Veblen

Reply to Universal translator bug in Bug Reports GalCiv2 Forums

It's a good point. Tyr is exactly right that there are some things that, while working "as designed," is inconsistent with the overall design of the game (for example, the universal translator breaks parity between human and AI players). So yeah, maybe the way it was designed can be improved. Either both players should need it to start talking or one player should need it, but whatever is the case it should work the same for human and AI players. It doesn't now.

Reply to opening planet rush in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

It's hard to say without complete information, because little things will change the strategy I use for openings (well, it's always changing). For example, the decision to research Impulse Drives before colonizing is a function of how many planets I want, how far away they are, and how valuable they are (class, defensibility, economic starbase considerations). Even things like the decision to build a research lab or a factory on the first turn is determined, I'm beginning

Reply to AI (Drengi) Does not utilise planets bonusses in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Martimus wrote: They built up the influence and morale on that planet to counteract your influence. This is them reacting to your strategy. Not really. Building a morale structure on a precursor mine when there are empty tiles left on the planet is a bug, not AI strategy.

Reply to A Closer Look At the Economic Sliders in Economics GalCiv2 Forums

To minimize waste, we should maximize the product FP. Thus, for minimum wasted capacity, we should choose: F = P = sqrt(Production Factor) FP is maximized when F = 1 and P = 1, like Ajosin says above. If x + y = constant, then x * y is maximized at x = y = sqrt(x*y)... but we don't have a constraint like F + P = c, which seems t

Reply to Possible to empty a colony ship? in Galactic Civilizations II GalCiv2 Forums

Another way to do it is to park your excess colony ship(s) on a planet then go to the Shipyard and obsolete your colony ship designs. You can then decommision them all... obsoleting the design is the only way I know of to decomission a ship in orbit.

Reply to Suggestion: Targetable combat in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Part of the problem is that the current way of calculating the targeting order doesn't always return the actual ideal targeting order, so at times the player has to watch helplessly while his or her ships fire on the "wrong" target. The flip-side of this is that it's possible to design fleets that intentionally "game" the system by exploiting this mismatch. Ideally, there'd be no input required from the player, but the targeting order would be better calculated... best of both worlds

Reply to Combination Bonuses ?? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Most of the time researching and building 1 weapon type is best This isn't true, though. I switch my weapon research path at least once almost every game (unless I'm rushing). When the terrans got 40-beam, 80-shield battleships to counter my psyonic beam, I researched up to psyonic missile and built a new generation of ships. Huge difference: in

The case for changing excess production mechanism in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

RIght now, if a planet with 50 military production is building a ship that requires 20 more points to complete, the difference of 30 points is wasted and the player is charged for it. This applies for social production as well. Research is different, as the excess production towards a technology carries over to the next technology (unless the researched technology was the last in the branch, in which case the excess research is wasted and the player is charged for it). I'm proposin

Reply to Is suicidal possible with/out tech trading or diplomatic victory? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

On the subject of the military/social/research spending systems, there are a couple of things I'd like to see changed that could minimize some of the micromanagement. Research points accrued in excess of what is required to finish the currently researched tech should be saved and applied to the next tech researched. This would mean that the excess points would not go into the next tech in the branch (this is not well defined in all cases), but rather would be applied immediately to th

Reply to Research, Production and Economy formulas in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Sure is great how this is all well-documented by Stardock, isn't it? Otherwise we'd have to... oh, wait. At least posts like this take us one step closer to having accurate documentation. Very nice.

Reply to bad values for subspace blaster component? in Bug Reports GalCiv2 Forums

Also, there's a "Superior Duranthium" component in GC2Types.xml that isn't used in the game.

bad values for subspace blaster component? in Bug Reports GalCiv2 Forums

Data from v1.1 GC2Types.xml: (component name, cost, size, sizemod, damage) "Phasors VII", 50, 6, 4, 5 "Disruptors", 65, 6, 4, 7 "Disruptors II", 65, 5, 4, 7 "Disruptors III", 70, 5, 4, 8 "Subspace Blaster", 60, 6, 4, 6 "Doom Ray", 150, 10, 4, 22 It looks like the Subspace Blaster component was given values intended to fall between "Phasors VII" and "Disruptors" (this is the order in the .xml fil

Reply to Research, Production and Economy formulas in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Awesome post random50. I have formulas calculating research and social/military production too to reasonable accuracy as well. Should I type that out too or has this already been done somewhere else and I'm wasting my time? Post! A cursory search of the wiki didn't turn up anything for me. If it's out there, I haven't seen it. A lot

Reply to Is suicidal possible with/out tech trading or diplomatic victory? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

It is possible. As for advice, it's hard to distill useful general principles, but there are a couple. Look for ways go make each bc go farther (designing zero-engine colony ships to buy for very close planets, for example, can save a few hundred bc). You probably already know this, but keep approval at 100% until it becomes necessary to raise taxes (about when your treasury drops to around 500-1500bc, depending on the game). A game can be divided u

typo in GC2Types.xml (1.1) in Bug Reports GalCiv2 Forums

There's a minor typo in GC2Types.xml for the Quantum Driver II component. /Weapon/DisplayName is "Q au ntum Driver II" and should read "Q ua ntum Driver II". That is all. Edit: Oh, one more thing. Photon Torpedo II and Photon Torpedo III each have duplicate entires in GC2Types.xml, with the duplicates having the same data with the exception that no "#agg" fields are present.

Reply to The value of defense in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Defence is 0 based ? Are you sure or are you guessing ? An educated guess. Otherwise how would a battle between a 1 attack ship and a 1 defense ship ever end?

R combat simulator source in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

I don't imagine this will be of much interest to most (if any) of you, but here's the source to my fleet combat simulator written in the statistical programming language R. simulateCombat.R example.R (These are text files.) More information about R: R-project home R d

Reply to The value of defense in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Re: Richrf, reply #20: The attacker-firing-twice-in-a-row behavior may or may not be related to a attempt to "hide" zero-value attack rolls. I've tried to figure out what's going on, and all I can say is whenever attacks are "skipped", it's only one side that skips (human as attacker, never AI as defender, I don't know about human as defender or AI as attacker) and a damage of exactly 5 is always involved in the first of the two consecutive shots. In short, it's buggy. I haven't obser

Reply to Thoughts/comments about trading w/AI in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Yeah, diplomacy is broken. It was broken before. Supreme Shogun says you couldn't be the "bill gates of the galaxy" by whoring the old system... well, I guess I'm just a naturally gifted whore, because it was ridiculously easy to do just that. The AI doesn't understand the tech trading "game," and instead of giving it a rational strategy, SD tried to spackle it up (temporarily, one hopes) by making the AI demand much more. Well, that's not right, either; now the AI loses by passing up

Reply to (another) plea for clarification of combat in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

RTFM Um. The manual is neither complete nor accurate. It's a rough approximation at best. I have read every piece of documentation very carefully, from the manual to the wiki to as much of the forum as possible. There are unanswered issues. If you want, I'd be happy to list them.

Reply to Suggestion for starbases, planets, and fleets in Ideas GalCiv2 Forums

Oh, screw that. You're the one defending. You're the one with the 30+Hp starbase that can have gobs of guns on it. I'm attacking, so I should get first strike. Otherwise, you just make starbases fortresses. 30 hp is nothing once fleets have 100+ attack; I never put anything more than Battle Stations on my starbases for this reason. The go

Reply to Suggestion for starbases, planets, and fleets in Ideas GalCiv2 Forums

^

Suggestion for starbases, planets, and fleets in Ideas GalCiv2 Forums

1. Allow ships to form fleets with a starbase. When attacked, a starbase or a fleet with a starbase shoots first. As for what logistic value to give a starbase, it's hard to say. Zero? Six? 2. Remove the Orbital Fleet Manager improvement from the game. Allow ships on a planet to form fleets as they would in empty space. Like fleets with starbases, fleets on planets would shoot first when defending. 3. Allow fleets to leave planets in any direction. These changes

(another) plea for clarification of combat in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Would someone at Stardock please clarify the details of ship combat? Posting the relevant source, or pseudo-code to the same effect, would be ideal. Of course, precise, unambiguous English is just fine. If it's policy not to reveal the inner workings of the game, please give the argument as to why this decision was made.