Exactly cheeze. Well said imo. That is why I said infinite resource games are easier. if you don't have to really worry about storage limits and the like, then sure. Build 20+ massive base ship fleets, drop Mines and Sats everywhere with reckless abandon.
In my games, I am basicly building a fleet for each wormhole in my home system. That fleet is responsible for anything discovered beyond that point. If I build "back-up" fleets, I lose my arse in support. If I build too many radioactice extractors, my surplus is lost, and I may need it later. In this game, earlier on I did that, and had to go back and "recycle" a large number of them. Due to the mineral intensive support system, I didn't have enough of that, and far too much of the other. I had not researched resource conVersion yet and was killing my own planets with org/rad depletion. talk about hasty micro-management. I still had a need for those two, so scrapping "all" of that type of facility would not have been the right thing to do. balancing the M/O/R is a real see-saw challange. It was quite fun. infinite games are missing that aspect.
My current game is down to a two front war, but I have over 60% of the galaxies claimed (by colonization). Made some not-so-desireable race setting choices, so I think I am gonna apply the patch, and give it another go.
This Last game, was cluster/large. 3 of the AI's were in real good shape by the time I found them. another 3 were of mediocre challange, and not much can be said about neutrals. I colonize the system next to theirs and they go on a traditional "there goes the neighborhood" rant. I sign treaties with them, and they get mad. they attack, I graciously allow them to join my empire. I needed some methane breathers anyway.
Re: Finite resources or not?
Threaded Mode