Maybe something like the game checks for planetary damage every turn? Instead of "50 percent of planetary improvements destroyed" something like "50% chance per round of a planetary improvement being destroyed?" Then the little map up top could provide some more useful information, like showing your mass drivers raining down and a little animation blasting the enemy factory into smithereens or something.
In my latest game, I was the second to weakest military force in the game. I just trounced the top military power. I went from last place to first place over the course of a few months. How? First of all, I'd spent time building up my alliances: I cozied up to a couple of the mid-level powers by giving them free stuff. and generally kissing buttock. I developed my planets. I built up a good infrastructure and fortified my constructors. I flipped one of my smaller factory planets to
I love the governors system in GalCivII. It's made life so much more easy on me. But it would be great if it could be expanded to be a little more flexible. For example: I'm in a war against the Drath. I've finally gotten off the defensive and I'm ready to make my strike. Here's what I need to do: 1. I need to keep my light fighters where they are as a defensive force and get my battleships into position to attack. 2. I need to have my high-population planets swit
Whenever I consider whether I should argue for a change or not, I wonder whether, if the change were going in the opposite direction, people would argue so vehemently for it as well. For example: if in Dread Lords, the game system had allowed each weapon to attack separately, but if in Dark Avatar the system were changed to allow each ship to target only one enemy at a time. I can see a valid argument that the prior system made fighters too weak, but also a valid argument that the newer system
Well, the easy way would be for planetary damage to take place before the troops invade, but that could lead to some interesting abuses, like sending in wave after wave of transports with one soldier only and using Tidal Disruption to wipe out the enemy's infrastructure. . . may as well just include orbital bombardment as an option then.
Here's the requisite kissup: dude, your stuff rocks. I'm using your purple-skinned drow-ish girl as my avatar for the Abh Empire, and it works out great. (scratch my first idea, someone else stole it, that'll teach me not to read the prior posts first, I'll come up with a new idea).
So something like: Trade Route A is 30 parsecs long at shortest lengthand provides 10 bc per week on average, total value of 300. Player decides he doesn't like the way trade Route A is going and decides to divert it and make it 60 parsecs long with a single waypoint. The game takes the original value (300) divides it by 60. The route now provides only 5 bc a month. The only problem is that I still think there needs to be a maximum value on how much you can lengthen
One caveat: these tactics do assume you've got picketing forces ready to swoop in if and when the enemy sends battlecruisers to wipe away that lone tiny hull like a hanging booger.
So you've got a fleet of four troop transports parked outside an enemy planet. Your frigates wipe out the rest of his orbital fleet, leaving that nice, juicy, PQ 20 ready for invasion. You take a look at the options for invasion. You have 2,000 troops. They have 12,000 defenders. Your advantage factor is 5 to 1, not quite enough to be assured of a win. It would be great if you could use mass drivers or tidal disruption, but you don't really want to ruin those nice improvements your
No limit on max trade routes? Then why bother researching advanced trade? That +10 trade bonus? Gimme a break, not worth the time and effort. Alternate Universes? I've got enough on my mind dealing with one empire, much less two. Maybe have a couple of alternate universe missions in Campaign mode with some new laws of physics involved, then include a new gameplay option for Sandbox mode. Carriers, Tactical Combat, Multiplayer. . . oh look, Mister Ed is dead, let's hit him
I think the Arceans are supposed to sit on their bums and wait for someone else to attack them first before they turn around and deliver a can of whoop-azz. That seems to be what people think of "good" warrior civilizations, the whole Kwai-Chang-Caine "I do not wish to kick your redneck cowboy butts, but you leave me no choice" mentality.
A fast enough troop transport can just blast through an outlying picket before they can react, but like mumbles said, you should have kept a couple of ships in orbit ("on" your planet) just in case they break through. My suggestion: use packs of obsolete ships and don't build an orbital fleet manager, that way the enemy has to burn through a bunch of turns killing them one by one if they try to rush through, which gives your outlying pickets a chance to turn around and give them an azzfull of l
click on the little "tools" button.
Well, you could just use the Civ-like system where attack is matched against defense, and if attack wins, it deals damage. If defense wins, no damage is dealt. Don't talk about the civ combat system! hehehehe it is so funny to watch a knight manage to defeat a tank with it's little sword waving around. Obviously it is not possible for a person with a sword to defeat a tank so yea, the combat syste
I hate to borrow from Star Wars, but honestly, the alignment system in GC feels a lot like the Force: Evil is not stronger, but it's quicker, easier, more seductive. Or at least, it should be: Good needs some slightly better benefits at the end. I agree on the random events thing, though: they should continue through the end. I'd say that if you fall too far away from your alignment, you lose all the alignment benefits and have to research Xeno Ethics all over again as well as taking
Wyndstar, Hey, we wouldn't be gamers if we didn't have something silly to argue about. And I respect your opinion, but I still think you're wrong, not because all labs or all factories are overpowered, but because the slider doesn't do what it seems it's supposed to do. Admittedly, though, it's something that's middle priority. . . it's nowhere near as game-breaking as, say, the infamous "Nothi
Re: Research then Flip The economy was a nightmare, but then again my game economies usually are. Actually, for me it was easier than doing a standard build type because I'd drawn a scenario with quite a few races and I was able to keep afloat by selling things like Fertility Enhancement to the minor races. Eventually, though, I wound up having to flip when I was down to selling things I didn't want to get rid of, like Advanced Logistics or my best weapon techs. My point is,
I like your idea of causing a penalty to damage the larger the attacker is than the defender: it gives Medium ships a role: big enough to take on fighters, but small enough to actually hit them. Also, how about adapting the "Weapon Types" idea from the Tactical Combat thread? Sniper: Accuracy penalty reduced by two steps, takes up 3x space for the targeting system and turrets. Accurate: Accuracy penalty reduced by one step, takes up 2x space for targeting system and turrets<br
So the saga ends not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a bug: somehow, my starport on my homeworld, the one that was building the majority of my attack probes, simply up and disappeared on me and I can't build another one . Unable to match the 12-to-one ratio needed for my tiny probes to kill a single Krynn ship, they soon march into my solar systems and start to take over. I'm starting up
Captain Yar, Go back to Star Control 2. In fact, I'll join you, that game was SWEET. . . excuse me, I'm gonna go fire up my copy of UrQuan Masters for a nice nostalgic all-Shofixti vs. all-UrQuan battle. . .
I like the idea of sticking a spy on a farming tile: there's something incredibly sinister about it, like if someone had hired an agent to infiltrate the American Midwest and seed the nation's breadbasket with herbicides to wipe out the harvest: famine strikes the land, chaos ensues, mass deaths from starvation, bodies in the streets, and then the Canadians invade. . . Anyway, my complaint isn't really with the fact that these strategies seem exploitative, it's the fact that there is no
As I recall, the complaint with the original system was that fleets of tiny fighters were annihilating the big dreadnaughts without a hitch, which had people wondering why build the giant ships when they're just gonna die anyway, and it's a tossup between losing a couple of 150 bc fighters or your uber-expensive Huge? I'm not sure what tack to take, but I know what I'd like the end result to be: an endgame where a good spread of ship types is vital to the war effort. I don't just want
And for the record, I have tried both systems. Focusing on Research in the beginning game and flipping to Industry halfway through is much much easier than trying to build a balanced planet from the get go in my experience.
And this is my point: if I want to get the best balance of research and production on a planet, the best way to do that should be to build a balance of factories and labs, not go all-factories or all-labs and use the focus button because it provides almost the same amount of the off-type while providing significantly greater amount of the on-type. I still think the new slider system separating empire-wide research and production is a good idea, but I also think that the planetary slider
Undoubtedly worth it. I never really played Dread Lords, but between the two Dark Avatar is ten times better.
GalCiv2 Forums