Here's one area where I think that fighters would be distinctly different from just another gun - fighters can only be defended against with point-defense weapons, not your typical capital-scale weapons. So, let's say a single battleship meets up with a single carrier. If the battleship has no point-defense weapons mounted, then it is defenseless against the onslaught of the carrier's attack fighters. Here's another difference - interceptors can on
VagabondNomad
Of course, if fighter bays were a module that could be added to a capital ship chasis, the next logical question is whether or not we can design the fighters themselves. For example, one might design attack fighters and intercepters. If one put 1 module of intercepters and 3 modules of attack fighters on a carrier, then a carrier could dish out a lot of damage, but be lightly defended by its intercepters, which would be reflected in its attack and defense rating.
Well, I never really noticed this in GC1, but I too would like this option for GC2. If I had to guess though, it probably won't be in the game, unfortunately. Seems that the game focuses mainly on capital ships, rather than fighters I wish this wasn't so, though.
I would really like tradiing to be abstracted, as in the Master of Orion games, instead of actually having to build freighters and route them to their destinations. Oh my gosh, that's more involvement than I care to have in establishing trade. So to the point of this thread, I too would like trading to be simplified in the form of a Trade Treaty. Another wish of mine is to create military alliances, similar to NATO. The threshold for such an allia
From a theatrical standpoint this may seem interesting, but it smells like micromanagement could be involved, which would be bad, bad, bad.
So what should we use to limit ship numbers? Money. Plain and simple economics. Each ship has some cost to maintain, and the game's economics will limit the total number of ships any empire might support. I have already been flexible in accepting and promting this idea. We both agree that economics should be the factor that limits ship numbers.
...According to your earliest statements, the game should limit the number of ships to 25... Star Pilot , I challenge you to find a single instance of me saying that the game should be limited to only 25 ships. You won't, because I've never said that - never suggested that. I feel like I'm talking to a wall here, but I'll repeat m
...You will hit choose "Upgrade ship" for an individual ship (in your influence)... Whether the ship is located inside space under your influence or not is beside the point. The point being that unless the ship physically travels to a facility capable of performing the refit, then the only other logical explanation i
When returning to a space dock could take months or years and the lives of your crew are at stake, you have to be able to do more massive upgrades than todays ships need. This also means, in many cases, they would have to fabricate the materials where they are. 1. What difference does it make whether you send your sin
Isn't this whole nano-bot discussion a bit off topic? No offense, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused on ship numbers in GC2
It just seems like if you consistently did not subject your own people to evil, while doing it to others, it would do a couple of things: 1. It would boost the loyalty and happiness of your people since you've shown that you treat them well. 2. It would give you the bonuses that acrue from doing evil to others. 3. It would gain you the dislike of foreign civilizations. I thought that would be an itneresting aspect to the game politics.
Forgive me for not reading this entire thread - I just have a question. Has the point already been brought up regarding this subtle difference in evilness: 1. I make evil, selfish choices, even if it hurts my own people. vs. 2. I make evil selfish choices, except where it would harm my own people. If not, does anyone think this case should be handled differently in the game? For example, I don't like forcing my people to take pa
Star Pilot , Let me take a moment to refresh your memory - this is a direct quote from me: Star Pilot, it appears that either you've misunderstood me, or I've miscommunicated somehow. Although I did say that I could keep track of about 25 ships, I never suggested that the large maps should be limited to 25 ships. If you read some of my earlier posts
...I think we should leave reality out of it, and only consider what is fun... Agreed, but we just seem to have a different definition of "fun". I don't find it fun to have my ships automagically upgrade out in the middle of nowhere. Rather, that's taking fun away, and replacing it with cheese. It's just utter and
I disagree with you on the automated refitting of ships, Martin the Dane . If you don't want to take the effort to refit a ship, then it shouldn't get refitted. I believe you should be forced to send a ship that you want refitted to a shipyard, and take it out of commission during the refit. Otherwise, you get to have your cake and eat it too, which is silly - you get to keep the use of your ship out in the field, and you get the better stats. That makes no
That's a very interesting idea, Zippo342 . I think I like it
I guess my position boils down to this: I hope that the cost for maintaining a cubic ton of starship greatly increases in GC2, so that we end up with far fewer ships. If we can add in perks, such as the ships' battle histories, that would be gravy.
Refitting ships automagically makes the refit just lose any real meaning. Recall back to scenes from Star Trek, when a Federation ship undergoes refitting - that's a major event, and retaking command of the newly refitted ship is like a kid at Christmas. The game should be similar. When I refit a ship in MOO2, it is a major event, and I'm ecstatic when my veteran crew retakes the helm of the newly pristine ship. Just having a refit happen out in the middle of now where once you resea
I'll add much more later, but one tiny thing I just thought of would be during diplomatic relations, it would be nice if voice chat were available for those with mics so that typing would be unnecessary. I suppose Ventrilo or Roger Wilco could be used, but an in-game voice chat would be better so that people who don't know each other beforehand can benefit from voice chat. Perhaps people that form alliances would have voice chat enabled at all times, while non-allies would be required
I always liked viewing my population number in Gal Civ 1, as it actually had a population number that looked believable, as opposed to the MOO games where the population number was some sort of abstraction that didn't really correlate to actual numbers of citizens. It's just a small touch that I feel makes my colonies feel more "real". In any event, being a software developer myself, one always has to keep the goal in mind, and then find a way to get there.
the beta.
stardock.com/gc2/smiles/Wink.gif" border=0 ALIGN="absmiddle">
haps they may use a different polling technique in the future.
constrained to building a limited number of structures. That makes no sense to me. Even a small planet would have a usable surface area far in excess of any structure that could be constructued. But this is apparently beside the point.
that may make it into the final game. I mean, really, is it so different to click once vs. click six times? If that's too much work, that's just really sad in my opinion.