You can think of the sliders as adding up to 200% instead of 100%. With a 50/50 funding split between production and research, both sides are fully funded. With other funding splits, you are able to either produce or research even more efficiently because of greater specialization, etc., but the other side suffers. This is actually a fairly interesting model.
GalCiv2 Forums
Brad, I think almost nobody really cares about the AI turn 0, but more folks care about the AI getting a production turn every time you reload in the middle of the game, since this disproportionately affects people who can only play a few turns at a time. You addressed the former issue but not the latter, was this an unintentional oversight? I suspect the majority of players, if informed, would actually prefer the reload bugfix over some of the features you're thinking of putting in 1.7
Defense was useful in DL??? Yeah, it was pretty worthless there, heh. It was one of the early DA patches, decreasing all the defense component costs, etc., that made defense viable (ignoring the off-type defense bug for now).
Defence is good in DL, but in DA you can simply play Arcean and you won't need one iota of useless defence. That's one option, but by doing that you have to forgo some of the very powerful economic abilities that the other races have. (I find my ships to be sufficiently indestructible with Krynn and a moderate amount of on-type defense research.)
Definitely. I always research the first two levels of miniaturization fairly early, since they allow me to put Colony and Constructor modules on Tiny hulls, saving me 15 production per ship. Later levels are important to give you enough space to put good engines on your warships. With enough speed, it takes very few ships to completely dominate the AI's airspace.
What version of the game are you running? There have been various changes and bugs that have affected the balance between weapons and defense.
The social, tech, and economic scores are all pretty much bounded by how much you can develop the habitable planets in the galaxy, and since you eventually run out of new planets to conquer or colonize, there are quickly diminishing returns to letting the game run longer than necessary just to try to increase those scores. I'd argue that the goal should be to eliminate those returns entirely, but the status quo isn't too bad. But your military rating is only connected to the number of
I don't see how you are getting more than 16 (4 per quadrant where 4 quadrants meet). This depends on the precise planet location. Since starbases have a range of 8 while sectors are 15x15, not 16x16, there are a few squares capable of benefiting from more than 16 starbases (the (1,8), (8,1), (8,15), and (15,8) positions can benefit from up to 24).
- They take a huge amount of money to maintain Normally the early game is a balancing act between increasing your throughput ability and making sure you can pay for it. When you need to focus ONLY on income, decisions become easier and less interesting. (One random question: does Star Federation increase income 40% rather than the documented 30%? That's what it looked like the last time I checked the numbers, but I suppose it's possible that
Take Dog of Justice for example, he's "triaging" posts here, but writing the *exact* same kind of posts in other threads - he needs a reality check, he just doesn't know it yet, he's too fired up to realise it. The differences are, (i) if you said that my other posts referred to low priority bugs, I would have agreed with you. (i) I don't criticize the developers. If I was part of writing a game like this, would there be fewe
I've always been doing missiles because Psyonic Missiles stand out dollar-for-dollar. But these charts do seem to indicate that Lasers may be the better choice, unless you think you can wait all the way to Psyonic Missiles before you go to war. I know I go to war long before that. You see that insane 5x spike in the third graph, towering over the other Psyonic weapons as well as any other weapon requiring less than ~50k research?
Seems he did: An additional analysis has beed done using spreadsheet data about weapons' properties and research costs . Also look at the 3rd table. Oops. My bad.
GalCiv2 Forums
And, yes, that 300% food tile isn't useless. I use them all the time. So do I, for everything but a farm! lol. I do actually want to use it for a Basic Farm. I've found 18b to be a good standard population level, and if I get there by putting a Basic Farm on a 300% food tile that saves me one tile (since otherwise I'd need two farms).
Despite the surface appearance of disagreement, there isn't much more for me to say about most of ToS_Iceman's last (oops, actually second-to-last, I replied too slowly) post. The upgrade game mechanic is a judgment call currently decided in favor of player convenience at minor expense to game strategic integrity. If Torian reproduction is unrealistic, Yor reproduction is as least as much so, so who cares about realism there, just focus on game balance. No, I don't have the authority to decid
How many game developers provide the level of free content that Stardock has once they have started making another game? I don't know of any. For what it's worth, I suspect that ArenaNet, which provides an online role-playing game with no subscription fee (Guild Wars), is one example that outdoes Stardock. But I don't like that game genre as much.
GalCiv2 Forums
The description for Tidal Disruptors says they destroy 80-100% of planetary improvements. But I just tried using them a few times, and they're only destroying 0-2 improvements out of 5-6. What's going on? Was this changed at some point? (I'm using 1.6 beta 2) And is it possible to destroy unique structures like, say, Technological Capitals this way? After lots of reloads, every other building has been destroyed several times but the Technological Capital is remaining (and it's obvi
I remember reading his post about sliders: he didn't want to change the way they work because of the AI's sake. Probably he'd need to change too much of the code from the GC-1 to make them "think" properly. I was referring to focus with my remark. I wonder, to what extent does the AI use focus?
GalCiv2 Forums
Incidentally, I did a massive amount of saving and reloading in the course of playing my most recent metaverse game, and my final score broke the previous Medium map record by almost a factor of two. I suspect that my score did in fact benefit, perhaps significantly, from all the additional AI production that occurred. (So if that bug is actually an intentional feature meant to counter players excessively abusing save/reload, it doesn't work well at all.)
I know some people have seen this flag due to an error with Beta 2 that was fixed with Beta 3. Which of the above was it? Wait, so beta 2 games are inappropriately cheat-flagged? I thought this was an issue with the initial release of beta 3 only. Or are some beta 2 games okay? I assume I could check by installing beta 3 and loading the game? If I do, I would then have to somehow revert back to beta 2 to continue playing if I want to submit later, right? How would I
Iztok, I recommend that you find some way to incorporate research cost into your analysis. Missiles are indeed supreme once you've researched all the techs; however, Psyonic Beams and Doom Rays are often more useful in practice because you can deploy them more quickly. I made a table for myself with cumulative research cost of all weapons vs. cost-effectiveness and space-effectiveness, and it's the Psyonic Beam that looks to me like the most important weapon in the game.
the colony ship has only 250m colonists capacity even if I create a custom ship its the same This appears to be one of the new tweaks Brad made for 1.6; colony modules have had their max capacity halved. Interesting. Looks like a planet within 2 squares of the homeworld is more valuable now. It takes zero movement to travel between two planets within two squares of each other, since you can man
GalCiv2 Forums
Another thought: after you have military dominance, additional AI production turns are probably a net benefit to you. Less need to build up newly conquered planets, etc. Maybe you could even do something like give a bunch of minor races the tech for Hyperion Shrinker, save and reload a bunch of times, now the Shrinkers are all complete, time to invade.
That would be fine IF this wasn't supposed to be a *strategy* game. Granted, it's a very loose definition of strategy here. But part of the *real* strategy of a game is knowing what you have and planning the future *also* in terms of available facilities to upgrade ships. This simplification, besides allowing some cheese, removes most strategic thinking in tech upgrades for ships. Notice that this could be done with an auto-repair function, which would automate th
Heheh. You see the ship moving? How is the interface fine if the ship (which could be attacked on its way to the planet and back) stands still? And who said it was an interface issue? It's an interface issue because if you had to manually move the ship back to a planet, upgrade there, then move it back, that would take more player time. The current setup is very convenient. Whether the savings in player time is worth the distortion in
Apparently you didn't read. Upgrades need a docking bay. Period. You don't get the *new* components from the Precursors. You don't build the new components aboard the ship. The distance modifier doesn't cut it. Feature, yes, bad one. One of the simplified "strategy" features. The distance modifier is comparable to moving back to the planet, docking, and then returning to your current position. The time doesn't match precisely, and you can argu