[quote]Should that be *asterisk* [/quote]Spent too much time on my copter to spellcheck. That's version 3.0 there. I had a hard time getting it to go fast enough. That plus a couple adjustments due to font differences between Word and Paint.
Hmm ... Dread Lords as multiple opponents? [quote who="Maiden666" reply="27" id="2575441"]... This has only been possible because of Empress GmOOnii's "Special ARC" (Advanced Race Customization). In short, this game played against 4X the Dread Lords, who got some things much better than any Stock Race ... [/quote] [quote who="KzintiPatriarch" reply="30" id="2576322"]... thanks to Gmooni for providing some helpful information ... [/quote] [quote who="GmOOnii"
Thanks. I just did a little testing of my own in cheat mode and with everything else set to all abundant in a huge galaxy I got 754 with scattered systems, 736 with loose clusters and less than 500 with tight clusters. I repeated the test and got 483 with tight clusters, 763 loose clusters, 746 scattered systems. So it does look like there's no hard limit and that tight clusters clearly yield fewer planets. But between loose clusters and scattered systems it's close to
IIRC there is a cap on the total number of planets that you can have in DA and I vaguely remember that the number was 750. So i s there a cap on DA planets? <span id="_mce_start" style="display: none; line-height:
[quote]DL versions prior to 1.5 had a higher tax constant.[/quote]Perhaps, I don't really know. I just know that prior to the bundling with DA, bankruptcy prevented you from doing anything whereas now you can buy or lease buildings, ships and even upgrade ships all the while being negative and going further negative with each new purchase. Of course you do eventually need to get out of debt at some point to continue research and do any real production but there's actually a lot m
[quote who="Maiden666" reply="11" id="2596157"]I believe a DL million player such as you won't find it hard to compete; AFAIK DL is hardest as it lacks a lot of stuff upon which score is founded... planet count, SA etc pp. In fact I believe you will break RH's 1.58m top-score game, if you just apply your tactics to DA as perfect as you did in DL. Wish you all the best (EconBoom) on this way. [/quote]Thanks. However there's one thing that most people don't realize about the versio
[quote who="Maiden666" reply="4" id="2594468"]Yesterday evening I thought it would be time for Mumblefratz to get away from this wreck-and-lumber off-topic section and return to the MV, and here you are. And excellent as always. [/quote]Thank you for your kind words. Actually I have been trying to motivate myself to get back into playing recently. I had some PC problems that have caused me some pause and also I had only played DL and was trying to get into DA when a bad case of ennui
BTW here's what you can do with an array of 16 econ SB's around a good sized planet. I've seen up to 20K RP's per turn if you get lucky with the number of Research mining resources, but this is the best I've had.
This data is pretty old but it's a good summary of all the different modules that can be placed on the 4 different types of starbases, Military, Economic, Influence and Resource Mining. One of the biggest confusions new players make is between the Military SB modules that increase the attack and defense value of your own ships in their area of influence (AOI) versus battle modules that can be added to *any* SB and are used to protect or defend the SB in case of attack. BTW most folks
IIRC there was a pretty decent piece on PBS that included some discussion of the physics/mechanics of the collapse. I'm pretty sure this is the piece, Why the Towers Fell , the clip is almost an hour long and so I didn't re-watch the whole thing to make sure. Also here's a link to a couple of related stories, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ . There's the "
[quote]Can anyone on these forums mount a rational defense in support of FOX News?[/quote]This is the point of the OP which no one has bothered to address. Instead of answering the question he asks folks would rather "disprove" the examples he uses and attack his credibility. All the OP does is state his *opinion*, gives a couple of examples as to why he holds that opinion and then, requests that people give him rational arguments as to why his *opinion* might
Also note that at least when I tried it that it may take up to a few hours to actually take effect. I did this soon after the function was announced and so perhaps it may be quicker now, however all I'm saying is that if you check the "flatten forum categories" button give it a few hours before you say it's not working.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="60" id="2588334"]You admitted it [/quote]I admitted no such thing and you need to stop calling me a racist or face the consequences.
[quote]You fled Detroit as well. YOU SAID IT, not me.[/quote]Um ... I was 14 at the time and a *minor*. That hardly makes it my responsibility that I "fled" Detroit because my parents did nor does that make me a racist. I never *admitted* to being a racist and I take great offense at being called a racist. YOU are the one full of hate.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="52" id="2588089"]]I would not put too much stock in what he says or posts, as he is an admitted racist from Detroit. I think he likes to show that he is not alone. [/quote]And you sir are a LIAR because I am NOT an admitted racist. I did in fact grow up in Detroit and my parents were in fact racists as well as card carrying members of the John Birch Society, characteristics that seemingly went hand in hand. However neither of thos
So the south is *not* still fighting the civil war? Hmm ... seems to me it still is.
[quote]1. "Flattened forums" option now available.[/quote]This appears to be working for me now with one minor exception. It seems that if a thread is "pinned" then it will not appear in the superior forum list. For example this thread on the GalCiv2 site does not appear in the Off-topic forum but the wincustomize thread does even though both are in the Forum Issues forum which is a subforum of the Off-topic forum on the GalCiv2 site. This is not that big a deal but if it can
[quote]Tomorrow's update will also remove the right click menu and possibly resolve the "my reply doesn't immediately show up" problem.[/quote]How about the my reply timed out six times out of the six times that I attempted to post a reply to this thread today, problem? Actually with this last attempt 7 8 times and counting ... [edit] 8 times appears to be the charm. Now if only the edit will work. [/edit]
Threads are still not "bubbling up" for me anyway. In https://forums.stardock.com/forum/171 , the Stardock games forum on the Stardock site, I should see replies to threads in https://forums.stardock.com/forum/162 , the GalCiv II forum which is a subforum of the Stardock games forum on the Stardock site. However I don't. Bara said earlier that he did. It's not that I don't bel
[quote]It was as if my KB stopped working. I had to click outside the box and back in to get KB control back.[/quote]What seems to be happening is that at some points the editor goes wild trying to insert a bunch of html code. If you're editing in normal mode you of course won't see the bogus html but your cursor will act strange and not sequence smoothly over text. Also the delete key and/or the backspace key will no longer function. If you go into the html screen you'll see some bog
[quote]I just tried it and "Starting near Agressive..." does show up in both forums for me, AND in the Stardock Games forum as expected. Have you tried hard refreshing? Can you check it now to see if it's updated?[/quote]That's not what I said. I was looking at the GalCiv II forum and checking for threads from forums that are "below" the GalCiv II forum. Those would be the other 5 links that I provided. None of these threads are appearing in the GalCiv II forum and they
Perhaps I can get the screenshots in separately. Here's my account settings. Here's my view of the GalCiv II forum which is apparently unchanged.
[quote]1. "Flattened forums" option now available.[/quote]Doesn't appear to be working. I tried to reply with screen shots and links but gave up after timing out three different times. I'll try just the links. Basically when looking at the GalCiv II forum I should see replies to threads in subforums as well but I'm not. Here's the links I hope these will work. There are five threads that exist in GalCiv II subforums that have a reply later than the first r
I see most everyone is enamoured with the spell checker. I think the spell checker is a nice feature but I think some of the other changes are much more interesting. [quote]1. "Flattened forums" option now available.[/quote]Nice. They've actually been trying to get this to work this way for years. Congratulations, you'll be the first one to get this to work. Initially posts were supposed to "bubble up" from any lower level subforum which turns viewing any specific forum into a
[quote who="psychoak" reply="374" id="2582609"]Or not... What the hell, I'll just pretend I was serious instead. I'll wait for a non April fools version of your graph. [/quote]I still don't "get it". There was nothing "April Fool" about it the first time. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ February 2010 compared to past years The average ice extent for February 201
GalCiv2 Forums
JoeUser Forums
Stardock Forums