Been meaning to do a one planet run but I can't help myself when I pretty little world with natural aphrodisiacs, hallucinogens, and titanic life.
I would like to try this in multiplayer.
I would like to try this in multiplayer.
The one planet empire. The OP-OPM.
- Thread starter Edmon
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I was considering using a mod for 1 core sector meaning that this was the case for everyone, and everything else had to be a sector. It would cut down micromanagement immensely. The theory behind it is that light speed communication would take years to reach a colony so the only way to send messages back and forth would be with messenger ships; this would effectively mean a colony would develop relatively independently but with a loose allegiance and set of guidelines delivered by ship every so often, as well as the tribute to the home-world. It would reflect colonial times. I would probably play this as a warp-only game.
@Edmon "I was bored of this games (sic) micromanagement and so I decided that'd (sic) just live with one planet and see how far I could take it". What a waste of precious real time, energy and 100yrs of game time trading the "micromanagement" of accumulating colonies, explorating CGI adventures, and pushing the envelope of AI responses for the absolute ennui of nano-managing one planet for the selfish purpose of a rigged victory! Jesus H. Christ Edmon! It's not the destination, it's the journey.
Last edited:
- 6
It's both to be fair.
Anyway, it wasn't much micromanagement to "Fastest" speed my way through 100 years.
Also, using (sic) where it isn't required makes you look silly.
Last edited:
- 3
No way at all am I convinced. Once the game progresses far enough and a 20 system world with 20k fleets shows up it will all be over but the screaming....
edit: unless within an alliance/federation and counting on the others to carry the load
edit: unless within an alliance/federation and counting on the others to carry the load
Well, I think it could be done easily if I wasn't pacifist. But where would be the challenge in that?
Also, I've already eaten a few 17k fleets, I don't think the power projection thingy (the number) is fully accurate for some repeatable tech?
- 1
Nope it is not your fault the AI is average for this kind of game. If a better AI would be possible and feasible, someone would have made it already.
However it is your fault for abusing that to create your pseudo-OP run.
There is nothing OP here. You attacked the AI at the weak points.
People can beat 1v3 Hard or Insane AI in Star Craft 2, simply by abusing the fact that the AI moves a single doomstack and can only attack a single target at a time:
They found a weakness (or multiple) in the Mathematical Formulas that try to simulate a Intelligence. Once you know that weakness, abusing it is about as simple as sweeping leaves of the walkway.
It is a sign of exceptional intelligence and skill that you found those weaknesses, especally without programming background.
But it not a sign of either that you used them.
Heck, I could beat highest Planetary Annihilation AI on the same planet simply by using the Flametank rush (deadly for commanders; the AI is not properly able to protect it).
Keep one thing in mind here: AI is not affected by core sectors. It is a player only mechanic, like scouting. One of those classical unfair but nessesary tardeoffs to make the AI appear even that smart.
- 3
- 1
Explain to me how extremely rapid research being very, ridiciously powerful is a weakness of the A.I.?
I had battleships about 20 years in.
- 1
One planet, 50+ per month, and 100 years.....
This means... play wide is viable, i suppose? i miss civ5's babylon...
But wait, is that why the fallen empires became what they are now...trading territory for tech ??? (just joking)
This means... play wide is viable, i suppose? i miss civ5's babylon...
But wait, is that why the fallen empires became what they are now...trading territory for tech ??? (just joking)
- 1
This is certainly interesting but... what do you even want?
That they should balance the game so that one planet empires aren't OP?
Isn't playing a one planet empire just silly?
That they should balance the game so that one planet empires aren't OP?
Isn't playing a one planet empire just silly?
- 2
- 1
Research is too fast.
Basing slowing research on number of planets and number of pops is silly.
Slow research down significantly at a base level but don't slow research on planets and pops, instead on the number of repeated techs acquired * 10%.
Problem solved. No more empire with one pop being the research supernova of the Q.
Being a one planet empire is really kind of funny.
- 1
- 1
If you don't base research on planets and populations, larger empires will always have an advantage in technology.
If one empire has twice as many planets as another empire then potentially they can have twice as many research points. They have more space to build science labs.
- 4
Why is this a bad thing? Does a empire with twice as many labs, twice as much money and twice as many space things to study not progress faster than an empire without those things?
- 2
- 2
Why is it a problem? If someone is Snowballing out of control, the other empires should band together to give them a right kicking. This is the same problem EUIV has. The punishment for "winning" should be everyone realising you are a serious threat and kicking your teeth in.
Almost every critically acclaimed game has this "Snowball problem". It really isn't a problem, better players should get ahead, that's how it should be. Now controlling the pace of the snowball needs careful consideration. But punishing players for success just makes your game less fun.
Diminishing returns is a better system, because it does not punish success, but it does make it harder to get further and further ahead over time.
- 6
- 2
This is confusing me as well. It makes me think that the OP is cheating.
OP, you do seem to be underestimating how much having more empires matters. You say it helps you, but in reality it would actually things more difficult for you, at least during the early and mid-game. More empires means more aggressive empires, which means bigger empires, which means more powerful competition. If an empire has a much larger fleet capacity than you do, even if they are way behind technologically they could still create a fleet big enough to defeat yours.
No and No.
If you want an A.I. to be powerful, give it an advanced start, plenty of space to grow into and leave it alone.
The fact I have Xeno leadership amuses me, because it gives away what my clever little gimmick was, but I'm glad no-ones actually worked it out because it'd be on the chopping block so fast as badwrongfun that it'd be patched out before you can say "5 year truces".
If what you're saying about the A.I. is true, then why are you the only non-Fallen Empire (that you know of) to have a lot of land? Even if you are using abandon planet, you wouldn't be able to get away with that as easily as you would be if there were more empires because those empires would ally with each other. You might not even be able to expand as much as you did using Frontier Outposts because the game purposely spawns empires right next to you to make the early game harder.
As for the second part of your post, what that is telling me is that you are actually cheating. Cheating, in my mind, isn't always using console commands. If you are purposely exploiting a bug in the game, you are cheating. It's even worse because you're not saying what that bug is.