(first, I do not want to start any real crap forumwide. This topic will stay in this post, and only in this post, as far as I am concerned.) They change the shape of the world and never told me... Well.. you noticed that in the game, planets are spheres, right? However, we could wonder what means "World"? Before, "our wo
Well, I think I did, once. But Quixen's was much more enjoyable to read. Kudo to you Quixen, I really blew a joint up there. However... Sorry for the rant, I just get irked when people generalize about all Americans. I didn't generalized about Americans, but about United Staters. I am an american myself. <TABLE cellpadd
The AI should be able to come up with anti-(put traditionnal player designed ship) Usually, we humans (player) develop 3 kinds of ship: - The Tank. Large or Huge, Heavy Defences, balanced attack. Has a long, long durability in most case, and often get out of battles without a scratch. - The Puncher. Large or Huge Just weapons. Designed to take out the Tank - The Swarm. Many, many, many, many small or tiny ships, just offense, no defence (it's number is it's ow
Well, the Scimitar in Star Trek : Nemesis could fire while cloaked. The thing is, when you fire while cloak, you reveal your position. Also, your shields are supposed to be down. So your "invisibility" becomes the only defence against ennemy fire. (I never understood why Kirk and Sulu did not fired manual-aimed phasers at the cloaked Bird of Prey. They could have at least delayed his attacks)
Who cares? I mean, Survey Module just allow to check anomalies, and it's no long that there isn't anymore!
? meaning?
The way alliances are actually implimented, it's the ultimate partnership between 2 players (considered by the AI), however, it's de facto very little. There is so much more 2 civs could benefit from much deeper alliances. Tech comes to mind..
bump
"Alliance" is such a relative term. In our favorite game, it only represent a mutual-defence pact between 2 peoples, but I wonder if there could be room for.. I don't know, more customization of "alliances". Actually, I would ripe the idea of "Alliance", and, instead, impliment the "Treaty" game option. What is a treaty? When 2 players agree to something. It could be... a trade pact. A mutual-defence pact, or "attack on..." pact. It could be a mean to divide the spoils of war (you get X
still, it would be nice to be able to construct some kind of "Warp Highway". Much like if you built a line of military starbases with + to speed maxed, but something a little more "narrow" (a single LINE between 2 starbases, for example) and more efficient. You know, something that would be able to link your far-stretched empire, so that everybody would feel "a lot closer to everybody". 50% speed increase, or something like that... EDIT: Or between you territory and an ally's,
I don't want a Warcraft 3 with Starcraft flavor. StarCraft 1 literally blew open the strategy games, making a super-really pleasing game that many, many, many gamers enjoyed and many still do. Not really the case with Warcraft 3... StarCraft 2 will have big shoes to fill. The whole point SC worked that much is that they went beyond the "Warcraft in space" idea. I hope they make it a Great.
I would like a MMORTS. Every time a game starts, there are X "generals" who have pretty much the same uses that in StarCraft 1. But other players can join the game as "hero", and take command of special units to lead a general's army. Playing a ghost, trying to really infiltrate another player's base, to nuke it... oh yhea.. While your teammate launch an all-out assault to divert the other team's ressources...
Pluto was discovered in 1930, and at the time, it was one of the biggest rock discovered past-neptune, so they though it was a planet. However, the discovery of pluto was an amazing crack of luck. Since there are, hypotheticly (I think) about 20 other rocks of approximate size in the Oort cloud sorrounding the solar system. They called Pluto a planet because there was no official scientific definition of a planet. They simply called "planet" whatever was really big and orbitin
Yhea. But as you said, there was ONE planet. I am thinking more in terms of many, many different occurances, randomly choosed when you generate a game. Each game would have it's own.. ehh.. "landscape" A gigantic space monster that eat planets at random, but poop class 15 planets.. I don't know, but there could be 1000 different ways of playing with special occurances
GalCiv2 Forums
They should remove Eye of the Universe. It's plainly unbalancing. We human player always rush for this tech, and rush to build this wonder. AI doesn't. We players really know how to use 15-range sensor, AI don't.
why just at the end of the game? why not in the middle of the final showdown? sides have the option to either stop fighting and saving their asses, or.. try to make the best of the opportunity..
It would be nice if there was story generator for every sandbox games. Let me explain: Imagine a TBS game based in a fantasy setting. All "players" are the human race. They can only build cities in open lands.. etc.. They all have their characteristic and specialty. But, spread all around the map, there are non-human races, randomly set. In some forest, there is an elf city. Dwarves in mountain, wastelands crawl with orcs, etc.. "Elves" are just mightily powerful, but they keep
1- I never sell my most recent tech to minor, they could sell it to superpowers! I only sell my most outdated techs 2- Not for long. 3- Minor AI don't manage given ships very well. It would be more efficient for you to simply enter war with the opposing AI.
Never played the campaign, really. I think I regret it now. If I played it before playing the sandbox game, I guess I would not have noticed the limitations...
I wonder, the random distribution taken from 1 to X (X being the actual number of your weaponry) is evenly distributed along 1 to X, or do you use a normal-based distribution, or something more.. interesting for someone who knows a little about probability mathematics?
May I redirect you directly to this post? https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=125080#968555
As is, I think galCiv2's whole concept of intelligence is flawed. there isn't any counter-intel possible, how can you know the military rating of a specie you just encountered, or the sum of it's population if you never been near their world? how can you send agents on their worlds if you just encountered their Flagship in remote space? So, intelligence won't give you anti-cloak capabilities. the anti-cloak should be sensor technology, and if you want to be immune to cloak tactic, just
haven't played MoO2, can you elaborate?
which is a bad formulae, in my humble opinion. In my actual game, I use large ship with heavy (HEAVY) armor, and big weaponry. when I fight the ennemy, the greatest threath to my ships are other capital ships, 'cause the AI cranked it with weaponry. But my ship keep shooting at fighters who aren't much of a treath to me. They waste their 60 attack on a 8-hp ship! It would be more efficient if my ships shooted at the ennemy capital ships first
(if you want to keep them around) planet that you can trade with and sell technology to if you run low on money that's about the description of any minor races. they don't have any flavor or purpose other than that