There have been some comments about the "realism" of invading/nuking several planets per turn/month. Of course I can imagine a world/universe where this is possible. But IMO this is not really the question. The point for me is not the simulation of a pseudo-realistic universe. The point is to create a game which has more challenging core-rules than SE has yet. With challenging I mean rules which force me to make more and advanced tactical and strategic decisions.
Of course the game is good as it is now, but it has also its failures and its far from beeing perfect. My post was intended to show up one of these problems. I know there are a lot of people which are content with the core-rules of the SE series. Thats fully ok for me. I am not the guy who wants to put my opinion on everyones "head" (are these words correct? Dont exactly know because I am Austrian
)
I would wish Aaron would rework some of the basics of the core rules of SE5. And he should also be aware of some of the excellent board game systems out there. Why inventing an oval wheel when there is already a round one existing?
Things I like (and would not like to have changed) in SE are:
-The adaptibility of many game areas (modding)
-extensive design of war-ships
-tactical ship combat
Things I would like to have changed
-planetary combat
-units (fighters, drones, ground units etc.) as such. I liked the system of SE3 more, with fixed stats of units. It was simpler and had the same flair
-supply should be a resource (like organics)
-just one battle per turn/fleet
-simpler diplomatic model (one of reasons the AI dont work good is that the diplo model is not really thought out very good. There are too many choices which dont have much impact in the game)
-people which operate facilities
-better immigration rules
-more and more dangerous internal problems (rebels, pirates, dangerous technologies etc.) to force the player to have internal security fleets and units.
Ok thats a few of the changes I would suggest.
KlausD