SephiRok wrote:Anything with a max unit rank will still mean buying a new unit will net you free power over refitting a unit which already reached the max rank.
I agree, but that just means refitting must be far more cost effective than buying a new unit. I don't see refitting every being a major feature but more of a "lets go replace these junk units with something slightly better" for a much lower cost than buying more units.
My only worry is tier hopping if refit becomes too cheap. I suppose the removal of upgrading chassis through refit and making it solely for the components (which is what I envisioned refitting to do more than anything else) is an option. Or maybe make it so chassis refit costs a turn, plus more credits, while normal refit costs only some credits and no turns?
I think that's just the nature of refitting, it's about mitigating the difference to make it more usable. Maybe an easier idea might be to list the pros and cons of Refitting versus buying new, and see if you can make it a value-added proposition somewhere.
A current example of a positive difference would be: You can refit AND build a new unit in the same turn in the same city, increasing power more than usual. The Con: Unfortunately, due to cost, thats not likely to be useful all that often.
Stalker0 wrote:I personally do not find the energy park to be too weak.
The fact that you don't needs workers to operate them is a major major advantage. I can take a small city and put up parks to get some cash in the short term. Now once the workers are up I would consider replacing them, but they have a solid use.
Talking about morale and credits for a moment, I think one of the easiest first steps is to remove morale from credit adjustment. Leave that as Tax only. That serves three purposes:
1) It strengthens credits, which I agree do need some buffing. I use credits, but I don't really sacrifice other resources to get them in general. Maybe with a +50% credit city, but that's the only time.
2) It weakens morale, which many consider to be too good right now.
3) It streamlines the game and removes confusion. Currently the credit system is the only one that has two competing factors, and I don't think its necessary. Considering that I am losing morale...and effectively losing all other resources to gain money...I am already balancing a strategic resource in gaining credits. There is no reason to muddy that choice by also adding a secondary modifier.
I never thought of this before, a good idea, but I tend to use forests instead, being Terra Salvum, 1 food 2 stone and -1 pollution, on top of not being destroyed by aliens early game means WIN!
I think though, that Arctic tiles really need a look at, they're really really detrimental as a whole compared to temperate starts. Having tiles that give nothing, or 1 ore, makes you vastly weaker than your opponents. The only way to get reliable food is forests and coastal water in Arctic regions, which, for the latter is already sucky, and for the former, limiting in the long run. All 3 regions need a reliable source of food.
Desert also suffers from this. IMHO Starting zones should be fairly even. This is especially true with the current hive density.(which should be looked at aswell).
Stalker0 wrote:So after many games on 1.3.5 here are my general thoughts:
1) I like the new academy buildings. They are high priority on my list to build now. I will say that the AI does not seem to be using them much. My units are almost always out ranking the baseline AI units.
2) I think the new field training is too strong. Generally what I do is after my early war or my first wave of alien assaults, I grouped my guys up, and start slapping down a few field trainings. Within a small span I have a large group of Rank 11 units, which just mows through the Rank 1-3 units the AI usually has at this point. I think the reduction in damage was good, but the cap of 11 is too high.
3) Terraforming wise, I still think the Purifier and Suburb bumps tend to neuter those capping mechanics. I only worry about pollution now with Solar Dynasty, the -3 credits is no worry at all for reclaiming effectively +2 morale. I do appreciate the overall use of terraforming now. My formers are always doing something now, as opposed to previous games where they would often sit for large swaths of the game.
I do find it odd that mineral improvement terraforming is the Tier 2 tech, and food improvement Tier 3. I find minerals more important than food myself.
4) I build the ATVs a bit more...but not that much more. I do build watercraft a lot more now, being able to conquer cities with them certainly made them stronger.
5) I will agree with the board consensus that the Divine Ascension is too strong, and Togra too weak. That said, I would focus on getting the core mechanics where you want them and then adjust the races accordingly. I would hate to see core mechanics adjusted just for the sake of balance....that would be the equivalent of using a hammer instead of a scalpel to do surgery.
One quick option with Togra, gives them +50% to ALL research, not just scientists. So they would get +3 science from their headquarters instead of +2. It would give them a stronger head start in science at the beginning of the game, and scale slightly as they gained more science buildings.
3) I agree, I just hope the water improvements (are there going to be any?) help make costal cities better
4)I build them mid to late game to clean up hives after planes do the dirty work (why can’t planes take hives?)
I also think that watercraft while more useful, currently make costal cities even worse. They already got a short straw with resources.
5)I also agree with the fact that the mechanics should come before faction bonuses, so long as we don’t forget to fix them in the end.