accomplished by reducing the base space cost of some late tech weapons, which would have had no side effect elsewhere. This may have made those late tech weapons viable even sooner. Ran into a bug I can’t reproduce, but you need to be aware of it. In combat, in the middle of the fight, I could no longer command my ships. Hitting end turn allowed the enemy to move and pummel my ships, but I could not respond. Automating the combat did get my ships moving again and a reload of the combat ran normally…. Overall, so far, there is enough improvement here, that I felt compelled to upwardly adjust the rating I gave ISG at certain sites. What already was good in the game, has been polished and made even better. That said though, there is only so much you can get out of these types of moves before they begin offering diminishing returns. In my opinion, the game would now benefit tremendously from addressing some things that are entirely lacking at this time.
When you get a bug or issue like this in combat you can't reproduce please send me the Player and Player-prev log files as that can help pinpoint the source of the error. Thanks.
Just a minor suggestion. There is a tooltip showing on the screen, it reads "Auto-combat in tactical combat option allows you to watch the AI play both sides in a battle. Use this for longer battles or when you don’t want to use auto-resolve to speed things up". It sounds a bit awkward, might it not be clearer if it was slightly revised? Perhaps something along these lines? The Auto-combat option available during tactical combat allows you to watch the AI play both sides in a battle. Use this for longer battles, to mop up a fight, or when you don’t want to use auto-resolve to speed things up.
Hmm, the higher rating did not fit that well with the written review... so I changed that as well. I'm including it here as a general description to any passer by that may want a glimpse of what I think ISG is like. Sometimes, offering something new and unique, is not as important as offering something that’s been done before…but doing it better. Interstellar space: Genesis manages to do both. In a sense, this game is a throwback, a classic TBS 4X game with solid and familiar mechanics, yet at the same time, it is a nuanced, deep, and innovative game. For fans of the genre, or space based game enthusiasts in general, the most striking feature of this game is the unique approach to exploration, it is not only multifaceted, but it never ends. Where other games of this type see exploration as finite and “early phase” of the game, ISG has made it an integral part of its very universe. From searching ruins, to discovering hidden systems that could literally have been under your very nose the entire time, ISG never fails to surprise and delight the player by what is out there, waiting to be discovered. The player will see a more familiar approach with other aspects of the game, such as colony management and exploitation in general. But where many games lacked depth in this area, ISG brings them to a new level. You establish a colony, but growth isn’t about building some structures only, your infrastructure and ecology play major roles as well. Heroes abound in ISG, and they have such an RPG feel to them that they could almost be a sub-game of their own. They progress, gain levels, increase skills, and gain entire new attributes. More than that, some double as your spies, meaning you’ll send them off on specific mission, to succeed or fail, to aid you or hinder you. But be careful, they have their own agendas, wants, needs and personalities…sometimes you will wish they were real just so you can throttle them in person. All the things you’ve come to expect from a 4X are here. Do you want to terraform every rock you find? You can, but this is no simple or linear matter. Want to customize your own race? It’s there, and the choices are quite satisfying. Perhaps one of the strongest aspects of this game is featured before you even play a single turn, I’m referring to the customization allowed at set-up, which enables you to set an outstanding variety of parameters. Be aware though, this game has a learning curve, and it isn’t a gentle slope. The first time you try it, there is simply no way to understand all the nuances and synergies involved. It may seem slow, especially at the beginning phase, but once you have a few games under your belt, you will realize it is anything but. Yes, there is still room for improvement, with perhaps an additional victory condition or two being the greatest need, but this game is supported in a way that would make a large, established studio, green with envy. The game receives constant and sustained updates, influenced by the very community of players and their feedback. And with the release of the first DLC, ISG has added two more fascinating races to its unique universe, bringing the total to eight. A deep, nuanced game, designed to please both 4X fans and strategy gamers in general, ISG offers the option of tactical combat and multiple approaches to winning, (even if combat isn’t your thing). Events, diplomacy that is actually deep and meaningful, it’s all there. A single warning though, if you want a casual game and a “light” 4X experience with instant gratification… you won’t be happy with this.
Today I want to discuss missiles (big surprise) and how the recent changes to space cost (and their new position on the tech tree) have impacted the game. The biggest difference now, is that the space cost for missiles remains the same rather than increasing with progressively more powerful types, and the availability of the second tier missile Polaris, is at tech level three instead of four as it was in past versions. So what this means, is that a late tech missile has the same base space requirements as the earliest type, and you can get something better than nukes quickly. For a player with my particular approach to ship design and combat, this has been a gift on a silver platter. I wondered how the AI, which already had a hard time countering my designs and tactics would fare now. I must admit, I thought it would not fare well at all. To my surprise however, the AI is also taking advantage of these changes. I see them field Polaris missiles very quickly, and this is consistent from session to session. In fact, most casualties I suffered playing this version of ISG were because of missile fire. The AI will not only upgrade missile tech quickly, but when they outfit a ship with some, you can expect to see multiple batteries grouped together. I tell you, getting hit by a salvo of 3-4 Polaris missiles in the early game can ruin your day. I also see mods being used by the AIs as well, with the most frequent being fast and eccm. Sometimes the AIs will also use armored variants, and rarely MIRV. This last, the lack of the MIRV variant, is mitigated by their use of multiple banks and quick upgrades to more powerful types. Over all, it balances well and has made the game a bit more fun and exciting as you can easily lose some ships if you don’t prepare for this. The greatest benefit however, isn’t the Missiles themselves, it’s what has happened to the utility of small ships as a result. In all my past sessions, there always came a point where I completely stopped designing Frigates and scrapped any in play. They simply did not have enough space to pack late tech weaponry and stay effective. Now, with these changes, that is no longer the case. Picture a single Frigate armed with MIRV Quantum Missiles or better. By itself, this ship may not be much, but working with other units it is an actual asset. The effect of being able to keep Frigates viable throughout the game is not restricted simply to the Frigates themselves. It means that overall fleets can consist of more ships. That in turn means greater flexibility. For a player like me, who spends quite a lot of time fighting, the ability to effectively garrison multiple systems, retain reaction forces, while simultaneously pressing multiple offensives, demands that I have as many ships at my disposal as possible. Overall I’m extremely happy with the new balance created by re-thinking missiles, and pleased to see that the AI is also taking advantage of the new paradigm.
In my current session I have both Photon and Positron torpedo tech. Something caught my attention and was bothering me, it seemed off, so I decided to examine them closely, see which one is a better weapon and makes more sense. At first glance, it would seem that the Positron torpedo is the more powerful of the two, but guess what, I don’t think it is. Take a look at this Photon Space 100 Cooldown one turn (fires every other turn) Damage 70 (35 per turn) Travel instant Positron Space 150 Cooldown two turns (fires every three turns) Damage 150 (50 per turn) Travel normal Once the base space cost is accounted for though, I can fit 3 photons in the same space as two positrons. So if we were to use those numbers and simplify the equation… Photon X3 Space 300 Cooldown one turn (fires every other turn) Damage 210 (105 per turn) Travel instant Positron X2 Space 300 Cooldown two turns (fires every three turns) Damage 300 (100 per turn) Travel normal Of course this doesn’t take into account possible miniaturization, I know that Photon torpedoes benefit from that, do Positron? And if so, when does it kick in? Then of course there is the tactical implication of instant travel versus normal missile speed to consider. Many battles I fight are over by turn four, (even though some do go longer), this means that Positron torpedoes are fired just once, or if fired a second time, they may never reach the target before the battle is over. In my opinion, the Positron Torpedoes could use a tweak in order to be the unique and powerful weapon they are intended to be, perhaps dropping their cool-down to one turn may be the simplest solution.
Unique techs found in ruins don't miniaturize. Positron Torpedoes don't necessary need to be seen as way more powerful than Photon ones, since after all you could get positron ones quite soon through ruins exploration, if you're lucky, while photons are a level 7 weapons tech. Making positrons much more powerful than what they are now could unbalance them when found in ruins and require they need to be found way later, which defeats the purpose of having a powerful weapon sooner through exploration, so it shouldn't be over the top. That said, positrons can still be seen as more powerful and unique from the standpoint of sheer damage, which is superior to photons even with photons miniaturized to level 1 (300 damage from 2 positrons for 300 space vs 280 damage from 4 photons miniaturized to level 1 for 260 space or 210 damage from 3 photons not miniaturized). True, photons hit in the next turn, and have a 1 turn cooldown while positrons need to travel normally and have a two turn cooldown. Still, it's to be expected that the first salvo of positrons will do more damage than their photons counterpart when they hit. So, the unique aspect about positrons is that they are more deadly in their first salvo, than photons. If combat prolongues itself through many turns, then photons win, but that's the trade off I see for these two with their current specification.
Plausible, and if the objective is for Positron to be just another powerful weapon, completely acceptable. Sort of an ancient lost technology, unique in a sense, (can't be researched, doesn't miniaturize), with a specific utility, but one that diminishes in value over time. I can accept that completely immersion wise, but if I may, had you not explained it so direct just now, I wouldn't have known that was your intent. I imagine a newer player could be left wondering the same. Some other unique techs for example, are just clearly the better option and stay that way throughout. Yes I see that, but the value in that ability, (more damage on the first shot), is also defined by when in the game you have the weapon yes? For example when I had Battleships roaming around that featured Tritanium Armor and Class III shields, a positron torpedo is something that I would not want to see being fired at me, now that I have Adamantium armor and class VII shields... (The positron would still inflict the same damage numbers wise, but my ability to absorb it would erode the inherent advantage of the weapon considerably). Don't misunderstand me. I prefer that weapons aren't a linear progression of stats, that some have abilities that others don't even though they may be less powerful damage wise (and vice a versa), I also see the appeal here in this specific case, but the player must understand this easily, the utility of it, the limitations (and advantages) compared to comparable weapons, and that this specific weapon is great if you get it and use it early on, but as the game progresses, it loses some of its luster.
