For actual warships: By space, for just about any hull: 2/5ths engines. 2/5ths weapons. 1/5 defenses. If there is a specific need for range (rarely, but it happens), then I'll drop something for that. I build an early game ship called "Faux", which is a small hull with one Particle Beam on it to fool the AI into thinking I have a real military. For early-game troop transports: 1000-1500 troops, and all engines (possible 1 range).
Alfonse
"Yes" in answer to an OR question. Sign of a true programmer. Or a Vorlon...
I'm making less money than when I had 20 billion and a load of stock markets. That doesn't surprise me. Money grows with the square root of the population. Economic bonuses (from stock markets) are linear. As an absolute rule of thumb, I never allow a population to grow past 17B. It just isn't worth it; at 17B, I can use 2-3 high-end
Remove the Waste and you remove the micromanagment Yeah. Unless you're like the rest of us who don't micromanage that stuff. I'm sorry, but micro-ing to get a few paltry BCs back every turn? No; there's no need for developers to spend any time making it unnecessary for you to do that. If it provides you with some advantage in the gam
Actually go to the galciv wiki, they explain this very well, it's affects *base* morale so it's more effective then 20% Has this been confirmed? Because that's enough to crack the code into building mega-population planets. With 40% base morale, it's easy to keep a planet in line. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColo
Of course, NLC really comes into its own in the later stages where real estate/ tiles becomes a premium. Later stages? What are you talking about? By the time NLCs or Invention Matrices become reasonable build targets, you either have the production to build them relatively effortlessly, or you're losing the game. The cost
First off, I don't like anything that is monotonous and repetitive and thats exactly what exploring is. Well, maybe you should just have a "Win Game" button that lets the AI make your moves for you. That wouldn't be monotonous and repetitive
I think one point made originally is still a valid one. If going to 81% taxation drops your morale to zero, why bother letting you set it any higher than 80%? Wouldn't that make more sense? Because it doesn't drop your morale to 0. What it does is tripple (or more) the taxation morale penalty. If you don't have lots of morale buildings to absor
Well, if everything I build is super-huge and super-loaded with weapons, then where are the Death Stars? Where are the Super Star-Destroyers, where is that huge flagship bad-boy that takes so many resources to make that it's just not worth the expense to make more than one or two? Why should you have those? Sci-Fi universes use that
This is entirely the problem. 5 attack and 250 defence vs 100 attack 0 defence...60 hitpoints each...combat simulator shows the defence heavy ship winning just 5 out of 50. The problem isn't the random distribution. The reason that the all-offense ship wins so often is because, when he hits, he's going to do brutal damage. It takes 12 rounds fo
I only have 2 kinds of worlds: econ worlds and non-econ worlds. Econ worlds have 2 Xeno Farms (or 1 Xeno Farm on a 100% bonus. Larger bonuses are not used, as population control is a must). They have 17B people (or 16, if it's my capital), and enough happiness buildings to keep people at 100%. After that, it's just econ buildings. I've never mastered the trick of keeping a mega-population world at 100% morale, so I don't bother. Besides, getting good money from a 17B planet is easy, a
What is so low-res about the textures that you need higher-res ones?
There's two ways to make money in the game. One is to have a high population on a world. This is very difficult, but possible, and it requires the most advanced morale buildings (and possible several morale resources), as well as a large planet with lots of tiles. If you can get past 25-27B (or whatever it is that is the cap), and still have a decent tax rate, then you can make money. Note that this is not easy or often viable, particularly if you wish to retain a 100% morale (for the population
Better Auto Explore algorithm I've never really understood what people see in auto-explore. Even if it worked perfectly, what's the point? In the early game, where exploration is important, you need to react to what is discovered. If you see a class 15 or so world, you need to jump on it, so you buy a colony ship. Seeing it a turn later makes n
I'd like to add a slider to change the frequency of random events. I so rarely see them; I've certainly never seen one of those "Galaxy on Fire" random events where two lifelong friends go to war. They then completely blew it on starbases. The purpose for doing it that way was to make starbases be a drain on military production. This
I find it almost impossible to be at 100% Then you're not trying hard enough. I've maintained an 80% tax rate on 17B population worlds at 100% morale. With just one morale building. Granted, I had an intrisic 200% morale ability. But even without it, that would only require 3 more morale buildings (though, given the number of Stock M
Trade is useful. With the appropriate use of enough starbases, it can give rise to a decent quantity of cash. But my primary use of trade is as a minor income supplement and as a way of warding off predators. Trade lets be get over the "hump" (where I start making 1000+ each turn and have a number of high-production worlds. And lots of research), after which I've already won the game and nobody in the galaxy knows it. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class
I mean , when your empire have more influence than the others Stop building up so much influence. I've never actually attacked someone with influence without starbases. Oh, I've had planets flip, but that's only because we were sharing a star system. But if you're not artificially buffing your influence, I've never seen a game where other near
Know what? I'm really starting to think that the combat viewer was a bad idea for StarDock to begin with. They have these ships flying around that are begging for some silly RTS-style play. But they don't add it because it's a TBS. Nobody complains that Civ doesn't have tactical battles the way Rome: Total War does. Why? Because the game isn't rubbing your face in the fact that it doesn't have tactical battles. It isn't showing you a high-quality movie of some epic battle s
Is there any way to make a game where all the AI opponents won't form 1 big massive alliance against you? Never happened to me before. Then again, I don't tend to start wars of aggression; I end them At least, not until the "I've already won"
For each planet, I usually build 1, at most 2 (for more populous planets), morale buildings. Then all the rest factories, unless its a research planet, then I build research buildings. Now, the way you suggest it, I'm going to have way to much a morale:industry:research ratio. After four buildings, I'd have put as much morale as I normally would on a planet. It would be be
Doesn't help. All it does is allow more projectiles to come out and dance around. The laser-equipped enemy will just fire a lot and then suddenly stop, while a flock of projectiles slowly wind their way to the target.
The combat viewer is nice and all, but it needs some improvement. Here's the simplest thing that could be done: Make projectiles and missles go faster. Maybe not as fast as lasers, but combat just takes too long when it takes 10 seconds to kill off the enemy ships. I find I'm often pressing "done" rather than letting anything play out. If they took only one second to hit the target, that'd be great. Once that's in, I'd like the system to more cleanly delineate rounds of com
Approval does affect it, but food does not. 100% approval gives you a doubling of population growth. The primary factor is the number of people on-planet.