[quote who="KzintiPatriarch" reply="11" id="1888668"]Didnt you read that in the fine print? I guess we can waive that requirement this time. Welcome to the Empire and our thread Sole Soul![/quote] Let me guess, it's on page 31? ;)
[quote who="Zyxpsilon" reply="5" id="1888720"]In such a situation, first-strike bonus ability (or simply attacking first) might come somehow handy! [/quote] No. First strike super ability means your opponent doesn't fire back-but only if you destroy them in the first round of combat. Since we're dealing with 1 firepower ships in this example, you'd need to be using cargo hulls, without hp modules-and so would your opponent. Secondly, GCII does not do "attacking f
Just for the record-I'm not intending on reading all 78 pages (though I may if I find enough spare time.) :)
[quote quoting="post"] In a sudden and baffling outbreak of common sense[/quote] Indeed. Not a slight against Bush-a slight against politicians in general. Common sense isn't nearly common enough.
[quote who="mailor" reply="3" id="1888577"]whismerhill: Since I live in europe too, can you tell me, how you obtained the expansions? To be honest, I don't really like this digital download stuff, because first of all I need a credit card for it (I don't have one) and secondly, I have a rather slow internet connection. What is this "Endless" universe btw? Are these the expansions, and where can I get it? mailor[/quote] Define "slow"? Europ
GalCiv2 Forums
Randomizing intelligence will give you anything from Fool to Ultimate. The more civs you play against with random intelligence on, the more likely you are to have one or more civs at one or the other end of the scale. An Ultimate, 4 Intelligent, 3 Gifted, and 1 Genius doesn't sound right for Tough, though.
After 50 rounds of combat, the ship with the highest remaining hp "wins" and the other one is destroyed. GCII does not have MAD (mutually assured destruction), nor does it have "ties", where both sides survive to fight again.
Who ARE you at war with? Note, the AI does tend to trade their ships fairly frequently among themselves, so it's possible (don't know, can't see your game) that you've got, say, the Yor attacking you with Drengin & Korx-built ships.
I can normally buy a race's flagship or miner for about, if memory serves, 30-40k BC a pop. Note: I never do this, because it's never worth it. But I COULD. And this is on tough, without ridiculous diplomacy advantages-just normal ones. The ships they make are not as expensive, though.
I have a friend (actually a group of them) who refuse to acknowledge that a third Matrix movie was made. They simply will not allow that to exist in their world. And I would tend to agree, except for the fact that I saw it, and therefore have more difficulty pretending it does not exist. Don't have an opinion on games, as I'm not that hardcore of a gamer. Not quite sure if that qualifies, given your description, but I believe it's close enough.
Population growth. (Think transports mainly, at this point.) >19/20% (20/21% and up) = no growth >40% (41% & up) = normal growth. >74% (75% and up) = 1.25x growth. 100% = 2x growth. Technically, you should have no problem, after your pop has grown to its potential, with running an empire at 41% (or even 21% if you really wanted to push it, but it's nice to have some room to
@Jonnan That's actually a really good idea. I think the Korath might "benefit" more from hot pink though. (And by "benefit" I mean, be easier to find and massacre.)
[quote who="Einlanzerous" reply="7" id="1885398"]It's about time Microsoft started to push out some ads. I guess they wanted to wait for Service Pack 1 to iron out Vista's few issues. Those confused (read; fearful of change), should look into http://www.mojaveexperiment.com it's an interesting find. [/quote] The problem with the Mojave experiment is that the people in their test group did not have any knowledge of Vista, they just heard about it from (prima
[quote who="Zyxpsilon" reply="3" id="1885539"] Even if any numbers above that 'barrier' represent a steady flow of Invasion forces continually in transit by building transports every few turns, somewhat? [/quote] Yes. Since base growth stabilizes at or before 2.5B (race dependent), you *technically* don't need any more than 2.5B+enough people to man a transport on a planet for producing transports, as long as your growth is sufficient. Since in DL/D
I played TPM 2008 Express. And then I bought TPM 2008, and I've been playing the shit out of it.
[quote who="Loupdinour" reply="20" id="1885572"] GAH they must have meant 2012!!! That's the next time sep 26th falls on a Wednesday afterall....[/quote] CLEARLY, Stardock is going to end the world in 2012. Or something. I dunno.
@Willy You don't get a prompt to break alliances if you're allied with two civs who go to war with each other-at least, last time I checked. You DO, however, still get a prompt if the Altarians are involved and you're of their ethical alignment (DA & TA only)-but it's one you can refuse, as it's not alliance related.
[quote who="kryo" reply="8" id="1884338"]Microsoft has actually offered a virtual desktop app for years as part of the windows powertoys.[/quote] I didn't like that one, for a number of reasons, all of which escape me at the moment. All I remember for sure is it wasn't capable of doing what I wanted it to do. But their implementation this time around seems to be much different.
Somewhere between two and four additional scenarios were discussed, but a "launch" date was not mentioned. If I run across the thread in question, I'll link it.
@dknippe2 Thank you for reiterating the point I attempted to make-and doing it with formulas, as well. Very nice.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="1874344"]DK = don't know.[/quote] And here I was thinking it was Donkey Kong...
Skimming over the other thread discussing, among other things, Obama's qualifications or lack thereof, I did notice that in fact someone did post a link to something that might have fallen under that category, but apparently did not. Now while having given it a (very) cursory glance I can't say there's anything on there in particular that jumps out at me and I'd say "oh yes now this is why he should be president", it does beg the question, what exactly is an "accomplishment", in the pol
No, no, I was referring to the broken edit functionality as being annoying, which is SURELY not part of history. I don't know; I'm not the person who said it was their fault in the first place. But one of the reasons the 2000 election made me so angry was that I wasn't old enough to vote in it.
Also, apologies for possibly resurrecting a dead thread-I was looking for something else. My kingdom for a working edit function. I know, I know, they're working on it. It's still annoying.
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="6" id="1875804"]Not standing up to the democrats early in his term and forcing the issue. There never was any bi-partisanship because the democrats proved they had no intention of working with him. Internnationally, you may be right. But I think we will not know the Russia issue for several years to come. the real culprit is the Supreme Court's decision in 2000. HOw?[/quote] One hundred and sixty nine votes in Fl
PolMach Forums