State of the galaxy

So @joe @mel it’s clear that we are at the end of Alpha 3

I will give my impression of where I think we are and what should come next. This is my opinion and many of my opinions have resonated with the development team and I hope these will also.


The introduction of the new troop mechanics give us a glimpse of what could be possible when alliance features come around. The ability to add troops from both sides to engage in a battle that is described by the invasion time.

So this is useful mechanic when we engage in alliance level warfare. With the ability for attacking alliance to build up forces through traversal through open space over time or via staging wormholes and the defender to bring in reinforcements via wormholes and less through friendly neighbours. In most cases an attacking alliance will have more clout and be able to hold the space within the system, be it remove all the ships in the defenders planets (given they own more than one) and or drop control minefields… To add the ability to transfer troops between planets via a transporter or maybe better via high speed un-interceptable pods launched from planet not under invasion to a planet under invasion could balance invasions more.

The ability for a planet to engage “entrenchment” (ability) this would be applied to a planet, would run for 7 days (once active) and could not be re-engaged on the same planet for 28 days (cooldown). Entrenchment would take 1 day to apply and would provide a 100% increase to defender troop strength. This provides a useful mechanism where a defending alliance would have time to react to a threat (the attackers already had a lot of time to prepare, I’ve seen both sides of this and feel that this helps and is not unrealistic). The downside should be a 1 point negative to happiness, no one likes to live in a sandbag decorated landscape … though Syntis won’t care) - This is the anti-steamroller feature.

Victory in battle for the defender should grant a 1 day boost to remaining troops defence bonus by 50%… The euphoria of victory… Applicable if the invasion force was over 10000 troops. Prevents 1 troop invasion from friendly sources to trigger bonuses.

Building losses should be larger if the defender lost, this would be explainable as the scorched earth policy of the losing side. An option for the attacker to choose the type of battle strategy could be used to target buildings with a 50% loss of attacking power… The suicide bomber option…

So building losses should be very low if the attacker lost… Even if the force was relatively balanced… The attacker would not target much more than military targets as they are invading and not bombing from space… a more surgical approach…

I would like to see biological attacks on organics (computer virus for Syntis) as options such that the invasion might take 3 days but the effect is between 30% and 50% population and troop casualties… No other invasions are possible in this time. Maybe even the dead rise as a zombie population… The defender has 3 days to get reinforcements to protect the planet… The attacker has an effortless way to take a planet down a step… infected planets are immune to reinfection from the same attacking races…

Tomorrow (or in a few days ) I will look at Carrier hulls for fighter modules and fighters as a resource… We opened the door to troops as resources… next is fighters…


I would increase the minimum troop to at least 100k, 10k is really nothing and could be just as easily exploited as a troop of 1.

Building losses are fairly substantial now when the defender loses, though I feel not necessarily realistic. I made a separate post on this. The losses are relative to the invasion force vs defender, didn’t do the math.

A friend did an intentional loss invasion and little was lost, only one structure if I recall.

I have made my planet currently under siege invasion proof with the current mechanics. The largest assault fleet would find it impossible to win, given the 4 OBD I have and the number of trained military and tech. Also in a separate invasion of the enemy who is trying to invade my planet, a couple of people, on our side, involved in the war visited and planned to attempt an invasion on one of the enemy’s planets. It was defended similarly to mine, though they added the max population x 2 (which is what is now allowed) which pushed up the home defense x 2 plus 2 OBD I believe. @Emarel can describe this better. He found that it was impossible to complete the invasion successfully and withdrew his invasion forces. I know he was prepared with both invasion assault fleets and Orbital Bomber fleets. So far my invader hasn’t tried Orbital bombers or energy storm as yet to increase the chances of success. I would suspect with my OBD based on Emarel’s attempt, it wouldn’t be successful, but I’ll let him explain more as he was there. So basically what I’m saying is that under the current mechanics, you can make your planet invasion proof. While I’m happy that the planet can’t likely be taken, I don’t believe this is what is wanted. It should be extremely costly, difficult and time consuming, but not impossible to invade even the best defended planet. Right now it appears to be impossible under the right circumstances and preparation.

The Carrier modules appear to be working better than was described previously, though I’m guessing not perfect yet. Our opponent loves them, previously I understand they would fight and the opponent would always lose without inflicting much damage. Now the opponent still will often lose, but typically takes several ships down with the fight. The losses typically occur after the opponent’s ships have been killed.

@DeicidE good write up though.


Invasion should be possible with the aid of orbital bombardment. But I found it is impossible to do an orbital strike being mankind. My cruiser has 2200 armor (I could put some more probably but it is a good value balancing ordnance and others). With a T2 orbital defense, EVERY cruiser receives 150 damage each 3 minutes, which leads to 20 hits in 1 hour, for 3000 damage. So it is impossible to launch the orbital strike. I just tried to use the LSC-90 which has a strike time of 20 min but aborted when I found that all cruisers were being hit simultaneously because I realized I could not bomb with the rest of the cruisers carrying the other orbital weapon.
Orbitals were too easy to dodge before but now we went to the other extreme.
So right now, no sense in trying to invade a well defended planet. Adding this to the corruption limiting planets, and the fleet cap…war has no sense in this game. So a long term game is pointless for individuals and very hard to carry on now with allies.

1 Like

Thats a bug in my book…

It should be 150 applied across the whole fleet evenly in my opinion… So if 2 ships in the fleet each take 75…

It should also be explained to us how damage is applied across multiple fleets… I would be tempted to “tank” the ODS with other fleets with high armour… or syntis repair modules… and I’m wondering if Syntis can repair while bombing (@joe create any bugs you find there :P)

Maybe you can build impregnable 20 ODS planets, insta-kill most fleets…and certainly 20 hits is impossible to survive.

Pretty sure all ships in orbit are targeted equally every time an ods fires right now. So tanking with one beefy hulled fleet/ship won’t work atm. And if they change it so ods only shoots one fleet/ship at a time, then they need to add targeting options to the ods.

Ugh I cringe at the thought.

I agree 150 EACH ship is illogical and OTT. If each ODS had say a “rack” of 20 150 point shots that it fired sequentially at ships every so often then yeah maybe… Especially if a random element was brought in on what ship(s) got hit or (happy thought!) the targeting preferences from the Main fleet interface were somehow adapted to allow planetary cannon our own personal preferences in defensive use…

You can if you have the population, etc to support it.

Not my quote. But sure its a valid tactic as Puma says IF a player wants to make a fortress world they certainly should be able to, though any such extreme measures should be at a trade off as to the other functions (Mining/research/ship building etc) you can optimise a planet for.

What we lack is that sweet spot where worlds are vulnerable to the right well prepared fleet but not to a “casual” conqueror .

Essentially these seem all issues of mid to late game play-ability. Where (currently) warfare is the only game left in town to play. But if we go down the specialised world route too far we slam into the hated world cap too fast, as to make a truly impregnable “Sector capital” type world it realistically would need agrarian worlds to send it food mining worlds to send it materials above what it could make, etc etc.

Taking such a system would be a satisfying challenge as an attacker (or defender) but because of planet caps its less practical to set up that way. Had we been in A2 then sure we’d have systems set up with a Hard point world that was mega hard to take, 2-3 planets feeding it materials, that in a battle situation you’d lay siege to that system (defeating minefields as needed) then take out the secondary worlds then finally the main fortress.

All of which would take a decent amount of time allowing for counter attack and or the intervention of allies (on either side)

But right now we have either worlds to easy to take and isolated as we are cherry picking the best of a system due to the Hated Planet cap.


Worlds where we are so dug in as to be impregnable as Barad Dur with no Hobbit class ships to back stab us…

Unsatisfying either way. Change the Planet cap to “SYSTEMS CAP” I think, and all of this settles down and such extreme tactics on offence or defence become moot.

(Not going to go on how a “War as the only Mid to late game” is a terrible waste of potential here)

1 Like

It would already be a trade off given the limitations of labor shortages and I would think only viable on extremely large planets. And if the planet wasn’t useful for any other purpose why would a person bother (strategic location, pure military base or T3/T4 SY base)

The rest is very much on point.


The combi of large sized worlds with Mountain Giants seems to occur often enough to make fortress T4 Shipyards well within the scope of many. And I like this specialisation to be fair. Its just… it presents other balance problems as I said that we have “lucky” players getting these and those that had a poorer start being unable to build them due to the Cap or just plain dumb luck…

Either is the enemy of a skill based game. I just feel there are now so many special cases and the current rewriting of rules (see mine-laying thread for example) that are instead of simplifying are actually over complicating things (Gawd I never thought I’d hear myself say that!)…

Its a mess, and I maintain its from not looking at individual mechanics in relation as to how they would happen “in real life” (As far as you can translate Space age to current age) that we are now in the unique situation of having done away with some concepts that allow for tactics and at the opposite end having to make special cases and clarifications ad nausium to balance out things that worked… well… adequately that have been over thought but without regard to their larger utility…

Base game concepts need to be simple to comprehend.
But there needs to be many ways to skin any particular Ripchee; allowing for tactical variations…
And at all points NO solution should depend on getting a “good draw” on where you started …

I digress (sorry @DeicidE) got a massive headache from an ear infection and probably best I shut up and just read for a few :wink: I await the next point in Big D’s dissertaion :+1:

1 Like

I am fairly sure I read that they will be softening the corruption in the next galaxy to be more like skirmish which will help a lot and I feel is reasonable while still prevent anyone from colonizing every planet in reach. They also said that the starting hw systems will be more consistent player to player. And we will be closer in proximity to other players though not as close as in skirmish.

Planets still need to be specialized for certain things which will require them to be heavily defended. I made many mistakes early in A3 due to my newness in the game, but have learned a lot since from our team and am trying to adjust while still fighting in our war.

Although things are still not perfect, with the exception of mine warfare I don’t think it is as bad as you feel it is. Certainly there is room for improvement but to really test what currently exists fully we need some basic alliance features
This will allow better coordination on both sides of a fight that’s difficult to measure right now.

After there are basic alliance features then balance can be evaluated better as a whole rather than race by race. We are supposed to be different for a reason.

1 Like

This is fair enough, my feelings stem from recalling what was possible in game before you joined in part. But this probably isn’t the place to rehash my dissatisfaction with the features I started with that are no longer present. My point is I feel like there is a downward trend in (so called) Development that is resulting in larger convoluted messes like the current mine-layer nonsense.

I cant shake the feeling that newer changes are being done without taking five minutes to reason out potential knock on effects.

That said t may be the official in game alliance features are just the glue needed to stitch currently desycronised game aspects together. I am hoping so and await their initial release with great interest :slight_smile:

So with them softening corruption, depending on if thats a new normal, what might happen with syntis who are simply hard locked at a maximum planet cap dictated by technology? Syntis are already abit slow starting due to their slow growth rate and low unadjustable tax rate. Sure they can colonize quickly, assuming they forgo other techs and go for planet cap tech, but they HAVE to because they need those planets to boost their crappy tax base. I think this will have more impact on skirmish style galaxies so for the short term i wouldnt be too concerned, but i’m curious what folks think?

What’s your planet cap now, I forgot since I played in skirmish.

36 once you reach end of tech tree.

Then I would think it should be adjusted upward. With corruption and no hard caps, corruption pretty much limits us to around 30 or so before we can’t compensate. So relaxing the corruption would take that high end of the cap higher. @joe They’d need to figure out the right comparable cap for Syntis.

Scrap “Planet cap” I say: make it a “System” cap that way were actually have a reason to research advanced Hyrdo & Temp stations + Bio farms etc etc

For arguments sake 5 systems free then unlock Tec to allow 5-10 more Gives in potential about 100-120 worlds…

1 Like

if they were to scrap the planet cap they’d have to rework the syntis a little bit due to their reliance on tech for planet cap.

That’s a good shout there mate…

Perhaps yes. But Personally I thought an equivalent tec for Organics was always a fairer way of doing things. Call it “Planetary Administration” or some such. With it representing the evolution of a Political system to allow for sovereign worlds held under one empire.

Ask any student of British/American History what happens if you don’t keep you colonies “Happy”…