Bear in mind that there's a sharp limit to how many square pegs I'm going to try to fit into round holes. When ZPGs don't work, then they either get shifted to something else or just removed entirely. I'm not going to gut the game, but I'm also not going to bloat it with things that aren't really needed.
Thanks for the reminder about Exos, that makes sense on that. I'm not sure if we'll have those kind of wormholes this time or not. Might handle that in a slightly more interesting way, or else will just do that again, depending.
In Sins I seem to recall that they heavily darkened the space outside of the gravity well, which I'm not sure how well that would look here. It can certainly be done, but I'm not sure how annoying it will be. I'd like to do something a little more subtle than that if possible.
Either way, making wormhole connections directional is something that I really agree with. At least the lanes within the solar system, to be sure.
Dyson spheres would be an example of something that changes dramatically, yes. The idea behind them is awesome at the core, but their model from before is something I'm bored of and always felt was limited anyway. We can do something richer here.
I've been back and forth on if 20 systems would really be the new default, though. Certainly it will be an option, but I'm not sure if it will really let me get everything in there that I'd like to have in one game. Doing some things like "solar gates" that are the one building you can build on suns in either allied, owned, or neutral solar systems, but then let you fast travel units from that sun to any other sun with such a gate on it, could help matters quite enormously. It would bring a new element to deep strikes and planet hopping.
The "sunwell" is an awesome idea that we should totally put in there. I think that's a lot more interesting than the ZPG in this game, for sure.
I like solar systems but don't like the idea there can be multiple AIP hits if a solar system changes hands several times. it punishes "bend but don't break" strategies and goes back to making whipping boys. There is already plenty ways that encourage the latter.
I will make it an option, but I think it makes good sense. Let's actually play out a few scenarios and when you gain AIP:
1. GAIN: you take a planet from the AI anywhere.
2. NOPE: you lose a planet that the AI takes over, and then you take it back
3. GAIN: you take the entire solar system (let's say 5 planets in a group) from an AI.
4. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system and takes 4 of those planets from you. You then reclaim all 4 of those planets.
5. NOPE: the AI pushes back into that solar system, knocks you off all 5 of them, and then takes 2 of them before you knock them back off those 2.
6. NOPE: the AI again comes in, knocks you off all the planets, and takes 3 planets so that they now control it again. You retain control of the remaining 2.
7. NOPE: the AI pushes you off those remaining 2, and then you retake them.
8. GAIN (repeat): you take the solar system back from the AI. You'd take a hit from the 3 systems they reclaimed as part of their empire, and from the system itself.
I think perhaps you were envisioning this as being much more harsh on when you get repeat gains? You have to get pushed pretty far back before this is even an issue.
I am still not a fan of fuel for it seems it will be mildly annoying to veterans and a great source of frustration to new players. It lacks depth but is challenging to new players. I think the opposite is desired.
Fuel = energy, in every way, at this point. However, it separates your offensive and defensive budgets so that you are never having to struggle between offense or defense when it comes to territory-limited assets (unlike, say, metal income, which you of course still have to figure out how to allocate).
