[quote who="chuck1es" reply="40" id="3408129"]You're assuming you'll be the only thinking person. Don't do that.[/quote] If you don't understand the difference between strategic surprise and tactical surprise, that's not my fault.
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="32" id="3408081"]CO-OP never apealed to me, but it is popular even in these kind of games (for me that is more for RTS, 2 vs 2 games for instance).[/quote] It's a good way for people of significantly unequal skill levels to play. Rather than one person intentionally handicapping themselves to give the other a chance, they can team up to take on the rest of the galaxy.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Brainsucker" reply="29" id="3408049"]That is the reason why a single super ship can destroy everything in their path. As you won't be able to beat him even if you throw all your smaller ships into it.[/quote] In the campaigns of GC2, that was how you beat the Dread Lords. Especially in the original game, a swarm of tiny ships could rip apart a larger ship with far higher tech due to how the weapons mechanics worked. In Dread Lords each ship fired all its weapons at onc
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="37" id="3408039"]I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view. The only reason the "combat viewer" worked in galciv2 was because the AI was purposely hobbled in how it would equip its ships. With more than one person you'll have mroe than one challenger with equal ships because they will change their ships immediately to counter yours. And since there is absolutely no substantial difference in weapon systems it will all come down to
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="30" id="3407952"]It looks as if the biggest problems against tactical combat of some sort is that its detractors don't think of themselves as intelligent enough to use it. [/quote] Actually, the opposite is true. I'm more worried that the AI won't be able to use it effectively. Of the few TBS games I've played, each one had AI behavior that could be exploited by the player allowing victories that really should not have happened, and i
[quote who="Farplane" reply="6" id="3407934"]i personally find that more interesting since there is more trust required between allies than in a team setting where it is impossible to backstab your friend.[/quote] It's always possible to backstab an ally, you just have to be more creative about it. Influence flipping their planets, surrounding their planets with ships or starbases that they can't move through or destroy, sniping planets they were about to take, etc. E
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Cikomyr" reply="21" id="3407787"] Quoting Zydor, reply 18 Stardock have resisted Carriers many times - and that's what this is - a Carrier thread by another name. Yhea, sure. Ignore entirely all my other propositions and just focus on the fact that I propose "carrier" as one of the ship class. [/quote] And the fighters that are the basis of your system, which would be pretty useless without a car
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="19" id="3407700"]So no Carrier module that allows X Tiny ships to not count Logistics wise in the fleet where that module is present? [/quote] As Zydor said, carriers were repeatedly shot down in all three GC2 iterations. It's not likely to change. Although it would be hilarious if Stardock included carriers with the realistic downside of carriers: a successful surprise attack can kill off the carrier before it has a chance to launc
[quote who="Zydor" reply="25" id="3407661"]They have little choice now frankly, multi-player is an "expected" option in *most* of todays "epic" type games. The particular issue with GalCiv is its a Strategy Game that takes a good while to complete. For sure, turn down the size of the Universe, and that shortens game time - it also shortens enjoyment. Its one of those topics that easy to wax eloquent about, but is a dog when deciding how to actually do it, and still keep faith with
I misread the original topic. I was getting a "Your browser is out of date" message, not a win8 message. Only on this site, and with both IE and Chrome. Both browsers are up to date. I got a Java update this morning, and didn't get the message when I opened this site, so I'm hoping that was the problem.
[quote who="Sheeptorpedo" reply="18" id="3407623"]So what does that have to do with anything if an option to do auto-battle exists? People who want every battle(if the animations and graphics are good enough to be constantly enjoyable) can have them and people who don't want any battle can have them, problem solved. [/quote] Simply put, this does not solve the problem - and it's pretty damn obvious why. There is only two real possibilities: that the AI
[quote who="DsRaider" reply="151" id="3406925"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 22 I think you guys will like what we're doing with the battles. I'm dying to talk about it but I'd be instantly killed off. I think it'll seem obvious in hindsight. It implies they are changing something anyway. [/quote] It implies the "cold day in hell" tone of Zydor's post 114. There will be some updating and minor changes, but the
Maybe a super event: around 50-100 turns into the game, all minor civs are promoted to major status. Another 20 turns later you start getting a trickle of new minor civs on previously uninhabitable planets.
[quote who="Agracore" reply="38" id="3407006"]Wasn't talking about a freebie but as a balance to a higher number of planets. Probably something mid game, technology research based. [/quote] What he means about freebie is "what would prevent someone with a wide civilization from using those same techs to build a really tall, really wide civilization?" If there's a tech that lets you add 10 tiles to each of your planets so your 20 planet civilization can compete wit
I'm getting this too. Also using IE.
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="13" id="3406267"]But the AIs had an aligment from the get go, I think. Drengin presented themselves as Evil. Also liked to attack Torians above other species. Nice AI personalities going on. [/quote] When they finally researched Xeno Ethics (or you trade it to them), there was a small chance they'd pick a different alignment. The occasional good Drengin or evil Altarians were nice changes.
One long standing wish of mine is to be able to guide an ally's research. I usually play the Thalan tech tree, so being able to guide someone to research stuff that doesn't appear on their tree is really appealing (wtb farms, please). Perhaps even suggest research to non-allies, with the cost related to how friendly they are to you. Or even bilateral tech agreements: you research farms, I'll research missile weapons, and after x turns we'll trade the res
[quote who="KzintiPatriarch" reply="21" id="3405893"] Making sure Diplomacy cant be so utterly abused would be key to balance.[/quote] This. For a conventional colony rush nothing beat Diplomat. I'd often spend a year or more losing 1000 bc a turn and never run out of money. Not to mention being able to cripple enemy ship construction by buying all their scouts and forcing them to rebuild them (and not coincidentally upgrading all those scouts into colony ship
I've had the same problem. Original game and DA work fine, TA gives me a serial number error. I've been playing email tag with Stardock support for the last two weeks without getting anywhere. Is there a fast solution?
It was too easy to exploit. The ability to move your capital was removed in DA, but the UI bits related to doing so were not. Perhaps you could make note of this in the topic about things to tweak for the eventual patch.
Somehow the beginning relations got screwed up. It happens sometimes, and I don't think anyone really knows how or why. To fix it, start another game; when you get to the screen to pick your opponents, select each one in turn and set their starting relations to "unknown". That should clear it up, but you may want to select ALL opponents, even the ones you don't plan to have in that game. T
Here's hoping for a fix to asteroid mining; right now it's not worth bothering with due to needing more than a game year per asteroid to fully exploit the mine. This is more of a balance issue than a technical issue, but maybe the higher mining techs should reduce construction time or allow multiple modules per ship? Even two or three modules on a ship could make mining cost effective.
Krynn and Terrans will both be good choices. It may even be possible to pull off with the Yor, if you can get the AIs to research the cultural techs and then buy or steal those techs from them.
1. I attempted this once, and gave up in frustration. There are so many interconnected factors involved it's too hard to isolate one variable to create a workable equasion. I'm sure with proper computer support and plentiful time someone could solve it, but I didn't have the resources available to devote to it. 2. In general, population trumps buildings. From what I saw in the failed attempt above, total civilization population also plays a substantial role in the influence generated
Your specific example, no. Some do, though. Research, manufacturing, and food bonuses only work for buildings that make a set number of output; it will work on something that produces 6 RP, but not something that boosts production. If one building can do both (torian farms, for example), the actual production will get the bonus but % boost will not. Morale and influence buildings can use a bonus tile on buildings that give % inprovement, mostly because there are no buildings t
GalCiv2 Forums