I was going to make this suggestion as well - since it can take hours to design a good ship, I believe that one should have the ability reuse good design in future games. If you don't have the tech for the design just yet, then that particular design should remain grayed out until you have the tech to build it.
Gosh, how do we know if we've gotten one of the first run of boxes? And we're talking about the ones in retail stores? Is there a certain serial # sequence or anything we should be looking for? By the way, that link doesn't really have more inforamtion - it just prompts you for your serial number. Thanks for the information - I'm going to try to find me a copy today.
Do all versions of the game have access to the collector's edition "jewelry", or just people who actually purchase the Collector's Edition? The reason I ask it it's sounding as though not many stores are getting many copies of the game, not to mention the Collector's Edition. Also, I thought I saw a comment stating that all printed copies of the game can download and use the Collector's Edition downloads. If you need to purchase the Collector's Edition to get the extra "jewelry", do
Stardock Forums
That's what I'm hoping, and why I asked my initial question. If they release the extra jewelry even a month later, that would be cool with me. If I pay just as much as someone who pre-ordered, then I feel I'm entitled to the "whole" game too.
Stardock Forums
These aren't more powerful ships we're talking about; they're ship jewelery. Stupid things that don't affect the game It's all in the eye of the beholder. I would really enjoy having access to this extra ship "jewelry" - I like designing as it's almost a kind of artistic expression. Not having access to everything on the palette is frustrating and
Stardock Forums
It still stinks. Pre-order goodies should be things that don't affect the game - stupid things, like hats and posters. I really would like to have access to these extra design features, but I'm not going to pre-order the game to get them. This just makes me a little angry, because when companies do this, it doesn't entice me to pre-order the game - the people who are going to pre-order will do it regardless of any goodies. No, this just insults my intelligence as it is though the companies t
Stardock Forums
Ok, so let me get this right - the only way to get these extra ship design components is to pre-order the game? If so, that really stinks! I would like to try the demo first, but then it will be too late. Won't these extra goodies be made available through a patch or something???
...plus most of the people who were polled by stardock would rather have a game with customizable ships than a multiplayer... I need to point out that the surveys that were conducted, as I understand it, went something like this: Pick the one thing that is most important to you: (1) Ship Design, (2) multiplayer, (3) blah blah
Not to be gross here, but don't forget the option, for some of the more "unsavory" civilizations, of actually eating the conquored races. I'm reading a set of sci fi books called, "In Death Ground" and "The Shiva Option" where this very thing is an integral part of the story line. It's very interesting, and would add a terrifying dimension to the game if the losing side's citizenry were raised like cattle to be used as food animals. Can you imagine the extreme, long-term hatred su
I upgraded a survey ship that was out of range, and it is taking forever to upgrade. Even now that it is within range, the time to upgrade has not changed. I don't mean to sound like a snot, but what do you expect? If I understand you correctly, it sounds like you don't understand why, when you attempt to upgrade one of your vessels that it ou
One thing I can't resolve with the mini-constructor idea is the following: 1. You have a fleet of ships of type A on the edge of youre civilization, and they are all nearest to planet B, which would be performing the refit. 2. You instruct the game to perform a refit. 3. Planet B would be presumed to have on hand, or be able to spontaneously generate a mini-constructor for each ship being refit. This is difficult for me to resolve, given that everything else in the game c
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 can be done without special facilities or labor? Where do all the new and expensive technology components come from? From the invisible logistics fleet that must be replenis
I have to add to this as well - like I said above, I like the upgrade / refit idea presented. However, I have to concur with the opinions here that an all-or-nothing refit would make refitting impractical. Who would want to take ALL of their battleships offline in order to perform a refit? That would toss any strategery right out the window.
I think this is an excellent idea! This forces the player to make difficult choices about upgrading ships or building a new one. If you're going to upgrade a ship way out on the fringe of space, it should be an incredibly costly and time-consuming situation to upgrade so far from all your resources. And your ship should be understandly defenseless during such a refit. That's perfect! And one can decudce that at the other extreme, if one were in orbit around a shipyard, then the up
reviewers don't slate strategy games for not coming with a multiplayer mode, however take away the ship design and GC2 loses a major selling point from both its single player and multi player modes Agreed, which is why I said that I would have chosen ship design as my top choice as well. However, if I had been given a second choide, i would ha
by Frogboy [Stardock] Stardock's other PC games -- Stellar Frontier, The Political Machine, The Corporate Machine, Trials of Battle, were all multiplayer too. But even when the games are designed with multiplayer in mind, it's a pretty small # that actually play it that way. Please don't take this as an insult, as I view your company as top-n
I truly hope that the name mini-balls simply fades into the beta sunset, because if Stardock is trying to get new people into this game, if they start off in ship design having to use silly weapons called "mini-balls, then they may just get turned off right there. Because one obvious evolution of mini-balls would take it down the eventual path to "mega-balls". And so the race will be to see who has the biggest balls o fthem all <img src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/smiles/Wink.gif" border=0
So long as we can rename the planets at a later point, even if we previously accepted the default name, then that's all that matters. For instance, if I have a planet that has become developed to the point of being very critical to me, then I might rename it to something special to reflect its important, while I leave all the rest of the run-of-the-mill planets with their default names.
I'm just saying, "mini-balls" sounds about as sci-fi as having weapons called "Mega Wompers". I know this is only a game, and the devs like to use humor, which is cool. But seroiusly, if ship design is one of the new major features in the game, can't we have names for the ship components that sounds plausibly sci-fi? I mean, sure... Lasers, Phasors, Plasma Projectors, Mass Drivers ... they might all sound cliche, but I'd rather have that than cheesy names like "mini-balls". Humor i
This is sort of off-topic, but the name "mini-balls" sound really stupid, in my opinion. The last thing I want on my newly commissioned state-of-the-art dreadnought, is to power up the mini-balls. Gah, that just sounds ridiculous.
Wow, sometimes less is more people Anyway, the brilliant suggestion that fightercraft provide a carrier with an extended attack function reaching 1 to 2 squares away would make fightercraft unique and formidable. Personally, I would like to see more discussion on how we can come up with a good design to justify fightercraft in the game, rather than debate-to-
It's probably the same - it was just fun in MOO2 to have all the upgrade options for a particular weapon available during ship design. I found it both a very effeicient and fun user interface to use while designing my ships.
Idea for differentiating a fighter from a normal weapon: RANGE A fighter could be just like any other weapon, except that it has an extra square of range! You could send your squadron to attack without having to be adjacent to the target. That's a very interesting idea, AngleWyrm . That brings to mind
Hi all, I hate to keep bringing up cool things from other games that I liked, but this one was very cool, and I haven't noticed it being discussed previously. When designing ships in Master of Orion II , as one's technology-level increased, so did one's ability to customize weapons during ship design. For example, one might have the ability to modify the "Phasors" weapon as "Heavy Phasors", "Point-defense Phasors", "Auto-firing Phasors", or missile
Star Pilot , to address the available-space issue you raise, I would suggest that fighters not be allowed to have FTL drives. Considering how to make fighters distinct from any other weapon, such as a missile, let's try take 2: Fighters: Can attack other fighters (or missiles) with the correct armament Can attack capital-ships with correct the armament Can attack multiple times, while each missile can attack only once Must be at
GalCiv2 Forums