If you have a ship lose its autopilot path, immediately exit the game and post your debug here. It's not that the ships are losing their autopilot paths, it's that the autopilot is not being set to begin with. The ship autolaunches from the starport and just sits there. The bug should be easy to duplicate. Simply create a rally point, set your
I'm wondering of some of the pros out there can share some rules of thumb for specializing planets. For example, what planet quality / modifiers do you look for before saying "ah, that's an Econ planet", or "that's a tech planet". Should all the empire's research be done on one big planet, or is it worth it to add a lab or two on other planets? Do you use that big PQ26 for a research powerhouse or an econ capital? And what are those little PQ6's best used for? Lastly, when I build a
The default colony ship design is bugged. It was designed for the pre-Beta balancing and then never changed. On the release version of the game, Colony ships easily have enough room for another engine. Try designing one from scratch on turn 1 and you'll see.
It's not fixed in Dark Avatar.
I'm on the latest version. Just downloaded the game from Stardock yesterday on a fresh install of windows on a new Core 2 Duo machine and noticed the same bug. However, I've had the problem for about 6 months on another machine, and throughout many versions. Searching these forums reveal that another poster also reported this, but then someone asked him to post a bug report - and, well, you know how threads tend to become unreadable and die once they contain a bug report <img src="htt
I've noticed in my games that newly built ships sometimes sit next to the planet rather than fly to their rally points. It only happens to certain colonies, randomly, and moving the rally point will sometimes fix it. A google search revealed nothing except a negative review on Amazon.com that mentioned the same thing. Known bug? Something that's being swept under the rug? I was kind of hoping that it would be fixed in a patch, since my playstyle involves ungodly numbers of construct
Although I agree that the current system is much better than the old one, I must say I'm surprised to see such consensus on this issue. I remember that a few months back, people were saying the "fire in turns" system was fine and telling anyone who disagreed to sit down and shut up. I guess the results of the midterm election have opened minds here, too.
Also, try to set your rally points in a straight line or diagonally. The turning animation is really slow. The "going in a straight line" animation is reasonably fast.
Dude... the game in its present state is NOTHING LIKE the demo. It's better in some ways and worse in others. It's a lot less stable, since the current patch is "Beta". Starbase rules have changed, the AI has changed, some of the interface has been fixed (with odd new bugs introduced).
OK but since the first beta, ships going to rally points sometimes "forget" and stop dead in space.
This makes no sense. In space everything weighs the same, nothing. So general physics wouldn't apply like that. An engine would move a huge ship just as quickly as it would move a small ship. What the hell is this? You saying a guy in a space suit could push massive ship just as easily as he can throw a wrench? Dude... you're an idiot. Eve
Has anyone else noticed that sometimes constructors launch from the starport and then stop mid-way to their rally point (or sit next to the planet)?
Rally points seem broken. Some Constructors sometimes just sit next to the planet that built them. Others to go their rally points just fine. Sometimes setting the rally point to and then setting it back will fix it for a turn or two.
I'm pretty happy with Beta 3A so far. Constructors tend to sit by the planet that made them instead of going to that planet's rally point but other than that it's pretty good.
The ship should stay "as is" in the upgrade design screen. There should be a "remove all components except widgets" button.
Agreed, drawfour. I use standard names for my ships, such as "3 FF01" or "4 DD03". These names are based off of official Navy hull designations: CA for Cruiser, AK for Cargo Ship, AB for Crane Ship, LS for Landing Ship, etc. When I go to a new game and create my first Battleship design "5 BB01", I have no idea if I'll break the game or not. The game just doesn't seem ... stable. Oldstatesman, it's possible to enjoy the game w
Stardock Forums
"Let's all have 200 Doomstars and turn-based lame combat while we're at it." Actually 200 Battleships beat 200 Doomstars (because of ship initiative). Load the battleships up with heavy autofire disruptors, structual analyzer, high energy focus, and achilles targeting unit and it can one-shot a Doomstar.
That's pretty much how I see it too. It's been beaten to death but . Maybe after the 1.1 bugs get fixed this will be looked at.
Hi I'm Mr Lucky and I want my cake and I want to eat it too! The system links all 3 aspects because anything else would be totally overpowered to the research side of the game. If you could research and produce at the same time to maximum capacity, the game would just be a tech race. You can't ahve your cake and eat it too in this game. You have to think and ma
I think 1.1 will add more detailed on-screen feedback about how your various ratings are being calculated.
Actually, I read this whole post and I can't find where the logical flaw is. If spending is indeed "activation" then you're right - research should be decoupled and the slider between military / social should determine how the factories split their production.
I think you can already decomission ships. It doesn't bring in much money though.
Stardock Forums
I'm with you, #11. This info should be documented somewhere. It should preferably be documented on a game screen showing exactly what your base is doing and how much extra money it is contributing. But... honestly, I'd rather see the ship movement, social slider, stacked ship behavior, and planet improvement bugs fixed first.
Simultaneous combat would result in mutual-annihilation of evenly matched ships (depending on dice rolls maybe?). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know.
Ok, seriously. This forum software is completely unpredictible. Sorry for the double post.
GalCiv2 Forums