Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
When playing around trade attractiveness, it's possible to gain more with any AI on a monthly trade, while it's not an issue against regular AI since they will declare war against you if they reach 0 in any ressource; with Fallen Empires they won't declare war even if they reach 0 and beyond on any ressources (making a Lost Project Origin way to overpowered).
As such in multiplayer we are to ban this build since it will reach a point where you have infinite ressource to play with at a very early stage of the game.
Adding a ban to trading with Fallen Empires or some hard CAP on trade attractiveness (150%) should fix the issue.
thanks for the input.
In the first place, I can't understand the idea of behing able to force any AI to trade for more ressources than that you provide... Maybe an hard cap on trade attractiveness can't be enough depending on which AI you want to swindle its income...
Another one that add a lot is the new leaders stuff (that I loved too), I have my sector with a leader that add +1 science job on every planet, so I get a lot of science from a lucky 6 planets start. Got my first 2 wars at same time and winning almost without losses. I think that it's something to think for balance, maybe only getting higher scalling is ok, or maybe changing mods as you said on the other thread.