Yeh I think the game would really benefit if ranges were quarted even, I always love when the anomaly owership topic comes up 2 years after all the anomlies are gone. And it would hlp break up the colony ship rush if you had to have breaks.
Spryer, thank you for reporting your beliefs. You must be aware I assume that they conflict with those of a supermajority fo the scientific communtiy, like probably over 95%? The warming most definitely is thought to be in large part anthropogenic, although I suppose there is room for a tiny bit of doubt about this, but not much. As for you disbelief that glaciers are melting, well now you are just sticking your head in the sand. Glaciers everywhere aroudn the world are rapidly dec
Well you are always going to have "poor" people, because people measure their wellbeing relatively, not absolutely. Poor people from the U.S. probably still have top 20 or 25% standard of living all time easily. Not that I am saying that means we shoudl try to reduce the disparity, I think that would be good for society and make everyone happier honestly. But, just getting them more stuff isn't going to help unless the rich also have comparatively less stuff. Such is human nature.
I can really only agree with you on Putin, and yes you're right he will soon been a dictator. Bush isn't really that dangerous more just misguided, and with the present congress he will be less able to do anything. Osama is just a famous terrorist so I don't think he is particularly dangerous in the greater realm of things. Israel is semi dangerous, but there are others that are more dangerous out there, and Kim Jong Il is a nobody whose government and cou
Along the same lines, I am relatively sure the AI wildly changes tax rates. I have seen massive changes in the happiness levels of AI planets, and I am pretty sure this is the reason....So the AI does Min/Max on some things. The important question is does it do them well? The whole point is giving the player more power over these things is that it means longer turns, more things to manage, and more ways to outperform the AI. Anyway as Wyndstar is fond
I love the Futurama and Sealab episodes brought up. As to why some Atheists feel the need to argue, I think you are doing them a little injustice. I think it has to do with A: Religious people tend to have very poor arguments, and to those with a philosophical bent a bad argument is like a sore tooth you cannot stop tonguing. It hurts to even think about it, but you just cannot leave it alone. B: Generally the religious people do not seem particularly well informe
I have noticed gas prices change, but it had nothing to do with the election, gas prices fall every fall, becaus epeople aren't vacationign as mcuh and winter heating hasn't started, plus that was an unusually warm fall (global warming cough). And of course all sorts of silly bills get passed, but I don't think it has any substantial effect. This is coming from someone who hates both parties and is incredibly cynical about the whole thing, but I think most people wildly overestimate ho
Wyndstar's ideal is not a very good one IMO. It would encourage even more micromanagement of the tax slider. You don't want to add game mechanics that add to micromanagement without dire need. It makes the game take longer to play optimally, and makes it generally more tedious, and less fun. Frankly the only real cause to enact it over just the average is either a selfish desire to maitain part of the old exploits, or a rather tenuous argument about realism. First off, assum
As for the combats I would peronsally prefer it if they just had two lines and approached each other sedately firing away. All the current interlaced swooping is kind fo silly. "Haha I remember deadlock 2. that was some fun stuff. It annoyed me about only having 2 tanks per spot, 4 missiles, etc, but it was fun." ^That was Deadlock 1 inches^
Indeed, good definition of a classic, and it works well too as long as there aren't sequels dsistracting you (looks at the Caesar line of games, and the "X-craft line of games". Gmaes I have played repeatedly more than 5 years after release: XCOM 1&2 Deadlock 2 Fallout 1&2 Planescape MOO 2 Civ 2 Alpha Centauri Railroad Tycoon 2 Dungeon Keeper 2 Europa Universalis 2 Counterstrike/Halflife I am probably forgeting some, but I think those ar
- Starbases. In my opinion, starbases need to be really more difficult to destroy. Right now, there is too many, not expensive enough which make starbases as common as starships. I should be more rare, more hardened, more strategic. ^This is a good one.^ For me, at least, GalCiv2 is better than MOO2, which most people here would rightly agree is a classic game. I would have to completely disagree with this, especially condiering when they came out and tha
Christ that was long sorry (took me an hour to write), anyway you are obviously a clever guy with a lot of experience, hopefully we can come to some mutal suggestions, maybe get Iztok and a few others in on them too . I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do, I just have a different way of solving these problems because I have actually worked in game thoery.
Wyndstar Honestly, not to be a jerk, but that just sounds like a story of them not knowing what they are doing/having a plan balance wise. I am one of the main multiplayer developers/balancers for a fairly popular online game. It is both easier and simpler than it seems I suppose... I know the game has gone through a lot of revisions, I have been playing it since GC. I just never got invovled on the forums much, as with no multiplayer there was no reason to communicate, but
In the beginning of time, man had no understanding of simple science, so he created a god of the sun , one for the moon one for water and so on and so on. As man's understanding increased he shed most of his gods in favor of one God, although different clans still could not agree on the name of this god. Today we have many religions all claiming to be the master religion. To some he is God, Alla or Jesus. Regardless, we still have a God fu
Yes but with a little more realistic variation, where ocasionally one side would lose a ship early and ge tin trouble. Might even allow you to get rid of the other randomization and still keep the outcomes random. You could even call the randomization "leadership". All the weapons fire simultaneously, hit random targets, dmg is applied - defense. repeat. A pretty simple combat drill, that with even matched fleets would give random results, and unmatched ones would have the stronger
Well religion is a pretty strightfoward social institution which developed as a coping/explanatory mechanism. It has pretty much outlived its usefullness (as we learned more about how the world actually works and didn't need to make up stories about ti anymore), but because of its nature it will stick around for a few more centuries before people completely give it up for dead (the way people indoctrinate their children is just scary). Not sure why people cannot see how silly it is. No one ta
Global warming is most definitely NOT bad science, I cannot believe you think that. The planet is warming very greatly, and humans are definitely contributing gretaly to this (although there may be natural inputs as well). There is basically zero disagreement on this point. If you disagree you might as well go join the flat earth people. Your second point though is exactly right its possible negative effects are rediculously blown out of proportion by the press and scientists. The f
This is a good idea, and a better use for the diplomacy attribute than the one it is used for currently. Which as far as I can tell is farily useless if you arne't playing the tech whoring game.
Sounds like a better system to me, certainly they need to randomize which ship is hit, the killing one ship completely before starting on the next is annoying.
One exception: it would always move instantly to at least 20% if its target is higher to avoid population death. Why? Why must people insist on being insolated from their errors, that is why the difficulty levels need to get so rediculous. Does anyone really enjoy playing games where the AI has a 500% bonus and 20 different abilities? If people would just accept their mistakes, and take their lumps the game could be much easier and still difficult.<
I'll make my criticisms of this a little more clear and to the point. These have to do with general tenets of strategy game design that I hold, that other players may not. I think Gal Civ 2 has the potential to be one of, if not the richest strategy game ever, but right now there are some real basic game design commitments that seem a bit lacking. 1. Players should have to make meaningful decisions: There is no point even having different buildings if the optimal st
Wow I wish I hadn't read this thread, makes me understand what I had merely suspected while having a good time. The economic side of this game is completely broken. That anyone can suggest such a strategy with a straight face is a pretty stunning indictment of the balancing in the game. Almost any game I have been semi-involved with would be all over that like white on rice. It would be the number one issue in the next patch. Of course maybe these strategy isn't feasible if you aren't going