Yes, it is frustrating when that happens, but it adds a level of randomness to the game. If every map were precisely symetrical, then the better player would ALWAYS win, the lesser player would ALWAYS lose, and there would really be no fun because it would be the same, cokkie-cutter strategy every single game.

I do see what you are saying. Sometimes, it is very crippling, but it is pretty rare that you start in a situation that will ensure your loss from the beginning. (I actually played a game this weekend, and my home planet had one phase jump, which lead directly to my allies home planet. lol.)

If you are looking for an even scenario, however, you can play any of the single-player maps online, and many of them are set up for symmetry.

Yeah, I agree with all of this.  Blair has stated he is working on #2, I believe he said it would be out when Entrenchment v1.0 goes gold.

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/327283

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/320489

Um, read my post above yours.  There's some links there, read them.

I don't see the problem.  If you play random maps - sure, but that's why it's called a RANDOM MAP.  If you are playing a non-random map, the map should already be evened-out as far as planets, neutral extractors, connecting 'roids, yadda yadda.

Yes change to at least #2 would be welcome. They would no doubt add new iteration to their map script, it's now 3rd iteration (in other words number "2," 0 was the first).  In new iteration it should allow you to set the phase lane chance that is independant of the rest of the groups. Though that may not be an ideal solutino either, sicne 100% would mean your aditional planet, HW and your roid would always crate a triangle, where in reality you only really need 2 links: HW<->Asteroid, HW<->Volcanic/Ice,

Think though once that one is out of the way, we can address the otehr 2 at least a bit.  Bringing back the option to select how many roids you want liek it was back before 1.05 I think would be cool.  I loved the resource option it was pretty sweet.  Though i would like options for planets/asteroids and the neutrals separated.  That way you can set average for asteroids/planets and low for neutrals and so on.

Adding another set of chocies for militia activity would be sweet too.  This would fix issue #1.  Having the ability to set militia for each planet type to either Low, medium, high or random.  Though this could give rise to a new problem where player A starts with nothing but desert planets near by, and player B has nothign but Ice, but the Deserts are set to high while ice planets to low :/  Still those issues could be worked out at a later date, the new options would make the game lot more interesting.  And it would give possiblity for highly predictable militia allocations on set maps, where you know how many planets of what kind will spawn, but you had no way of controlling the milita spawn before. (Talking bout maps like Maelstorm)

Astrath is talking about the term "any given sunday". It means any team can win in any given day, no matter how tough their opponent is. That's why you hear of "upsets".

Think of it this way, the better team might sustain critical injuries in the beginning of the game, thereby allowing a better opportunity for the underdog. Or the wind might be blowing in their favor, or they have homefield advantage. There are many variables like that. That is what he means, and he is right, as any of these hinderances in the start are comparable to the issues we are talking about in Sins.

Sure, here's -100.  I'll even throw in a cherry.

In other news, it's called sarcasm.  Kharma, Karma, Kama, BOOM!