i think that you should be able to designate another home planet in another star system. I mean that each star can have a home planet. Who wants to have a bunch of planets with low allegience? So, i think you guys should implement this in the next update.
I second that. It makes sense to add a secondary government to different systems, since they are so much far from each other. Even if it's not as good as the "Empire capital". One of the systems would house the Empire Capital, the others would be minor capitals which would give a boost, albeit a more modest one. It could be a researcheable civic. To move my empire capital, I'd have to pay twice as much.
Yeah, good idea!
secondedX2
I fully agree, it would be nice to be able to have one home world per system instead of one period. This should really be implemented in the "diplomacy" micro expansion, it would be quite worth it for that alone in my opinion.
maybe it should be a researchable thing in the next expansion
Oooh, as a research topic, I'd support that idea.
It'd fit in with the diplomacy angle to boot.
Mmm... "Distributed governance"...
or as a variable of government types (should something like it be implemented). 'federacy' gives access to multiple administration seats, whereas 'empire' is restricted to one or only few.
otherwise, linking it to research is also a good idea. maybe like in fleet supply, you could research several tiers of them instead of a downright '1 regional capital per system' topic. or you go for that latter but have several levels of effectiveness.
the big question of course is: what should be the exact effect? sure, increase allegiance, but of which worlds? how much? I'd suggest the regional capital world gets a 15% allegiance bonus, worlds one jump away 10% and worlds 2 jumps away 5%. the rest is not affected. those are just rough numbers and could be increase via research or other stuff.
If you're growing your empire and you need to support more ships you need to pay more money to build more advanced supply distribution systems (fleet supply).
Administration could work the same way, increasing the base allegiance with culture from 35% to 50%, 60% or something (too high?) at the cost of more money "off the top" to be paid to your new levels of bureaucracy in order to run your HUGE, multi-star, (single player!) empire.
I suppose that with this new diplo expansion they're going to implement something like this... Your bureacracy can become corrupt, lazy, or a burden on your empire... Planet governors can be bribed, et cetera. Depending on your government choice, the population/planetary governors may be more/less willing to defect to the enemy.
Yeah, it would make sense for them to put that in the next micro expansion.
@starchild
so you are talking about loyalty. that could be implemented into the game. each ship should also have an allegience meter...
Yes, Zoythrus.
The Vasari have huge powerful ships but apparently their system of government makes the citizens rebellious (what's chasing them?!). Advent have powerful mind-control culture so they wouldn't have a problem with this... TEC are a loose affiliation, so they would be midway with loyalty/allegiance. I suppose the TEC could use their economic model to keep their citizens loyal.
Hmmm... Having a secondary capital for a secondary system would be nice... but... along with this couldn't you also group a bunch of planets together, within a system, and give the designated group of planets a capital, like how each state in the U.S. has a capital? Then each "state's" maximum allegiance would be measured together as a whole, based on distance from the Main Capital Planet.
I dunno...
(^) Koda0
Defineately agree.
I would also like to see leaders 9ie Governors, Regents, whatever) and government types that influended how different things happened. A Feudalist government might be better at warfare, with a hereditary military tradition, but poor at growth, with an inflexible chain of command and people that were afraid of acting without higher support.
Leaders would be both system and planetary, they would affect the system or planet's output (mining, production, taxes, etc) They could have both positive and negative influences, removing a leader might result in a revolt by that planet, or even the system. Other nations might try to bribe a leader to revolt. If you don't have a leader however, a planet's moral will steadilly decline. Some leaders might be corrupt and leach a bit off the top, pirates might form readilly in such systems (more than one pirate world) and so on.
Sounds like the two options they have in Civ IV the Forbidden Palace and Versalles <sp?> each act like a capital as far as reducing the tax loss for distance from capital, or alligence in Sins case.
some of these ideas remind me of a game called "Seven Kingdoms 2: The Fhrytan Wars"
About the mind control thing. Not everyone is 100% assimilated. People have a thing called free will that is extremely hard to fully repress. If everyone was completely assimilated the need for culture in friendly planets wouldn't be there.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
