A few thoughts from playing:
Profile sucks. I'd originally put this as profile demands suck, and they do, but the actual problem is that profile sucks. IT's super neat conceptually, but it's handled badly mechanically. Bluntly: Give the Supreme Council a trio of linear tech sets that increase profile based on BP investment; one slider on the priorities screen, then a second popup asking you what you're going to focus on (With a stopping point?) It's absurd that the government can't actively shape its basic policy on a national level, only have it arise reactively. And like, the reactive part happening is itself fine! Most of the numbers on them seem legit! But it's absurd that it's all or even most of it. Additionally, the Supreme Council kinda doesn't have much to do once BP production has taken off and the high command is levelled up. This gives it more of a purpose (and is the most sensible place to put it). If you're not gonna give us the ability to actively shape policy, then remove Profile demands. Those are either pure RNG, or by far the most video game-y demands, as either I have repeatable zone events to pour PP into to change it (which feels weird as **** diagetically), or I can't do anything except hope sufficient events come in to alter it, which is annoying and not fun, nor is it an interesting question in the vein of "What would it cost to do this, and do I think it is worth it?"
Relatedly, a Profile-related GUI touch up:
In the Management: Profile screen, when mousing over a regime feat, I would add another section of text. "Happy factions may gift you the following stratagems". Put the card in on the regime feat, like the regular strategems, because there's definitely room for that. I had _no idea_ where my like, zoos, Militia boosters and such, were coming from until I accidentally happened on the strategem encyclopedia. I thought the factions were generating it based on their own profiles, not on my regime feats. It would more easily communicates another cool thing that the system does, that it gives the information about anyway, so it isn't intentionally obscuring it.
Also relatedly, I would seriously drop some of the high numbers in profile shifts for unit feat events. Even taking it as indicative of broader trends (Which diagetically, they never are), it's still super weird to make 8 points of progress towards potentially brutal enforcement of the law, on a 100 point scale, because an NCO happens to be really good at his or her job. Publicly humiliating senior officials in government is usually worth 3-5 points, wtf is a mascot in the 67th Batallion in bumfuck nowhere doing giving 5? Dropping them substantially also gives the benefit that you might have more reasons to think about which game-mechanical boost you want for that particular unit (which feels like why we have the dang events in the first place), because the profile one is just overwhelming in comparison.
The "Aux Profile: Average relationship with your cults" tooltip in the Regime Profile Bar might be the worst tooltip in the game, I think. Really easy to improve though: Just... put the cults' opinions in under the tooltip itself. Bam, now super useful.
I'm not sure by how much, but I would seriously consider nerfing the Relations bonus to most leader positions. Putting stooges into just about every position is way too dang useful compared to taking risks on people who might not adore me. A flat 50% bonus for existing and liking me? And you're not actively undermining me (Potentially, you're even doing what I want to get the people to like my regime, since you have really high happiness, so you're probably from a friendly faction) You need 100 skill + stat to average out to that high. Even starting from the position that relations should be big, this is so big as to be overwhelming to most other concerns. A 20% feels too high from a simulation perspective (granted, from that perspective individuals mattering so much is already annoying me, but putting that to the side...) , but even more than that, a 20% boost still requires 70 stat + skill difference to start to reach average parity on assuming I'm understanding die rolls correctly, and even cap1 stooges do still gain experience and skills. Give me reasons to take risks on skilled characters. As is, there isn't much of one. The exceptions appear to be SHQ and OHQ commanders - I'm honestly not sure what Relation does for an SHQ commander (It's fine if it's nothing beyond being a ward against rebellion tbh!), and for an OHQ commander, like, passive exp helps, but compared to skills? Probably not so much. Those folks probably do not need a nerf. But Governors and directors def. do.
Limit solar panels somehow. Maybe a total number of rural assets per zone??? Maybe backend their manpower efficiency? For my own personal play, I kinda just refuse to place them anywhere but one hex per city just to feel like other things are relevant. I tend to get annoyed at sci fi video games making solar too weak, so I suppose this is just the monkey's paw finally curling there.
If Faction Happiness is based off of anything passive, communicate that in their report. I can't tell one way or the other if it's totally static like regimes or slides up and down like characters, since I'm not monitoring them close enough.
A No Scrolling button for No Changes to Task priority/annual budgets would be useful.
< Message edited by Lailah -- 8/18/2020 9:39:08 AM >