P.S. Indeed, the cheapest way to increase morale is to give Planetary Invasion tech to a nearby minor, then declare war on him. The more of your population he wipes out, the happier the rest become And it's entirely free!
StarJack: I have entertainment networks on every planet, 2 food on earth and 1 on the others. I'm stunned at the population growth rate, it seems WAY, and I mean WAY too fast. Is there a way to turn it down? I'm a novice at this game, but I RTDM, and I played a lot of MOO and Space Empires, and I'm at a loss as to what I could be doing wrong. Talk of building tr
Stardock Forums
1) Make "Lucky Ranger" event perhaps 20X more rare, and only let it occur in certain situations (after the leading race has X military power, for example). It utterly breaks the game, especially on a tiny galaxy when nobody has much tech, to gain 2 rangers - either of which can destroy a grand alliance of all opponents. 2) Replace the current economic sliders. Current: "Overall Output" + "Military, Social, Research Ratios" Desir
MOOI had sliders for all planets, too, you know And yes, it did cause havoc with micromanagement in the late game. I really dislike the current system. You cannot effectively have planets specialize. For example, I wanted an industrial planet and a research planet. I made them... and the research planet had no spaceport. Unfortunately (disregardi
On playing peacefully: It seems to be fairly pointless. If you have little to no military, AIs will not take you seriously in negotiations, so you'll get a terrible deal in any trade... since the trade rate is based on your relative military power. I picked this up on the forum, and it seems congruent with my exerience, where all AIs wanted 4-6 military techs in exchange for a single non-military tech... except for the minor, who traded
Starbase modding would be appreciated. I'd like to be able to change base HP and add additional types of Starbase. Also, the ability to place a "Max number per ship" tag on modules would be helpful. Alternately, specifying "Max number of module type" for a given hull would be even better.
I was playing on tiny, and the game was fairly even for 2 years... tech was up to 1 for all weapons and defenses (except missiles, at 2), and nobody had medium hulls... Then, boom! In 5 turns I got 2 lucky rangers - increasing my military strength from 4 (small) ships to 6 - and destroyed my closest neighbor (whose military had been over 5x as strong as mine) without losing a battle. In fact, I never took any damage except when hitting th
I'd have to agree... it's fundamentally impossible for anyone to distinguish between a bug and a bad design decision. So, it could be a design decision to have tooltips stay on the screen until you move the mouse around frantically to clear it. But it seems like a bug, and has been reported as such. Similarly, an exploit that allows someone to create unlimited amounts of money from thin air by constantly keeping his treasury near the debt limit is indistinguishable from a bug to anyon
By the way, I made a better tech tree. It fixes several tiny bugs (Terraforming was missing an AI value, Harpoon was misformatted, New Propulsion was not listed as a type of propulsion, etc). Also, the technologies are now grouped by their type, with types in alphabetical order, instead of being kind of random. I put it here: www.geocities.com/saber_marionette_cherry/Files/TechTree4.xml
I looked through the XML files. It looks like some minor things are possible, but generally, advanced modding (regarding combat) cannot be currently done. For example, it is possible to change the damage values of weapons or health of ships, but starbase HP is hard-coded. Any major changes that adjust everything *except* starbase HP would utterly break game balance. Starbases are pretty much unmoddable as far as I can tell. You can adjust t
Congrats for getting stickied... Mr. #2
Stardock Forums
- Add a 'boss mode' hotkey that will minimize the game to the taskbar and rename the title of the window to 'Windows Explorer' or something user configured. I love it... Perhaps "Productivity Increa
By the way (I wish this forum supported private messages, but it doesn't seem to...) I hate doing frontends GUIs but like playing with statistics. So if you ever want to use any of my java files, feel free. I don't know what language you're using (pure PHP?), but if it can interface with java (and is not java), then java is probably more computationally efficient. And I think it runs client-side.
I must admit that it is graphically much nicer than mine. And it has fleets. Suggestions: 1) Have a message indicating who won, rather than simple color-coding... not just for colorblind people, but for those who aren't very observant 2) Give round-by-round results (should be fairly easy to add, and the bandwith of extra text is minim
Stardock Forums
1) Ban trading for technologies when a race lacks their prerequisites. It breaks the tree and is illogical. For example, giving hunter-gatherers in Borneo VLSI silicon fabrication technology should not let them build Itaniums, and subsequently develop optical computers. 2) Ideally (long term) replace tech trading with 'blueprint trading' that cuts down research time, rather than giving a tech. In the short term, banning a race from tradin
Wow, this sounds pretty major. Hmmmmmmmmm.... I certainly like the idea of trading "Blueprints" to cut down research... 50% might be too little, but somewhere between 50% and 75% of the total would be good. That way, at least, someone who trades for a new technology cannot spread it all over the universe instantly as in Civ III (in which it happened before you even ended your turn!). After all, nobody can spread a technology that they ha
I just wish that i could keep them at 70% economic and still have them think like they do on intellegent. Kind of a hybrid. Exactly - discrete sliders for intelligence and bonuses would be ideal. But don't worry, Frogboy said he wanted that in (IIRC) so we should see it sometime.
I'm trying to get the fleet targetting formula (exaxtly how atk/def/hp are weighted to decide who gets shot at first) released... if Brad is willing then I should be able to toss together a pretty web-based fleet sim (no downloads, no JVM ) Hey, I don't like your implications... everyone knows a command line is more convenient <img src="http
And are they coherent with the fact that an attack againt a non optimum defense should always be more efficient than an attack by a weapon againt the optimum defense? When discussing this with yellow sign, we had some trouble determining, statistically, that it was that way. Yes. As for
Eh.... what the combat simulator for? Is it an updated version of the combat viewer? It lets you determine the victory probability for a ship design versus another ship design. So, for example, if you are trying to optimize a new ship class to defeat a specific enemy, you can enter the stats for var
I've released version 1 of a java-based ship combat simulator. You can download it at: www.geocities.com/saber_marionette_cherry/index.html (click on the "click here" button) Currently it only supports ships, not fleets; I may add fleets tomorrow. Starbases would be nice too. Also, an applet with text boxes would be nice. It runs from command line now; the instructions are very simple (and on the websi
Stardock Forums
No, it's a documented bug caused by obsolete drivers for AMD dual-core CPUs. Check the sticky threads; one has a link to newer drivers.
I was also hoping for a bit of a different solution. I'll put together a mod when I have time, unless someone else puts together something good first. I'd really like to see less granularity - for example, attack values ranging from 1 to 1000 rather than 1 to ...15, or whatever. 'Fighter' (to be renamed corvette) hitpoints more in the low 100s range, multitype weapons and defenses (currently, no multi-weapon-type ship can be viable), additional ship
I made a very long post, and the forum crashes if I try to edit it. I can edit other posts. I've detected a 1.00 correlation between very longness and uneditabilty, and I suspect that this correlation implies causality. Unfortunately, the longitude of these posts makes it undesirable to circumvent the bug by reposting a new version.
Hmmm, I was going to update with a better list, but the post is too long to edit... it crashes the forum I don't want to create a long string of these charts, so for now I'll wait until the forum is fixed to update it.
GalCiv2 Forums