gallagher118

gallagher118

Joined Member # 2154304
0 Posts 9 Replies 7,100 Reputation

In some versions I've seen good diversity in weapons choices... But in the last 2 1.3 versions (1 game each), I've had basically most of the AIs pick the same weapons branch. (beams for both games) Further I have tech trading turned off, which used to help with this problem. (since the AIs don't share their techs at all) Is this common for everyone ? It makes the game much less challenging and I wonder is this a bug or is it a design decision ? (if it's by design, there needs

12 Replies 8,484 Views

Maybe now the goofy square root of population should be removed ? (realize other things would probably need to balance with this) As it stands now there is just no reason to build larger population planets. In 1.2 you could get some more money that way on larger planets. (made for a nice side game trying to get a planet to 45 or 70 billion) Now going over 19B is just pointless. I agree 80% taxation was rediculous, but the game balance led people to play that way. (nature o

22 Replies 9,092 Views

Jasamcarl People are complaining that their exploits were nerfed Exploits ? How was building decent populations with lots of stock exchanges an exploit ? The problem was two fold, the AI didn't follow this obvious strategy, and the cost structure for ships is (or was) too low.

121 Replies 29,255 Views

I always love it when people make the obvious argument that the A.I should be made to handle the mechanics. Unfortunatly, that is often not possible. And I doubt all the development time in the world would make the A.I. able to counter some of the cheese in earlier versions of the game. What is the point of having the mechanics in the game if the

121 Replies 29,255 Views

They've been that way since GC1! To me that's exactly why they should change. Thier attributes are just holdovers from GC1. In GC1 you needed another building to help with morale since you couldn't build as many of what you needed. In GC2, if you want to help with morale, you should need to build a morale building. for Jasamc

121 Replies 29,255 Views

I would have rather seen the AI build a better economy, but the changes work out fairly well. I don't really like the new population limits, but again they work out especially for the AI. I would like to see more diversity in planet management. (ie give me a reason to have high population planets, or a need for morale buildings.) Before 1.3 it was just too easy to get "over the hump", now you generally end up in your 1st war before you're coasting which makes things interesti

19 Replies 29,087 Views

I see e-stabs points here, but I agree more with magnumaniac. It also comes down to how the AI is building its ships. If everyone is topped out technologically, it is true that large hulls become vurnable to hords of small hulls loaded with guns. But I generally don't allow that to happen... I suppose if you play fast tech it is more likely to happen. The reality is that large hulls with mostly engines/defence and a little firepower will generally wipe out the Ais ships. O

21 Replies 9,673 Views

Planetary management by the AI is still hit and miss. I've seen what moose is talking about, I'm not sure if early in my game that the AI had decided to tear down it's factories. (because it was losing.) I've also seen the Torians at the other extreame. (8 or more factories on most planets) I've seen some AIs correctly use farms. I haven't seen anymore planets without starports in newest version. Part of the problem is the desire to keep the AIs distinct. B

7 Replies 5,182 Views

The current 1.3 is probably a better game than 1.2, mostly because it isn't as easy to economically dominate. The game I'm playing has been the best game i've had in a while (enjoyment wise). (probably because I went back to playing maso, and didn't get a good colony rush) But for all the improvements, you still see the AI doing some stupid things. Actually the errors tend to be more like the AI forgets to manage certain things or design decisions that in practice, don't work. <

7 Replies 5,182 Views

I believe there are mods for that cut range. (but also have other things) I too wish stardock would address this. As it is now, range is not much of an issue. (it's too easy to get around) I enjoy playing metaverse, so I'm stuck with what's there.

5 Replies 6,607 Views

gallagher seems to be the type of moron who believes stating a vague problem as easily fixed will make it so. Maybe so. What's sad is the way the developers have failed to play test and balance the game. That was my point. It is quite obvious that stock exchanges rule. Once you get them, you tend to win the game. By the way how

121 Replies 29,255 Views

Nope. Stock exchanges are now way way way way too too good... For the way they gutted the morale buildings, they should eliminate the stock exchange morale bonus. I'm beginning to think this game will NEVER be balanced out correctly. (other than the diligent efforts of the modders out there) So long as there are goofy imbalances like this that the AI doesn't take advantage of, the game will continue to disappoint. This is what kills me. This game has so much more po

121 Replies 29,255 Views

Maybe there should be a pseudo democracy like we have here in the states... Foreign policy right now has nothing to do with democracy. GC2 is almost entirely a foreign policy game. I'd love to see more choices in government, propaganda styles / strategies, terrorism, and a more developed trade system. (one that boosts your overall economy) What would be really cool, is situations like : if you played the dregin peacefully and your own citizens started a terrorist c

8 Replies 5,502 Views

As moosetek said, I've seen quite a few planets without starports late in the game. Some were completely developed, one even had a manufacturing capitol. I used to play a strategy with about 50% starport planets, but they wouldn't have many factories on those planets so to me it's a bug. (no factories at all when everything was upgraded.) I've also noticed the last starbase mining upgrade, isn't always there to upgrade. Is that a new feature or a bug ? If they continue to n

97 Replies 35,127 Views

Overall 1.3 seems pretty good. The AI seems to be solid for planetary management, except it still doesn't manage the build queue. Why isn't this part of the AI ? It seems to completely rely on whatever order that occurs automatically. For me personally, I do quite a bit of this sort of management. There's : 1) making sure you're bonus tiles get done first, 2) there's making sure your factories get built first, 3) there's making sure your population doesn't top out (at 5

2 Replies 3,425 Views

Maybe in another 6 months the game will be done. (where it should have been when they sold it to us.) I think that's the only reason I keep playing, I'm hoping that the game will reach it's true potential someday. The way the AI plays is the way a smart person might play the 1st few times they play the game. They don't appreciate what works and what doesn't. Maybe these balances will help, although it doesn't look like there where any revisions to ship building style/prefe

50 Replies 62,353 Views

BACK to the original poster : Dear god I hope you're wrong too... Maybe they changed the happyness equation too, that would be the only thing that would make sense of this. As you've pointed out, there was little reason to bother with entertainment centers except for 25B+ planets, now it sounds like planets that populated are pretty much impossible with any decent tax rate. Which would mean even less diversity / decision making in the game. I was personally enjoyin

15 Replies 3,567 Views

The other way of fixing this would be to make people play more like the AI. Make sensors be even bigger and cut the limit to something like 8. What kills me about this game is all the mechanics that the AI is not good at. It just avoids them. EITHER FIX the AI to play the game that you designed, or change the game so that the AI isn't at a huge disadvantage.

28 Replies 28,994 Views