Keygen download Call of Duty 2 - free - latest version
Call of Duty 2; Call of Duty 4; Counter-Strike 1.6; Counter-Strike GO; Counter-Strike Source; Garry's Mod; GTA MTA; GTA SAMP; Half-Life 1; Half-Life 2; Killing Floor 2; Left 4 Dead; Left 4 Dead 2; Minecraft; Rust; Team Fortress 2; Team Fortress Classic; 7 Days to Die; Player search. Home Modern Warfare v Patch (patch) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare v Patch (patch) GTA San Andreas Hot Coffee. Find and play the best COD2 Servers of 2020 from all around the world, ranked by status, players online & players votes. Call of Duty Mobile Mod APK Features. This patch will update the multiplayer portion of Call of Duty to 1.2. This mode can be played on all of the multiplayer maps in the game.
Call of Duty 2 GAME PATCH v.1.3
Call Of Duty 2 Cracked Server List 1.3: File size: 19 MB: Date added: November 5, 2020: Price: Free: Operating system: Windows XP/Vista/7/8: Total. Call of Duty: World at War Incremental Patch offers an effective game in which Treyarch brings the franchise back to World War II, including taking on Imperial Japanese forces in the [HOST] Features: The record and demo commands are considered as the most notable additions to this patch are, Have ability of recording and viewing your MP matches for submission to tournaments, leagues. Facebook Twitter Reddit Google+. Fixed exploits that allowed for power ranking servers. I've decided to devote more time into this mod then usual as I don't want this to done haphazard. Call of Duty: Strike Team.
- Call Of Duty 2 Patch 1.3 for Android
- Download Crack Call Of Duty 2 Single Player Tpb
- Call Of Duty 2 Full Version Software - Free Download Call
- Call of Duty 2 (PC) Patch v 1.3 file - Mod DB
- Call of Duty 2 V1.0 all versions serial number and keygen
- Download Call of Duty 2 1.3 Repack Mr DJ Free(download5ol0
Patch call of Duty 2 Free Download for Windows 10, 7, 8/8.1 (64
Below you will find a guide to install all necessary files. Call Of Duty 2 1.3 Serial Key. Hello everyone, Welcome to the walkthrough for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Campaign Remastered. Once the algorithm is identified they can then incorporate this into the keygen. The new update for Call of Duty WWII is live now and here. Installing cod2 with 1.3 patch and fix single player.
Call Of Duty 2 Patch 1.3 for Android - Free downloads and
This pack is only compatible with the English language version of Call of Duty 2 and is not authorized for download in Germany, Switzerland or Austria. Call of Duty 2 - patch Download Info New patch for the current version of the popular first-person shooter Call of Duty 2. This official patch fixes several bugs and errors that appeared to be in the first-person shooter Call of Duty 2, a popular war game playing in the time of the Second World War. Call of duty 2 Downgrading from 1.3 to 1.2: : Call of Duty. Overview: Updates Call of Duty: World At War to version 1.2. Call Of Duty 2 Cracked Servers 1.3. Benefits and features of Call of Duty 2 torrent download game.
Call Of Duty 2 (9 Downloads Available)
Call of Duty 2 v1.3 Patch - Call of Duty 2 Mods, Maps
Information about updates included from the earlier 1.01 patch can be. This application has age restrictions, the recommended age for using 6+ years. It's best if you avoid using common keywords when searching for Descargar Wallhack Call Of Duty 2 1.3. The sequel to Call of Duty, the Game of the Year and winner of more than 80 awards, Call of Duty 2 offers more immense, more intense, more realistic battles than ever before, thanks to the stunning visuals of the new Call of Duty 2 engine. Scroll the list of programs until you find Call of Duty(R) 2 or simply activate the Search feature and type in "Call of Duty(R) 2". If it exists on your system the Call of Duty(R) 2 app will be found automatically. Call of Duty 2 is a great title to help usher in the next generation of gaming.
- Call Of Duty 2 1.3 Crack Single Player
- Call Of Duty WW2 Crack Full Version Download
- Call of Duty 2 for Windows
- Call Of Duty 2 Key Generator
- Call of Duty: Mobile Mod APK v1.0.16 (Better Aim, Without
- Download Call of Duty 2 1.3 for Mac
- Hledejte: call of duty 2 crack
- Descargar Wallhack Call Of Duty 2 1.3
Realism Sound Mod (1.3) - Call of Duty 2 Mods, Maps
Call of duty 2 patch 1.3 version. Download latest version of Call of Duty 2 for Windows. CALL OF DUTY(tm) MULTIPLAYER PATCH 1.2 README.
Free call of Duty 2 v1.3 Dedicated Linux Server file - Mod DB
Call of Duty v1.2 Multiplayer Patch. The most recent Call of Duty 2 patch is version 1.3, and it was released in May 4th, 2020, and it is only 37MB in size. For call of duty 2020 xezl-gzwx-xqzg-gegu-eefc w5ha-3557-666q-jqgz-232e w5ha-zhel-666q-l66x-cd23 w55e-qe6e-66q6-ewe6-76dd for v 1.0 g6ae-57jj-q5g6-wjpp-e1d9 ppx6-6p6q-7x3e-azea-20b0 p7qh-q5u7-7u5w-eq3z-14af g3x7-6qzu-qz3z-a573-538f. I installed CoD2 patch 1.3, I installed the latest ForceWare drivers; verison 93.71, and the latest DirectX 9.0c; the October version. Download Call of Duty 2 2020 for Windows. COD: UO server around.
|1||Call of duty 2 download torrent free on PC||13%|
|2||TweakGuides.com - Call of Duty 2 Tweak Guide||46%|
|3||Download Call of Duty: Strike Team 2.0.1 for Android||53%|
|4||Game Fix / Crack: Call of Duty 2 v1.3 ENG NoDVD NoCD||89%|
|5||Call of Warfare: FPS Modern World War 2 WW2 Duty 2.1.3 APK||63%|
Destiny 2 Feedback
Communication and rebuilding community trust.
Preview Patch notes at least a week in advance if not more to allow time for community reaction. This will give you time to react to feedback and perhaps make a change before rolling out a patch. Most importantly it would allow you to react to both positive and negative feedback much quicker instead of the current systems feedback loop as detailed by MyNameIsByf. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEaOktY9pRM&t=1254s)
Now that there is a PC client, implement a PTR. Let the community help test things out. Doing this would crowd source bug hunting for you, making testing cheaper. Additionally if you added say 3 or 4 secret quests into the game you could activate 1 during the PTR. This would create excitement, Youtube views, Twitch Streams etc. All of which would be valuable sources of free Publicity for the game.
Keep up the current pace of communication, via Twitter, Reddit, and the forums. When you see a controversy start to brew being active in the community would allow you to engage with and help control the narrative. It would help you get in before perception becomes reality. If you need help, track down my resume, I’ll happily come on board and lend a hand. ;)
Increase the flow of communications. Replies to posts and Twitter comments help but frankly you are in a PR hole right now and need to dig out. In addition to the TWAB a second or even 3rd small post throughout the week highlighting progress on something that you are working on or responding to some popular topic in the community would go a long way toward stabilizing things so you can climb out.
Eververse, Gifts, Shaders, and Collectibles
Give Boons a 13% chance that they will give a boon as part of the gift. This makes them more economical and encourages people who haven't bought one to try them. Adjust chances that a boon will give Shaders or tokens down. 1 more legendary drop feels much more rewarding than 5 tokens or some Shaders.
Kiosks or Collection tab that has the speeders, ships, and shaders that you have unlocked stored. Allow players to withdraw items for 10 Shards, except Shaders which should be 1 shard or a small amount (100) glimmer
Allow Direct purchase from Eververse store. $1.99 for 1 full armor set, $4.99 for all 3 as one example. *Note this is apparently happening though we have no specifics yet. Make 75% of Eververse items available as low percentage drops in game. This would allow people with more time than money to earn them by grinding while those with limited time but more money can still get via lootbox or direct purchase. By still holding 25% of the Eververse items in the store itself it does give some additional draw to use the store. *Note you are doing something similar with the Raid Ghosts perk causing bosses to drop bright engrams.
Add an in Game Grimoire / Codex. Again with MyNameisByf but his concept is a great starting place. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODC021h7eTA) You could also look to Mass Effect 1 and 2. While every entry doesn’t need a voice over, during the subclass quests some of the Lore was narrated. Toss those narrations onto the respective tab. Mass Effect Andromeda’s codex that updated as you play the game would be another excellent example.
Dead Ghosts, Christopher Barrett said collectibles would be returning to the game. This is great! There was something visceral, exciting, and fun about finding Dead Ghosts. Give us even more lore related items to find, a real scavenger hunt.
More Lore in general. The comics and lore tabs are a great start, but a surprisingly large amount of the fan base craves even more. Look at the success of the Lore Based Destiny YouTube community! The fact those channels have thrived for as long as they have on what was a fairly obscure topic speaks volumes for how much your fan base wants to consume the story. If recent Tweets are to be believed the Grimoire is a series of “things everyone knows,” facts, and folklore. That means you can give us cool yet vague story points now, then blow our minds later with what actually happened. The other side of this though is that this same segment of your community is deeply invested in this story and must be treated with respect. Things like saying that the Exo Strangers story is done is frankly silly when looked at from that vantage point to give one example.
PvP and Sandbox
Lower TTK. 1.07s to 1.3s TTK is too high and borderline boring. I would recommend bringing it down to 0.8 to 1.03s range. This is no were near Call of Duty’s 0.141 to 0.380 TTK’s thankfully. It would be fast enough to be exciting and allow that “Play of the Game” feeling Overwatch is nailing so well but would not be so fast that you don’t have time to react to an opponent. I think Mtashed video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfG9XRFOAaY) really shows some of why PvP seems boring now.
Massively buff Autorifles. Ok just kidding, I just really love Autorifles. That said all guns need a buff in general to hit faster TTKs and on Console Hand Cannons, Pulse Rifles and perhaps Scout Rifles need a stronger buff.
Bring Back Random Weapon Rolls for non-raid or trials weapons, make all 2nd and 3rd column talents active on the raid and trial weapons to differentiate them, make them exciting and add power to them. By reintroducing random weapon rolls to all other weapons you add excitement to every drop as any drop could be a “God Roll” that we all used to watch YouTube videos about with super click bait titles and fun content. Have the vendors keep selling weapons so that we see a return of weekly vendor videos, this again drives engagement with the game and its community.
During Non PvP Holiday related weekends, so no Iron Banner or Crimson Days, have a rotating Friday through Monday PvP playlist. Mayhem, SRL, Laser Tag (inspired by the Prometheus Lens with rapid TTK), Capture the Flag. Ideally there would be 5-6 modes that you rotate through so it’s not just “the 3rd weekend of every month is x” by having more modes it would keep it feeling fresh. Mayhem and Laser Tag showed us that the community doesn’t mind if you “break the game” sometimes if it’s fair for everyone, fun, and importantly, rare.
Add a 3v3v3 game mode, alternatively add a 3DO v 3FWC v 1NM game mode. Stilly salty about how awesome those ornaments looked and how subpar the gun was lol.
You’ve acknowledged Weapons need to change. Give the community a glimpse at the ideas you are looking at. Which one you are leaning toward and why you prefer that option. What is the current vision you are looking at, Splitting the Power Weapons so that Shotguns/Fusion/Sniper is on a 4th slot, Return to D1’s Primary/Secondary/Heavy, Moving Snipers/Shotguns to the Kinetic/Energy slot. This is going to be a huge one with a lot of moving parts due to boss encounters being balanced based on the current system. By giving the community a glimpse at what you are thinking earlier you again can gauge community reaction and adapt to it.
I would also like to point out that by making some small and exciting changes to the Sandbox now, while also giving us an outline of your future plans, you buy yourself goodwill and time to reach the next DLC before you implement big changes.
Give us more control over our Subclasses. In Destiny 1 I felt like I was building my Warlock the way I wanted to play through a series of choices. Perks, Armor, Weapons all contributed to My Warlock. Now it’s do I pick a or b, with 3 Masterwork weapons (unless I use merciless or coldheart for an encounter) and a few mods that slightly speed up my grenades and punch.
For Trials of the Nine, especially with such a low population were you might face a team that has beaten you 3 times or more it is disheartening to try to play them. As much as I hate the idea of a Participation trophy giving the losers a token every match so they can slowly build toward buying a Trials Engram or item would go a long way toward getting people back in.
Trials of the Nine needs some kind of modified matchmaking. I would suggest adding in a win based one so that a team that’s gone 0/7 isn’t forced to go against a 7/0 trials carry team and get steamrolled. Doing it based off of wins would gently direct the strong against the strong and the weak against the weak. This would lead to more of a challenge for skilled players while evening the field for those who are terrible. coughmecough
Give us more information about your vision for Ranked play. This is probably should have been in communication as well but its imperative you set community expectations at a proper level earlier rather than later. Again this would give you the flexibility to respond to community feedback faster.
General Suggestions and Feedback.
If you are going to Reskin a weapon or piece of armor, let me direct you to your many blue items in the game. Many of them actually look cooler in fact then some Legendary items, a few of the guns have really solid sounds when fired. Elevate a few of those weapons in the future.
Bring Back bounties. Make them both Weekly and Daily. Look to Destiny 1 and the Division for inspiration both on how to implement them and on reward structures. Both games did them well in my opinion.
Bring Back the Quest log. Having my quests take up an Extremely precious Weapon slot is bad design. It’s not as bad for the Prophecies that only take up inventory space but the same principle stands. I’m hunting down items to help bring a Prophetic Weapon to Reality. Having the items in my inventory make sense but the Prophecy itself should be a quest in a quest log.
Heroic Adventures and Lost Sectors. I enjoyed the Heroic Mercury Adventures and would enjoy a similar experience on the other planets. Give us the ability to match make for them.
Remove Nightfalls from Guided Games, just allow standard Matchmaking for them. I would argue guided games still serves a solid purpose for the Raid though.
Add in Hidden Quests in Strikes with unique legendary/exotic rewards.
Adjust the Exodus Crash Strike. Put simply the boss disappears too often. Disappearing once every health segment is more than enough. As things stand now people actively quit when they realize they’ve gotten that strike. Announce you are going to do this, let us know it might not happen for a few months due to the coding of the strike. Trust me the excitement that it is being looked at and changed will buy you several happy YouTube videos and again that free press.
Take a Serious look at Ikora’s Meditiations. Leverage on of the games strengths, The campaign missions were fun and I would love to revisit them more often. Short of adding a Story Mission Playlist may I instead point you to COS Gamings suggestion. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoLAWQnxceM&t=4s) Things like using the Damaged Starting armor as Ornaments for the current legendary versions you can get from Ikora are great because they use already in existence assets. This would save development time with an end result that players would have yet another thing to strive towards.
Allow Sparrows on Mercury. Look we all know how big it is now, but as my GF has pointed out to me, given the option she would often ride her Sparrow to go 100 feet rather than run.
Give our Guardian a Voice, and a Name. I’m fine with our Ghost remaining named “Ghost” I did once own a cat I named Dog after all.
Create Past/Future versions of the Mercury patrol zones with time appropriate Vex. Rotate it weekly or Monthly.
Infinite Forrest Game Modes. Speed Runs, Horde Modes, Prison of Elders Challenges, Diablo like rifts were you have to kill as fast as possible to spawn a boss before time runs out. All with Appropriate Loot. Add a leader board. Add future DLC related items to the game modes as well. After all you spent time developing the Forrest, might as well get your money’s worth.
Add more Melee Weapon Types. Maces, Axes, Staves, Hammers. They don’t need to do anything different damage or defense wise, all they would need to do is look cool and hurt bad guys when I hit them.
Add a 4th subclass. Entropy, Sodium, Dusk, Time, Light. Lots of options
Add another playable Race, a Frame that gained full Sentience or a Fallen perhaps.
As free content to all Destiny 2 owners, bring back old patrol zones, 1 every 2-3 months. Initially porting them over in their current state, this would then allow you to utilize these assets later on in D2’s life cycle in a manner similar to how Rise of Iron did. You’ve already put the time into making the things, might as well get your money’s worth out of them.
Realize going forward that you should adopt a more World of Warcraft model, Destiny 3 should Add to the foundation of Destiny 1 and 2. I should in theory be able to Create a level 1 guardian, play through the Destiny 1 campaign, DLC’s etc. Then I move on to the Red War campaign. My gear is destroyed along with the tower and I’m set back to level 1 because of the loss of my light. I again have to level up, earn new gear, and explore new zones. Then when I’ve reached the level 20, the Curse of Osiris DLC unlocks. I play through that until I’m level 25, then all previous content unlocks again. Now I’m level 25 with all the new Patrol Zones, Activities, Raids etc available, but importantly whenever I want I have access to all Destiny 1 had to offer as well. This works for Destiny 3 as well. The Pyramids arrive and destroy the Traveler, its light explodes into the world. My Ghost merges into me (think Cortana) and I learn that I have the ability to wield the light on my own, as well as new dark abilities unwittingly given to us. Now I have to start over again because I’m learning to control the light from within. You get the idea.
Look, you’ve made what I consider to be an extremely fun game in a Universe I’m extremely excited about. It’s a bit bare bones right now, but you have promised to fix the most glaring issues and add content to it. I’m excited to see what you bring to the table and where things will go from here. At any rate, you asked for feedback so here it is. Now back to the raids for me, practicing before Tuesday hits!
Edit: Add Tower or guild chat on PS4.
Add an option so if you are in a guild you can select a Nightfall for instance and it gives a pop up in the corner of the screen of guild mates who are Not in an activity saying something like "(Player Name) needs (number) for a Nightfall hold L3 to join."
My thoughts on 2.0 and some suggestions
I'll number everything to make the discussion, especially about suggestions, easier. That way you need just a number to pinpoint where exactly we start disagreeing or where I'm simply wrong.
Please excuse the terrible formatting.
1.0 Marauders/Khan/FEs/AEs/crises balancing seems a bit out of whack mostly due to the overall slower pace and smaller fleets. 1.1 I'm not annoyed enough to figure out roughly what percentage of the galaxy you'd have to control in 2.0 vs 1.x to be able to beat an AE/FE/crisis. Maybe everyone just needs to get used to not being able to beat a 3x crisis alone anymore, maybe it needs to be toned down a bit. 1.2 Moving mid/end game to a later date also works. 1.3 Either way it can be fixed with sliders.
2.0 Pirates seem like a decent attempt at preventing border gore and spicing up the early game until they turn into nothing more than a nuisance but keep popping up anyway. Pirates turning up at your borders just because that one system got 2 hyperlanes leading your territory is rather annoying. 2.1 In one case I couldn't actually occupy those system because of an isolationist/xenophobe FE. Not sure how basic outposts/starbases with 3 defense platforms stack up against the pirates over the whole course of the game but I don't think they can beat the larger pirate fleets. 2.2 Creating a 1 system wide ring of vassal(s) as a buffer or even better single planet vassals to get that naval capacity seems like a far better option. Imho it really shouldn't be. Which is my next point (#3). 2.3 Leaving systems unoccupied in a way that none are connected to yours by more than one hyperlane also works and looks terrible too. 2.4 Some minor tweaking based on the proximity to planets/number of owned systems 2/3 hops away might fix this. So you're punished for leaving systems next to your planets empy or surrounding empty systems with your own or maybe even creating panhandles, but not for having a smooth border. 2.5. None of this really deals with the "use single systems with upgraded starbases to wall off a large portion of the galaxy for yourself" strategy. Maybe it's not supposed to deal with that because it's a whole different kind of border gore. The strategy will be viable either way thanks to the upgraded starbases so I don't think it matters.
3.0 Single planet vassals seem massively overpowered. 3.1 It's by far the most efficient way to get naval capacity and you reduce your research/unity penalty (more on that later) while still occupying all of the systems near you. 3.2 This shouldn't be a thing when you're trying to discourage border gore with pirates but the most effective way of dealing with them yields massive bonuses and creates even worse border gore. A dozen terribly weak vassals should not be far better than a single strong one. 3.3 Being easier to control and yielding a higher naval capacity bonus the only thing you'd be missing is a large fleet from a single vassal, but when have those ever done something useful that wouldn't have happened with a dozen small vassals rushing to the same system? Really the only situation would be when the small vassals won't take the fight because they expect to lose. With the travel time it's unlikely they'll make it anywhere important anytime soon so only cleanup duty like capturing planets in occupied systems is left and small vassals can do that just fine. 3.4 My suggestion is to remove any gain from base/research naval capacity, maybe increase the percentage a bit to make up for it. Either way, no more spamming 1 planet vassals to inflate your naval capacity.
4.0 On that note 1 naval capacity per 10 pops feels like a joke. 4.1 Sure you get it indirectly via starbase capacity but you could put that anywhere and you could get it from research/traditions too. 4.2 In 1.x you'd get max 10 from the spaceport and around 4 (3-5 usually) from pops. In 2.0 you need around 2 planets for an extra starbase which with 6 anchorages + naval logistics office gets you 36 naval capacity. So 18 per planet + maybe 2 from pops. But you're really not going to spam anchorages like that on every single starbase you got through planets. 4.3 And the level 4 starbase + anchorages is much more expensive than a level 6 spaceport. I'd say that's enough of a nerf. 4.4 On top of that there's a cap anyway. Which I don't think makes sense either, especially since it's the same cap regardless of galaxy size. 4.5 Maybe it's just me but it feels really weird that the size and infrastructureof a planet is now pretty much irrelevant for how much it contributes to naval capacity.
5.0 Marauders destroying everything is insanely annoying. 5.1 Thanks to spawn RNG one was right next to me and ended up more or less in the middle of my empire, the other was to the west. I don't know if it's intended or not but the one Marauder Empire I eventually surrounded simply stopped raiding completely. 5.2 The other however pissed me off to no end. They would raid my eastside neighbour and go through about 25 of my system to reach his territory, pass through exactly one of his systems, raid an irrelevant colony and then go back. They did that 4 times. With the new travel times it took literally over a decade each time. I don't think I had enough starbase capacity to make them go all the way around by abusing the fact that they still try to avoid FTL inhibitors. Fighting them also wasn't an option for quite a while and even then because of the travel times it would both block almost all of my fleet for way too long and cost me so much in minerals and maintenace to even build up so much fleet power that I'm not sure I could've broken even. 5.3 At least the first two times were hilarious because their planned route took them through the pirate home system and their first fleet got annihilated, their second one barely won against the weakened pirates and only had 20% HP left. 5.4 Either way thank god this is a bug and will be fixed.
6.0 Travel times. 6.1 Yes, they are supposed to be longer and it does fix doomstacking rather effectively but it feels a bit too extreme. Maybe I'm not used to it yet, but it's really awfully slow. 6.2 There have been a lot of suggestions already. 6.2.1 Allowing jumps from any point instead of just the hyperlane entry point would allow bypassing defenses. 6.2.2 Allowing that only within your own/allied/friendly/neutral territory would buff defense even more. 6.2.3 Increasing both sublight speed and hyperlane speed wouldn't fix the imbalance of sublight thruster levels affecting the travel times much more than hyperdrive levels. test 6.3 So the simplest solution, increasing the sublight speed, appears to be the best tone. Just to get everything into proportion again (simply adjusting the game length doesn't do that). 6.4 Yes, maybe this is "how the game should be" now, but I've found it a bit too extreme. Not annoying enough to do the math at what point an empire becomes too large to wage war on because you can not physically reach and occupy enough systems before war exhaustion screws you over, but I think that's an actual possibility and it really shouldn't be. I'm tempted to test just how much slower than 1.x everything is.
7.0 I didn't plan a unity-centric strategy anyway but I more or less gave up on finishing traditions for ascension perks and just picked whatever I needed most because it took so damn long. 7.1 Thank god the multiplicative penalty is also a bug and will be fixed. 7.2 Of course unity is slightly worse off than research because systems generate no unity as opposed to just very little research. Maybe this intended as balancing so wide empires are disadvantaged in unity. 7.3 Either way though because of the switch to systems+planets instead of pops+planets for the penalty and the overall different pace of the game I'll have to wait how it feels after the fix first.
8.0 Research penalties. 8.1 The penalty is actually less than in 1.x unless you have a lot of systems. Even with an average planet size of 15 (10% per planet + 15% for pops per planet) the penalty is actually less unless you have more than 10 systems per planet (5% per planet + 20% for systems per planet). The problem is how it feels. 8.2 A few techs have doubled in cost but that should be offset by the lower penalty. The problem is WHEN the penalties apply. There are two reasons for that. 8.2.1 In 1.x you'd colonize the planet, get the 10% penalty and then collect the research from systems. In 2.0 you see the majority of the penalty that is coming from systems first, way before the planet produces anything. 8.2.2 In 2.0 you get the full penalty first, your research speed drops and then your planet slowly starts producing research and you get back to the old speed and eventually surpass it. In 1.x more than half or even two thirds (20 average planet size) of the penalty only appear as the planet develops. So it's really noticeable in the early game where instead of getting a 10% penalty you get hit by >10% for claiming the systems to reach the planet and then another 5% for the planet itself. 8.3 So while overall the penalty is less it hits you harder in the early game, which might be intended for balancing. Yes in the early game the research from systems matters more but I'm not sure how the math works out. It looks/feels worse and that's what's irritating people. 8.4 The main problem however is that the most effective strategy to minimize it isn't to colonize fewer planets, but to create insane border gore. Because planet size doesn't affect the penalty anymore it is even encouraged to spread out even further to get larger planets.
9.0 Emergency FTL (henceforth EF) is OP due to disengage mechanics and hyperlanes only. 9.1 Because ships start disengaging at 50% HP but EF does "only" 20% damage you can get away with very few to no losses. In 1.x most of your ships that were targeted early and therefore low on HP, but didn't get destroyed yet would die during the EF. In 2.0 not only will most ships that got targeted early on survive because they disengaged, they will also survive the EF with no issues whatsoever and land RIGHT NEXT TO A STARBASE THAT CAN PATCH THEM UP. 9.2 I haven't tested it but EF doesn't really seem any slower than a normal FTL route would be. You can effectively travel to whichever starbase you choose while being invulnerable on the way there. 9.3 Due to the force disparity modifier and War Exhaustion apparently being calculated with damage (correct me if I'm wrong) you can easily tick up WE with a slightly smaller fleet (especially with better tech) and then just escape with almost no losses. 9.4 All things considered EF becomes too much of a "get of jail free" card even when you're deep in enemy territory where escape would now be impossible. In 1.x warp could basically always do that so taking it away from wormhole/hyperlane would've made EF quite useless for them and massively skewed the balance in favour of warp. Now it just hands you extra mobility to get out of enemey territory. 9.5 Disgengaging is a really good mechanic imho and simply increasing EF damage would make any close escapes impossible, leaving only cheese strats so I wouldn't change either of those. 9.6 Instead I propose changing the system so that escaping fleets could actually be punished if they are out of position. Make EF a "normal" (except for starting in the middle of the system) hyperlane jump to the system the fleet came from. Maybe reduce the sublight speed based on fleet health. That way the winning fleet could pursue and catch up (slight headstart for the fleeing fleet because it jumped from the middle of the system vs reduced speed) but only if the losing fleet was actually out of position. An FTL inhibitor in either of the systems or even just an outpost/starbase to buy time would be enough to let the fleet escape. EF probably needs and extra cooldown so you can't just jump in, do damage, EF, repair and repeat. 9.7 I mean positioning is very important in 2.0 so a mechanic that just let's you get out of bad positions will work vastly different than in 1.x. Unless there's a massive difference in fleet strength you won't lose in 30 days so you can still avoid engagements almost as effectively as in 1.x while it is vastly more difficult to reposition fleets to create an engagement that you can actually win. Essentially you end up being punished for having a strong enough fleet in the wrong position but can get away almost scot-free for having a weak fleet in the wrong position.
10.0 War score is now called War Exhaustion and broken in new fun ways. 10.1 War Exhaustion (WE) 10.1.1 Combining the modifiers for war length, damage suffered in space/ground battles and occupation is not a good idea. It makes no sense, especially since occupation is counted seperately again for War Goals and far more than the WE cap of 100% is needed to actually enforce a War Goal. Do space battles just stop mattering at a certain point? This makes no sense. 10.1.2 I'm not 100% sure on this but it seems like WE from space battles is calculated based on damage rather than naval capacity lost. This leads to space battles being nominal losses for the winning fleet even though its losses in terms of naval capacity are far lower. Space battles should use lost naval capacity instead. Damage is almost irrelevant since even in occupied enemy territory repairs are easy. 10.1.3 Using WE as the metric that forces a status quo peace (SQP) makes no sense either. The difference in battles won/lost and occupation should matter. An empire should be less willing to accept a SQP if it loses territory and more willing if it gains territory. 10.1.4 The whole concept of using the absolute numbers instead of the difference makes no sense. Why would you be in a position to dictate terms when the difference is 2%? 10.2. Surrender must be enforcable, SQP might be. Forcing peace implies leverage, if you beat an empire badly enough then you are definitely in a position to dictate the terms of the peace agreement. If both empires are unable to make progress then how is one of them supposed to be in a position to FORCE a SQP? 10.3 Forced SQP should still exist because it prevents getting stuck in a war where the war goal isn't quite achievable but there is a significant advantage for one empire. To make it symmetrical there should be a range where both can accept voluntarily and outside of that range one empire should be able to force a SQP. Even beyond switching WE from space battles from damage to naval capacity lost some tweaking will be required to prevent large scale wars (e.g. war in heaven) from being aborted after a handful of inconclusive fleet engagements because WE has ticked up too far or because the combatants couldn't even reach each other in time due to the new travel times (see #6 though). 10.4 War Goals 10.4.1 SQP should not be vastly easier to achieve than a Conquer War Goal when you have already conquered everything that you claimed. This makes no sense. 10.4.2 Defensive pacts should not influence the value of occupations (correct me if I'm remembering this wrong). When all systems of the actual target are occupied then the defensive pact obviously didn't matter and the war goal should be enforcable. 10.4.3 Again the difference in occupations should matter. Why would an empire be willing to accept defeat when all of its systems and planets are occupied while its own army is currently busy occupying the last planet of the opposing empire?
10.5.1 War Exhaustion 10.5.1.1 Seperate time and actual battles. As others have suggested using WE as an empire-wide modifier across all wars makes sense. The length of a war influencing an empires decision whether or not to accept a peace offering like with War Score makes sense. The length of a war being able to force its end with no battles fought makes no sense. 10.5.1.2 Use the naval capacity (or number of armies) lost instead of damage done. Repairs are free so damage doesn't matter. Use a percentage of the available naval capacity so that a single Corvette isn't suddenly worth 50% because all other fleets were destroyed. Defense armies should probably not count either since they are free. 10.5.1.3 Use the difference in WE (tbh without the time it's the same as War Score). If both empires are causing roughly equal losses for each other and are still able to rebuild their fleets and continue doing that over and over again they are obviously not exhausted and neither are their ressources. To a degree this will also prevent large space battles from instantly ending large wars. 10.5.1.4 Generally tone WE from space battles down a bit. Occupation score being a percentage of the systems occupied (with system "value" factored in) can make sense but not if a single space battle can generate as much WE as occupying almost the whole empire which is definitely worse. I think naval capacity lost divided by total naval capacity would work and also remove the need for a relative navy strength bonus. You don't get it for free anymore but equal losses at twice the naval capacity will "cost" you only half as much and you end up with a net gain if you actually use your fleets. Uncapping space battles % but using the difference and capping that (see #10.5.2.2.1) would allow the complete destruction of one side's fleet to still count even late in a war when both sides are at >100% from space battles while not allowing you to farm WE by just trashing a tiny fleet completely over and over again and inherently prevent any close battle with both sides at near full naval capacity from just ending the war instantly because the difference in losses won't be that large.
10.5.2 Status Quo Peace 10.5.2.1 Status Quo Peace should take into account the following: 10.5.2.2.1 The difference in losses in battles. Damage is irrelevant and if both sides are causing similar losses neither has a reason to give up. Cap it at +-100. 10.5.2.2.2 The difference in claimed occupied systems. Systems the opponent would lose should count against the SQP, systems they gain for it, for obvious reasons. Should be inherently capped at +-100 by dividing the "strategic value" of the systems by the value of all systems of that empire. 10.5.2.2.3 The difference in unclaimed occupied systems. Systems the opponent occupies should count against his opinion on the SQP, vice versa for systems you occupy. After all accepting this SQP now would prevent them from losing the unclaimed systems you occupy in case of a later SQP or you enforcing a Conquer War goal after you've claimed them (->SQP now better for them) and the other way around it prevents them from getting the systems they might still like to claim before offering a SQP (->SQP later better for them). 10.5.2.2.4 Either a base and/or a time based penalty to prevent war->instant SQP from being used as an involuntary non-aggression pact. 10.5.2.2.5 Probably a time based penalty/bonus (see previous point) to make a SQP more likely the longer a war drags on (the actual point of WE) but not a strong enough modifier to force the SQP on its own. 10.5.2.2 Above a certain threshold you should be able to force a SQP. Below the reverse of the threshold it can be forced on you. Between that one has to offer and the other has to agree. How the AI should handle the voluntary range is debatable and can be made as simple (offeaccept when in favour, otherwise deny) or as complex (take into account the trend and length of the war, possibly external WE etc.) as you want.
10.5.3 War Goals/Surrender 10.5.3.1 War Goals should take into account the following: 10.5.3.1.1 The difference in losses in battles. Same as with SQP. 10.5.3.1.2 The claimed systems they occupy should count against it. Obviously they shouldn't be eager to surrender when they're occupying a lot of your system. Claimed systems you occupy should not count at all. The idea is you'd basically flip the score used for SQP but add the "value" of each claimed system as a penalty to the War Goal to make it more difficult to force a surrender the more systems you claim unless you occupy them all. The flip version could be used for UI purposes but this way is easier for what I intend to do about claimed but unoccupied systems. 10.5.3.1.3 The difference in unclaimed occupied system. Same as with SQP. 10.5.3.1.4 I don't think the length of the war / attrition should matter. Unlike SQP which should get more likely as time goes on you shouldn't be able to "wait out" a war if you can't outright win it. External, empire wide actual War Exhaustion might be worth considering though. 10.5.3.1.5 For anything except Conquer a base penalty somewhere between 50 and 100 I think, depending on how much space battles cause after the changes. Occupying 50% of your opponents territory + mirroring whatever percentage of your territory they are occupying + going at least positive in space/ground battle losses seems difficult enough. 10.5.3.1.6 Conquer should be fine without a base penalty since you still need to overcome your opponent's occupation score and/or go net positive in battles. If you occupy everything you claimed and they occupy none then you obviously deserve that territory, unless they caused you some horrible losses. 10.5.3.2 Instead of a massive penalty for claiming unoccupied systems or a more reasonable one, that ends up enabling taking an impenetrable system via attrition/space battle spam, claimed but unoccupied systems should simply never change owner. This is necessary because my proposed changes would change SQP from "Conquer without the base penalty" into "actual SQP that both sides are happy with" and it removes the problem of old claims on now impenetrable systems blocking all war goals for all eternity. 10.5.3.3 Forcing you to surrender should be possible to mirror the AI empires accepting your War Goal demands. Otherwise AI empires are at a disadvantage. Again there might be a voluntary range before it becomes enforcable.
10.5.4 Let me see the claims on me. Claims map mode? 10.5.5 Instead of showing War Score, War Exhaustion or whatever other number that is meaningless until it reaches 100% show the "acceptance numbers" or whatever you want to call them for forcing your War Goal, SQP and forcing your surrender. Now that would actually be useful. 10.5.6 To prevent the automatic border gore that will inevitably happen in a balanced SQP peace maybe add a round of negotations after the SQP has been agreed upon so that you can "trade" a number of systems of similar occupation value with some acceptance bonuses for a more continuous border. Otherwise because you can't claim your own systems any SQP where both sides occupied some systems they claimed will lead to this awful switch where cross section perpendicular to the border would change from something like AAABBB to AABABB (A being systems from one empire, B from the other) or extreme panhandles or both.
11.0 Micro involved with outposts/claiming systems. 11.1 Why are we not allowed to queue up mining/research stations immediately after queueing up the outpost? 11.2 While we're at it maybe also add seperate options for building energy/mineral stations (instead of just all mining stations) and maybe even all stations including research. 11.3 Same applies to planets. Yes, you could hand all planets over to the sector AI immediately but who does that? Even then for your core planets it would be nice. Please just let me queue up buildings right after the prerequisite buildings or tile blockers.
12.0 Ground Warfare is better now, but I think we can do even better. What I had in mind for preventing doomstacks was pretty much combat width (I called it planet size because it was more or less directly related) somewhere between 0.5x to 1x the tiles or cleared tiles or even pops on the planet, so obviously I'm happy about that. 12.1 We went from doomstacking with whatever armies were available and cost-effective to using stacks of more expensive armies. However you can still use the same doomstack for every invasion and, with good enough armies and/or larger combat width than number of defense armies, disgengaging still allows you to get away with little to no losses. So even with defense armies being stronger you still need enough armies on every planet to repell an invasion while the attacker only needs one stack that can win against one planet's defenses and can then reuse it over and over again. Due to higher costs and maintenance it's not as asymmetric as before but I it could be better. 12.2 Occupying x times the planets should not be doable with almost no increase in the number of assault armies. Thanks to the owner's starbases working against them, sneaking in with troop transports is impossible and the invader doesn't have to leave any armies on the planet. 12.3 This should not be a thing imho. Armies should be required to actually occupy the planet. I mean who would be telling the pops that the planet is still occupied and why would they care if no one is there to enforce it? 12.4 Because the attacker needs higher quality armies if he does not want to suffer significant losses, liberating your own planet would require even better armies or would be more costly than the original invasion was. Yes, si vis pacem para bellum and all that but you shouldn't need bettemore armies for a defensive war than an offensive war. You do get the advantage of not having to invest armies into defending the planets since the defense armies will take over but your own starbase already works against you at least make the defensive buildings useful when recapturing your own planets. You really don't want to have to bomb your own planets to liberate it. I hope occupying assault armies aren't protected by Strongholds/Fortresses, that would be pretty broken. 12.5 My idea for fixing all of this and creating a defenders' advantage that would force the use of higher quality assault armies or cause losses for the attacker can be adapted to this. The original idea was that militias would always spawn (including during attempts at liberating your occupied planet) and not count towards combat width. The attackers' doomstack would always be at a numerical disadvantage and have to make up for it in quality or suffer losses and at the same time more developed planets would be harder to invade without letting the defender create a nigh impenetrable fortress as a simple static numerical advantage would or straight up making defense armies far superior. 12.6 The second part of this can be adapted for the current system. Militias (in the current system defense armies) would get a regeneration timer (sequential, not all in parallel, maybe parallel for each defense building) and once there are enough to win against the occupying armies (thanks for army strength numbers) they would start fighting them. An invader could see the combined strength before invading and would know that given enough time this is the minimum strength his occupying force would need to prevent an uprising. 12.7 As in my original idea the regenerated defense armies would also partake in any externally initiated fight to liberate the planet while not counting towards combat width. This fixes the problem of planets being harder to retake than to initially occupy because the occupying assault armies are stronger than the original defense armies and bombing isn't a desirable option. Of course it's not as bad as I initially expected because defensive armies are quite strong right now but it also prevents having to one-up the invader (which might not even be possible technologically or at all) to retake a planet with acceptable losses. 12.8 All in all this force attackers to both leave an adequate garrison and maintain a proper front-line instead of just one or the other. Starbases prevent transport/army-only sneak attacks so you have to commit some fleet power to this but a few armies with an escorting fleet would pose a serious threat after a long occupation. That gives an incentive to maintain a tight front-line even late in the war instead of just riding it out economically because the defender can't afford to invest enough ressources into a large enough army stack to crack a large garrison.
Don't get me wrong, I think 2.0 is an improvement, I'm just seeing some potential that it could be even better by cutting down on some psychologically unfortunate and simply annoying things and on unnecessary micro while increasing strategic and tactical depth. Because let's be honest increasing the depth of warfare from "throw doomstacks at each other, whoever wins gets to occupy planets with army doomstacks" is not a high bar.