When I restart the game and reload a save, all the stars turn white. It really ruins the visual element. They are fine up until the reload. Not exactly sure how to report this, as a saved game would likely work fine on another computer.
I set my copy of GalCiv to 1280x1024, and now I can't play. I can't even get to the options screen to set it back - the game opens in windowed mode, the mouse hot spot is nowhere near the mouse icon. How do I change the resolution from outside the game?
It's a compound interest problem. After 50 turns 1.03^50 = 4.38 1.04^50 = 7.1 After 100 turns its 18.2 vs 50.5 - after 2 years, the torians will have a 2.8 times as much population as the other AI civs, wicth a correspondingly higher tax base and thus production. I get around it by keeping my approval at 100% for as long as possible, at least on my home planet, for the pop growth doubling effect. The AI isn't programmed to do
It is too easy to keep up morale. Go back to .8 When I speed build a planetary improvement, sometimes it won' be recognized. It shows up on the detail screen, but not in the upper windows or the planet list. Quitting and reloading fixed that. Saw it on both a speed built factory on a +300 and a speed built farm on a +300 - no increase in produciton, no increase in pop cap, until I reloaded. I think it's ahppened other times, but
GalCiv2 Forums
I'd love to see the surplus production overflow to the next build. 1 week per planetary improvement at 20% or 80% social spending means a lot of waste. I'd love to zip though tedious small upgrades, the way you sometiems can with research. I'd also love to see overflow from colony ship building - the computer can tweak the numbers every turn to maximize building, it's annoying to do so as a human. But eliminating wasted social production
Nice to know, Brad, but my eyes glazed over about halfway though. My main concern was if I was paying 40 BCs into social production, I want those 40 BCs to be used, not watsed. If I'm reading you correctly, that is what you did - my X BCs spent on social produciton will add X MPs to military production, no boni, if I run out of planetary improvements to build. Thats fine, so long as they are not wasted. Getting social boni, or military boni, or
Luck and abundant anomolies. Lotsa 500, 750, 1000, 2500 BC anomolies - great for the early game. Still haven't got a ranger yet, though.
Great ideas. A few requests: Can we have the minor races back? I'm playing on a huge map with all 9 major races, and there isn't even one minor race. I prefer 4 - 6 is excessive, 1 or 2 is too little. Fix tech whoring by implementing blueprints - you can only trade away blueprints to techs you know, and having a blueprint doubles research speed on that tech. Add icon and cut research time in half in research window to i
I have a similar problem, game crashes whenever I try to save my custome 2 stinger III small ship (3rd hull). This always happens, no matter tha game, but not with other designs. Problem 1: I installed Smart Exception, it sez "SDCzip" is missing and drops out when I try to create the exception, so I can't mail you anything except debug.err (which I did, several days ago) Problem 2: How do I set up an icon that runs c:/>g
GalCiv2 Forums
Speed is very powerful for the early land grab. And it's good for early warfare because you can skip putting engines on your ships and load up with weapons and troop modules instead. What he said. I also like luck - you get some great stuff from anomalies. And Populists, so I can k
It's too bad GAlCiv didn't follow the "blueprint" method of tech trading that Paradox implemented in Hearts Of Iron 2. You don't trade techs, but you can trade blueprints, which cuts research time in half. Of all the systems I've seen to handle tech trading (including the Research Point system of Victoria) I think that this is the best. It takes time to play catch up, even if someone shows you how it's done.
I don't have the game, but I was wondering if the followinf was a good way to design your ships during peacetime, when you're not sure who your next enemy will be. It seems to me, that the optimal build scheme in the absence of a clear threat and with sufficient tech (which you would need to trade for) isa fleet of three ships, each with a different attack, and 1/1/1 defence (effective 3 against all attacks), or ultimately a 4/4/4 defenc
Stardock Forums
The real problem is that it doesn't take into account Logistics. IMHO Logistics is perhaps one of the largest factors in winning any given battle. Higher logistics fleets allow lesser tech ships to defeat much higher tech ships. Sure you take casualties but your ships are a lot less expensive. I'
Please oh please... how about a Californian flag / icon / logo?
I recently picked up MOO III for $10, just for the hell of it. While I found the design philosophy of the game bizarre, it did have some neat ideas. Specifically, I liked the way they had you build ground units and form them into divisions, corps, and armys. I was wondering if GalCiv could implement a similar system of building actual ground units, forming them into larger units, and using them to defend against invasion or to invade. The main benefit would be to give the military qu
[quote]It was needed because I could use tradegoods to beatmasochistic in my sleep. Seriously, it was nochallange, the game is actually fun again.[/quote] At the risk of getting kicked off GalCiv, WTF cares if it is easy for you? It isn't easy for the rest of us. If it was easy for you to "beat masochistic in my sleep" it is because you have figured out a way to beat the game. Not WIN the game, but BEAT it. You found a loophole. I'm sorry, I'm not wasting my time on an
I've taken to leaving constructors hanging out around the AI's resource starbases. Every now and then, one of them get toasted in the course of a war, and I snatch up the resource. In the game I'm playing, I had gotten tired of waiting and was sending dreadnoughts to Yor starbases to kill them. Once I was in position, I would strike. Before I get there, the Altarians (my friends) kill one of them. So I snatch it up with my handy constructor and forward my ships to the next base.
The cover up on the USS Liberty was to cover LBJ's ass. He called back the air cover that would have prevented the second attack which killed 50 (IIRC) people.
Stardock Forums
I did come up with a real example. The way Europe and the US were able to wreck other economies though technology trade. The way the first world STILL engages in economic colonialism to loot third world countries for the profit of the multi-nationals. I mean, hell, the reason Japan and China are ignoring American IP is because it was too expensive to keep up licensing the technology. The present trading offers are so low that I don't even want to bother to trade with the AI, like in C
They refuse to trade with you, or offer you very little, and they do trade with each other? Pah! Civ 3 all over again. That explains why they had battleships when I was still working on building batteaxes... back before I dropped from Crippling (Genius) to Painful (Intellegent). I was able to keep ahead of research in my last game, but they paid me diddly squat when I tried to trade/sell them anything. I hate 1.3. I haven't hated a game this much since Civ 3. Which is sa
Well, I have a game where I start with Earth as a class 17 planet. At 39% taxes, I get a 95% morale on Earth. The main reason this bothers me is because it slows down Earth's population growth in the early game, when I am building colonizers. At 42%, Earth is at 82%. Above 42, my 100 pop PQ 15 starts losing morale (and thus pop growth). And there are only PQ 18- stars in my little corner of the universe (granted, there are a LOT of them, but still). If I up to 50% taxation, I get mo
I take it this was added in 1.03a? Because I've never seen it before. What about raising taxes? Will that decrease morale so that it stays below 50%? Or will it just decrease taxpaying population? From what you're saying, the low morale just results in slower population growth and lower maximum population. And losing the elections, of course.
If scouts cost 1 bc/turn, this really hurts the human player in the early game. Why? Because the AI doesn't build scouts - they don't need to. Was there any thought of how much this would disadvantage the human players in the early game? I usually build 4 of the critters - and 4bc/turn is a LOT in the early game. I don't oppose the 1 bc per - in fact, I'd support making constructors and colony ships 1 bc per. But only if you found a way to give the players more money in the early ga
I've given up on a game of 1.3 as beng not fun to play. One of my problems was a very low morale. In 1.1 I was able to maintain 60% taxation, in 1.2 50%, in 1.3 even 40% is causing me problems. I always research diplomacy and switch governments as soon as possible (and then research trade). Is the new government the reason maintaining morale is so hard in this new version? Or did something else change? I even had all of the +morale trade goods, and I still couldn't keep the peo
Stardock Forums
Personally, I hate 1.03. It reminds me of Civilization 3 - so focused on making it hard to win that it's no fun to play. The game got so hard I had to drop back down to painful from crippling. And, despite the fact that I am winning my current game (I think) I'm seriously considering not finishing the game - with 1.03, GalCiv lost the "just one more turn" effect. Tho, for me it was mainly the change in tech trading. When I offer 12 techs to a race, I expect a hell of a lot more than