Real reason behind the 5 Core planets?

[Wouter445]

their must be a reason why they chosen 5 core planets as basic.
i find it really lackluster to have so little planets that i can control directly.
and yea i know it's moddable, but not when you try to keep ironman and pure to the game.

and don't tell me it's done for micromanagement game is full of it few more planets would really not matter.

 

[serpentskirt]

42

 

[CocoCincinnati]

My guess is that a lot of the internal problems are meant to use sectors and might just not be fully implemented yet. That's the only reason to "require" sectors. If they were there just to alleviate micro, then they would be voluntary. If they ever get them working right, I won't mind using them at all, I really like the design of them.....unless, of course, they do start being nothing more than breeding grounds for factions and revolts, then I'll mod them out.

 

[Asiak]

and yea i know it's moddable, but not when you try to keep ironman and pure to the game.

and don't tell me it's done for micromanagement game is full of it few more planets would really not matter.

Amen brother.

I don't why it is 5 but I think an increase of 2 or 3 to the base is needed. Especially in light of sector AI being questionable in its management practices.

I feel that 5 simply limits the fun of the player. Planets are not counties, they are so much more. And when I can control a system with them they become even less like counties. 5 is also way to limiting when just trying to build up sectors before sectoring them.

They are correct that players shouldn't have to micromanage vast empires. But they are wrong in taking away the freedom of other players to micromanage more planets if they want to. I know how many planets I can micromanage successfully thank you very much.

And I know that there is also balance to be considered. But seriously how would an increase of 2 or 3 to the base core worlds for everyone be unbalanced? You put in the sector you can only get 75% of the resources. Are you really gona tell me that 25% of 2 or three planets is going to be overpowered?

Even as a Subconscious Consensus with 9 core worlds it isn't enough. Planets are fun let me have my fun. Nothing stops players from putting all their planets except one in sectors, why can I not have my 2 or 3 more core worlds.

 

[Wouter445]

My guess is that a lot of the internal problems are meant to use sectors and might just not be fully implemented yet. That's the only reason to "require" sectors. If they were there just to alleviate micro, then they would be voluntary. If they ever get them working right, I won't mind using them at all, I really like the design of them.....unless, of course, they do start being nothing more than breeding grounds for factions and revolts, then I'll mod them out.

I don't like sectors at all, their is only 4 focus types not a balanced type.
i try to balance my planets with energy minerals and research on top of that all resources are lost to sector when you have +++ on them

 

[Denjell]

Amen brother.

I don't why it is 5 but I think an increase of 2 or 3 to the base is needed. Especially in light of sector AI being questionable in its management practices.

I feel that 5 simply limits the fun of the player. Planets are not counties, they are so much more. And when I can control a system with them they become even less like counties. 5 is also way to limiting when just trying to build up sectors before sectoring them.

They are correct that players shouldn't have to micromanage vast empires. But they are wrong in taking away the freedom of other players to micromanage more planets if they want to. I know how many planets I can micromanage successfully thank you very much.

And I know that there is also balance to be considered. But seriously how would an increase of 2 or 3 to the base core worlds for everyone be unbalanced? You put in the sector you can only get 75% of the resources. Are you really gona tell me that 25% of 2 or three planets is going to be overpowered?

Even as a Subconscious Consensus with 9 core worlds it isn't enough. Planets are fun let me have my fun. Nothing stops players from putting all their planets except one in sectors, why can I not have my 2 or 3 more core worlds.

The cap is moddable, either sacrifice iron man or learn to live with it, there is a reasoning behind the 5 planet cap. Be it either to avoid blobs or snowballing.

 

[arcticnerd]

I've been wondering why it's core planets and not core systems.

 

[Wulfram]

I like the sectors in principle - it does help stop the micro from being crazy, and I'm able to not obsess over the inefficiencies - but I do think increasing the base number of core worlds a bit would save frustration. Bump it up to 7 or 8 and maybe add a few more in the research tree and it'd be less annoying.

I want to be able to keep both a few actually core worlds - the richest and most developed - and work on developing, and currently I can't do that except with Direct Democracy or Theocratic Republic.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

The cap is moddable, either sacrifice iron man or learn to live with it, there is a reasoning behind the 5 planet cap. Be it either to avoid blobs or snowballing.

I was hoping you could still play iron man but just lose achievements... bummer to learn we can't.

 

[ashbery76]

Because micromanagement makes the game bloat badly.5 is possibly too low but over 10 planets and fiddling with planets become tedium like in Moo2.

 

[Drake VI]

Yes, the number "5" seems rather arbitrary.

For me though, given the right set of management controls, I'd be happy to manage everything at the sector level. Managing individual tiles on a planet is getting old for me already. I'd rather set goals at the sector level (with better UI and likely finer grained controls) and let the AI manage my planets. I'd even be content to let the AI colonize other world's within their borders if that helped the sector with the goals I've set.

 

[Kwami]

I've been wondering why it's core planets and not core systems.

Yeah, the current system can get pretty awkward. In one game, in which I started on a Tropical planet, I had a system with 2 Tropical planets next door to my starting system and another system two stars away with 3 Tropical planets. They were all pretty good planets, too. So, I took one planet from each of those two systems, then found two others to expand my borders. Now, I have 3 idle Tropical planets that I can't settle because doing so would require me to give up the entire system instead of only the new planet. It's awkward.

I think that 5 systems is much better than 5 planets. Most systems only have 1-2 planets, anyway.

 

[richie05]

i dont think its for micromanaging, i think its to provide diminishing returns for large empires based on the fact u can only get 75% of ur resources from sectors

 

[CocoCincinnati]

I don't like sectors at all, their is only 4 focus types not a balanced type.
i try to balance my planets with energy minerals and research on top of that all resources are lost to sector when you have +++ on them

I would be happy with more options. I just posted in another thread that I would like a growth speed option as well. However, I don't believe that a balance focus is needed IF, and right now that's a big if, the sectors actually respected the tile resource. Most planets that are built up with the correct building on each resource will be fairly balanced anyway, leaving the blank tiles for the AI to build according to focus.

I've heard people talk about the strategic resources and I have yet to experience that problem. I have full access to them even in sectors. Maybe the problem is that the AI will use them if they are in their sector and that is what causes some players to lose access to them. I don't know. I can understand the logic in allowing the AI to utilize strategic resources in a sector, but only after the player has enough of them for their core planets. I mean if you've got a couple of betharian stones sitting around and your core planets are all full up, then why shouldn't the sectors use those. Maybe that should be another option for a sector; allow use of strategic resources.

 

[vfmikey]

+1 core planets is repeatable tech, so in theory - you can have infinite number of core planets. And four more, from government type.

 

[ramius3443]

I've been wondering why it's core planets and not core systems.

I suspect Ring worlds may be a factor in this decision

 

[GC13]

and don't tell me it's done for micromanagement game is full of it few more planets would really not matter.

It's the paradox of the heap: no matter what they set the limit on, it would be true that adding a few more planets wouldn't change the micromanagement asked of you by that much; they had to set a limit somewhere though. Since there are government types and a repeatable tech that increase their limit, five is already a pretty soft cap.

 

[Wouter445]

+1 core planets is repeatable tech, so in theory - you can have infinite number of core planets. And four more, from government type.

I don't really care about Repeatable tech or Research that can give Infinity Numbers. I can also just adjust Core game files and set it to 999 and have unlimited core planets.
but it still not explain the design chooses they made for this small number. although i read on of demising returns which is likely the idea behind this.

 

[panda_Express12]

Playing as a direct democracy with a few repeatable techs and I have 10 core planets.

Honestly, the micro of just 5 is more than I can stand. Too much clicking, not enough options like a "auto-upgrade buildings" button.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The cap is moddable, either sacrifice iron man or learn to live with it, there is a reasoning behind the 5 planet cap. Be it either to avoid blobs or snowballing.

It doesn't avoid either of those things.

What it really does is make the player make decisions about which planets they'll get the most benefit out of personally managing.