Its a problem either way.
I remember a round when i was my fams only attacker, and i was running around with 25 Morale planets. It worked fine, but with the new rules i would of be eaten up very quickly. As it was i still managed to have my fam finish 5th after a couple of wars. I fought of the Munchers and BORG by myself that round for those who remember them. Sure, i think i lost 1k planets along the way, but still finished with like 3.5k.

I don't see how having no limit on moral planets helps a smaller family? More planets = more moral planets, hence the larger family will have attackers with 25 and the smaller families will have an attackers with 5. At least now the small family has the same amount as the large guy. I'm pretty sure a family with 2k planets would have more moral planets to stock up attackers than a family with 500 planets. How is that not true? The small guy already has the disadvantage of not having the same fleet. Why stack an attacker with 25 moral planets and let them farm the small guy even faster?

Both cases of no-limit on morale planets and a defined limit work in favour of bigger families rather than small. Even with a limit, the larger family will reach the limit faster than the smaller does, hence having a small advantage in morale. As it stands, removing morale planets from the game(and adjusting morale loss per attack accordingly) would be better than what it is now.

A better solution would be to implement a family-wide morale planet limit. That way no matter how many active attackers you have in a fam, collectively they get the same total extra morale gain per tick off morale planets.

now we're getting somewhere... keep 'em coming guys

> Stan wrote:

> I really want to revisit the new max 5 morale pr player.

Atm, we're using 3 HC attackers ( MW ) and because we can only use 5pr player. We're left with 3morale planets that we would like to use in a optimal manner.
I feel like the mods wanted to get rid of the conquest of stacking most morales. But this effect so much more, especially for fam's  with fewer active attackers. Before you had the option to stack morale planets and do more with 1 or 2active attackers. Now you need more active attackers to get an optimal attacking fam(not counting infra). So you  need to be in a big and very active fam to get a more optimal attacking rate.  I would rather have the morale planets  completly removed (like back in the day:P). Then keep it like this.

Overall I just feel like many options when it comes to attacking has been removed in normal galaxies.

Here's an IDEA..  How about SENTINAL only being able to attack within 10 normal ticks of their HOME sys - thereby keeping much larger families from dominating smaller families by provoking attacks in the smaller families core?  You know how that works don't ya STAN?

Let's face it, you can change the game a million times, but it's not going to be a fix. The only real fix is to advertise and get more players.

Firstly, when you have a massive galaxy, with 100 families with 15 people, there's not going to be crying about farming, cores, etc. VIP ruined the game in that you can see where you enemies are and how they are advancing. This basically forced everyone into a small shell around their home and started cores. There was no way a huge family could police their systems like you can now. To manually click on every system, a huge families had a nightmare and very time consuming. It made it much easier to sneak into peoples areas and start wars. That whole aspect of the game was what made it great. All of this gave a smaller family some advantage. They could fight a large family and push them away most times since the large families back then only had a couple planets here and there. today we have entire sectors in the control of 1 families. So back to my main point, without players, the rules will keep changing until we are left with 2 guys and we might as well play chess at the point.

Secondly, the most popular txt based games today, allow you to grow but not lose 2 months worth of work in 5 minutes due to a raid. I think there has to be higher limits set on the amount of planets an empire can lose. Right now most people limit their wars to taking 10-15% of a families planets, so why not limit the total amount of planets you can lose to 10-15%? Or put some penalty on the attacking family. After they have taken 10% of the families planet but their attack bonuses by 5%. I don't know it's just an idea. If you were a new player and build a decent empire up, went to bed, then got up and saw you had nothing left, what's the motivation to ever play the game again? or even continue to play with what you have?

Lastly, I think there should be a standard set of leaders that are assigned to each family. There's enough mods, fmods and really good leaders out there that we could pool from. If each family had a good leader that's willing to teach people how to play, show some honor, I think it would go a long way into building our player base. MW could have the best players as leaders, and then PW could have the second choice leaders who are also learning how to become a good leader. We could even have the players vote on who they would like to see as the leaders.

These are just some thoughts, but really without more players, rule changes will always need to be made in an attempt to level the playing field, but it will never work.