If Linux support is coming, then that's great news! Is GC is a good candidate for a macports.org project? macports works great for my Linux command line tools. I have not observed if apps with GUIs work well. I suppose worst case we Mac folks can run GC in a Linux VM. This thread is so old that now, I would rather see iPad support than the Mac. Imagine Sid Meier's Starships, but 10x better. Lol.
+1 Mac or compatibility with VMware Thanks for listening.
Two suggestions on this topic: 1a. In the manual on Pp. 68-69, the Options "Force AI to Use Max CPU" and "Move Camera to Selected Colony in Colonies List" are missing. 1b. In the manual on Pp. 17-19, you may wish to reference the "Force AI to Use Max CPU" suggested above as a way to customize difficulty when playing with randomized opponents. When the races are randomized, there is no way to edit your opponents. (Instead you have the "Choose which civilizations will inhabit th
Would the GC2 engine support AI testing via Monte Carlo analysis? I suppose the AI code would have to take it's constants and initial variable values as input. ...and the engine would have to allow for play without a human player. After several thousand automated games, you would get some good tuning numbers. The benefit would be AIs tuned to different galaxy sizes, rule sets, number of players, intelligence levels, etc. In a sense, the AI could select a set of constan
I suppose I'm in the "hard core" category. For me, the heart of the game is the AI. I enjoy having to develop a sophisticated strategy for every game. While I love GC2, the situations where the AI does "dumb" things detracts from the experience. I presume that the priority AI improvements that require less computation time have been addressed, and that to get smarter, the "large-scale, multi-turn coordination"-type problems would need to be solved. I like the idea of letting the AI us
Oh... and Terror Stars!
Some quick thoughts: I don't want tactical combat to drag me down into the weeds, if I don't want to go there. I suppose I'll want to skip tactical for when opposing fleets are not closely matched. I view tactical options as an opportunity to gain that extra edge against similar strength opponents. The ability to withdraw and the ability to damage critical systems (and later repair) would add an interesting dimension to combat. "Aircraft" carriers - maybe I can
I'd vote to see Terror Stars return.
"The Swarm!" on Commodore PET. (Don't know if this counts.) One of the old Star Trek Unix games. I forgot which one. "Starfleet Battles" and "Robots!" with hexpaper and dice. (I suppose these are more tactical than strategic.) Then, something like Risk on the Apple II, except that it created random maps (way cool at the time). Then, "Strategic Conquest" on the pre-OS X Macs. (First time I had to explore the map to see terrain!) Then, "Reach
Thanks sam0t and CodeCritter! Looking forward to any feedback on the other points.
v1.2 Beta 2 Feedback 1. Bug: If I move a rally point in the middle of my turn, ships moving to that point do not move, and the "turn/skip" button is missing. This means I must right click on the rally point as the focus moves to each ship. I ran into this during the end game on a gigantic map while trying for a diplomatic victory. As each SB was maxed out, I moved the rally point. I had to right click and wait for each hyper warp constructor to move 43 parsecs -- very time consuming.<
Thanks for everything Brad (and team). It's really polished now. Have a great summer.
Thanks, Darth. To clarify, 1) I am trying to find out the difference between the standard and collector's editions, in terms of game content. 2) If anyone from Stardock can confirm if subscribers will be able to download the collector's edition, I would appreciate it. Thanks again, Mike693.
If you had an original TotalGaming.net subscription in which you received GalCiv II for free, you can get the Collector's Edition for $20 which includes shipping to North America ($25 outside North America). You'll need to contact sales@stardock.com though. Two Questions for Stardock: 1) Besides the box and CDs, can you be more speci
Thanks Yarlen. Haven't had much time to play with the GC2 betas and I guess I'm forgetting all the shortcuts from GC1. Brad's AI posts are making me very eager to see the final release!
My "borrowing" suggestion: Scrolling the main map with the arrow keys in Civ4 is easier than making large mouse movements to "edge-scroll" in GC2. (If this is already an option in GC2, I missed it.)
Stardock Forums
It would have been nice if the kind folks who built Civ4 did more bug fixing before release (arg!). Thanks, CariElf for putting users first.
@Lowa11 I am patient enough to decrypt your posts. Are you smart and enthusiastic, or is English not your first language? (if you don't mind me asking...)
Thanks for that, Darth. I suppose time (and Stardock!) will tell who is worthy for the private beta.
What are the criteria to achieve the different access levels? I gathered that "Exile = Does not play well with others in the Forum", and "Avatar probably equals Stardock employee". What about the rest, and will it change when we can submit games in November / December?
I guess I'm warming up to the "upgrade in place" idea. It is an option after all. However, I really like 4D's idea of having upgrade freighters, similar to trade routes. In GC 1, we have critical economic supply lines as trade routes. Perhaps, in GC 2 military supply lines as upgrade freighters could add to the strategic and logistical depth (an interesting risk to manage in addition to time vs. distance). I suppose I am looking for additional ways to improve the concept of borders, fronts, and
@CariElf - I used to do development work. I still have the curiosity to try and figure out what's "under the hood" of various apps...
I also would prefer the flexibility to upgrade ship-by-ship. Otherwise, I need to build a second class of ships to perform a similar role to those to be upgraded. This could be very expensive. It would be cheaper, from a cash flow perspective, to rotate ships out a in smaller groups. While I know we should be contributing based on improving game play, my next comment is not purely about that. Upgrading ships in the field does not feel right to me. Are starships so modular that they ca
@Popup Target I'm with you on this one. This could really reinforce the concept of fronts or borders. However, I am concerned about implementation. For example, as this is a turn-based game, you get one attack per movement allowance. If you intercept a ship near the edge of an interceptor's (current) range, you will have less attack "rolls", and may be at the intruder's mercy in the next turn. Especially if the intruder uses "attack" ships with large attack and low defense value
@CariElf Thank you for that.I did not know about GCConfig. It worked! All the screens look good. You even get a double width parallelogram in the mini-map. Two observations: 1. You can't drag the non-full screen dialog boxes around (domestic policy, foreign policy, the news). I suspect these are not "real" windows. Making these movable or "anchoring" them relative to a corner, instead of dead center would improve readability (due to the monitor frame between the
GalCiv3 Forums
GalCiv2 Forums