One big problem with Reaver9's initial idea is what would happen if you were busy expanding culturally but another race was busily trying to win via conquest. A cultural win would be impossible in that circumstance.
The tech tree is beta 2 is still in a semi-finished state. There is a lot of work left to be done on the techs. The research costs for some techs are artificially high because the support code to actually implement them is not present. The only ways to "finish" the game at present are: 1. Technology win (research all techs) 2. Conquer everyone else 3. You and your allies conquer everyone else The galactic peace and domination techs flash up a "you have won
The risk of it being grabbed by another race is why I think that it would be most valuable when used to bring other planets in a system you already hold up to more habitable levels. In every game there are strategic systems that have perhaps one good planet and three or four useless ones (class 1-5). It would be very useful to be able to bring those planets up into the habitable range. Mind you this is only useful once you have some pretty advanced tech.
This ties in with the concept of not requiring a colony ship to colonize additional planets in a system in which you already have a colony. It would be nice if there were a way to terraform a planet in advance of plonking a colony down, especially for the marginal planets.
I've run across things like Richelieu proposes in other games, sometimes they are annoying to the point of wondering what the game designers could have been thinking when they included them in the game. For example: Capture city X in the next ten turns. Later on in the game you discover that city X was all the way across the map in the heart of some other country's territory. There was no hope of even learning where the city was in ten turns let alone capturing it. If no pe
One of the annoyances of some games is to be forced into ending the game before you would otherwise like to end it. Case in point: Given the description of cultural victory that started this thread I can foresee a situation where I'm rolling merrily along, crushing all before me, and once things reach a stable state I decide to go for a technology win. A cultural win condition could very easily be met before the tech tree has been researched but I don't want to end the game there.
Just a note on my personal preference for this type of thing: I have no problem with events, especially rare one, that add interest to the game but nothing annoys me more as a player than to find the game designers throwing in random elements that do nothing other than screw the player. Tytan's "allegiance scramble" idea falls into the second category. All his other ideas fall into the first category.
I can confirm what Cari describes. I have seen anomalies change color after restoring from a save and it does, sometimes, make them more visible but I've never seen one pop up where one wasn't before the save.
That makes much more sense in terms of gameplay. The "morality cost" should be pretty high for the "Destroy Colony" option as the destruction of a habitable world is not something that should be done lightly. For the "Destroy" option perhaps some minimum level of technology should be required before it becomes available or perhaps just a certain specific technology. There was some mention that certain technologies would only be available to races that had chosen a certain mora
I don't see the logic in reducing the class of the planet to a 1 if the colony is abandoned. Simply abandoning a colony, for whatever reason, should not destroy a habitable world.
Stardock Forums
Landwaster, The negative movement points issue is a known one and has reportedly been fixed in Stardock's internal builds. It's a side effect of the change that made attacks cost a movement point. A ship that reached the end of it's movement points could still attack under certain circumstances. In certain cases the negative movement points could reach into triple digits.
"Why would upgrading a planet make you evil strange." Because you chose to sacrifice the native inhabitants in the name of a better quality environment for your settlers. "I always thought the AI is to quick in declaring war." The AI, especially in the current build, has been very quick to declare war but the AI is still pretty rough.
Solitair said: As I said before the basic problem is that troops = population. I agree. That's the crux of the problem. I haven't come up with any elegant way around it but the following did come to mind... Just think of the planetary population as Dorsai. :)
I agree that as things are it can sometimes be hard to tell exactly what the effect of a given thing will be. I have no problem with having things be based on percentages but for some things having a "details" area will be only moderately useful. For example: morale improvements built on a planet, the "detail" information will only be "correct" for a short period of time. As the planetary population increases things will change. I also expect some of the bonuses to be tweaked as dev
DGM will only work completely correctly when you are logged in as the user that installed DGM. It works this way under Windows 2000 as well. It would be nice if DGM would recognize and work with the OS provided ability to install itself for all users. One thing I haven't tried is going in manually and changing things to emulate an all users install.
I have noticed the value of deporting some of the planetary inhabitants. LOL From my viewpoint the main problem is that things seem to behave in an inconsistent fashion at times. I have some planets that seem to chug along at 100% morale for pretty much the entire game while others are persistent in having morale problems.
If things are as Arturus Magi suggests and as Lucky Jack's research seems to indicate then I think things should change. ;) If things are as they seem then there doesn't seem to be much point in building morale improvements until your planet reaches max. population. The hitch is that max. population is restricted by morale. Sigh.
My preference would be to allow infinite expandablity. The cost of the upgrades will be a limiting factor but the initial concept for the Starbase was that it would be an immense construct. Something built in space doesn't and shouldn't have the same limitations as something built on a planet where space is limited. A well nutured Starbase with many modules in place would also become a strategic asset that would have to be protected. They should have more than 100 hitpoints t
This is a known issue. Check the thread titled: "bottom item in ship list" from 4 days ago.
Hmmm. The forum killed the items I enclosed in greater than and less than signs. Let's try this again Current formula is: New bonus = old bonus + old bonus / 10 How about: New bonus = old bonus + 10
Instead of doing that it might be enough to have it merely add 10% to the total rather than doing a cumulative multiplier. I.E. rather than: = + /10 as it is now it would be = + 10
After a particularly painful trek across the width of a gigantic map I have a question: Will GalCiv allow us to stack ships into groups that we can then convoy at the movement rate of the slowest ship in the group via autopilot? It's a real pain when one ship in a group is either faster or slower than the rest of the group, especially when that ship is supposed to be protecting transports, freighters or constructors.
The Yor surrendered to the Torians and in the turn after the surrender two Yor ships attacked a Terran planet. It seems that if a ship is enroute it's not being handled correctly when a race surrenders.
It's an error in achievments.imp which is in your GalCiv data directory. The entry for Political Capital has the wrong header text. See the thread: "Typo in achievments.imp" from 2 days ago.
This is a known issue. Once the Soldiering bonus goes above three digits it vanishes from the screen. (:(