[quote]Maybe it'll be incorperated in future patches. [/quote] I'd be more optimistic of this if it ever got mentioned. I know we're not supposed to harp on "our favorite bugs" but sometimes it would be nice if a dev would just acknowledge that they're aware something exists and it's actually a bug or intentional.
[quote]I agree that it is a bit annoying that the skull won't go away, but right now, it takes to failed checks for the system to revolt. So that skull will stay so you remember. [/quote] Sure, two failed checks, but two failed checks from two completely different cultures? or two failed checks separated by decades? It's a reminder that the underlying system is flawed more than anything else. When I get a skull in 2179 and it's still the in 2204 when I control 90% of the system
What sort of sense does that make, though? If having 2X some other influence makes you make a resist check, then getting your influence to 2X the aliens should let you make a check to get rid of it. What, because some system was in love with another culture 20 years ago, it's still on the cusp of flipping today? Or worse, because a system nearly flipped to the Drengin in 2182, it's 1 step from flipping to the Torians? My feeling is that it's a bad design element that they won't
You'll enjoy this bug as a bonus for all of about one game, then you'll curse that they haven't tracked it down yet. The AI is already pretty bad at handling terror stars, giving it an 8 move isn't even fun after you see it once. It's basically like taking on a peewee football league with M1-Abrams tank.
Well, this one isn't hard to figure out: the AIs all have planets with +30%PQ and +40% Econ in addition to any political party or racial bonus picks. You have no chance of keeping up in pop or econ with Maso AI.
Going to go with Cari-Elf on this one. Asking a game designer to "fix" something that isn't a bug because you can't avoid doing it but think it affects your fun if you do is the definition of 'non-issue'. Somewhere out there are thousands of players who think, "Thank the space gods!" when they come across a minor now because they'll have a chance until the minor's money runs out. But, no, they should all lose this opportunity because they ruin *your* fun. It's a choice
[quote]#8 Duglis - what musuem are you antiquities director of? [/quote] Heh, at my current job, I've got a shrink wrapped box of Windows 3.0 complete with big, fat manual from the day they still made those sitting on the shelf over one of the benches, now that's an antique.
The terror star megamove is a bug that's been in the game since the beginning. It happens when you stack it with another ship and it adopts the movement of the stacked ship for some unknown reason (although I'll bet it's because there's pointer set incorrectly somewhere in the code). Solution: don't stack terror stars with ships, as annoying as that is.
It's a shame that every game that gets played isn't somehow magically submitted to a behind the scenes metaverse because I'd be curious to see if it actually looks like there's a market for coding in such a thing. My personal suspicion is that the only people playing even Gigantic are the couple of hundred people here on this forum. I can't stand anything bigger than Large, and the more I play, the more I think even that's too much micromanagement to fun. What I'd be much more
In a similar vein, I have found myself at war with an AI with no declaration of war prior to them attacking some ship of mine. I shrugged it off since it didn't make much difference gameplay-wise, but I am curious if it's a bug or a 'sneak attack by design'.
I've seen Frogboy toss around the idea, but as Ray says, there's none currently so far as anyone knows. I can say that I hope there would never be such a system activated. Not only do I have to take breaks between evenings, I commonly sneak in a few minutes here and there at work ;) Punishing all the gamers because of what a small percentage of 'no-lifers' abuse is bad game design so hopefully this will remain far away from the game. Also, given the freqency of CTDs (g
[quote]There is certainly nothing wrong with others liking or winning via Alliance victory. To each his own that makes the game fun. And having fun playing the game is all that really matters, no matter how you do it. I think we can both agree on that, no?[/quote] Certainly. My reaction stems from that I'd seen you put down Alliance wins twice in recent history and this has become a bit of a crusade issue for me. Whether you like a particular victory type should be a purely individual m
[quote]Sorry CM. I really don't know where you are coming from since I rarely post as it is and have never posted about this sort of thing except once in this thread. You may have me confused with someone else. [/quote] No, it's you; I'm going by your recent comments in the 'Military Conquest' thread in addition to what was posted here. I was a bit hyperbolic above, sure, but you are certainly on record putting down alliance wins.
[quote]Don't get your panties in a wad.I guess you haven't looked at my submitted games. Only one was military conquest. [/quote] Well, what you do or do not do is not related to your stance in this thread and others that there's something inherently 'easy' about other victory paths and that they aren't worth as much as the military path. So, no, I didn't look at your submitted games, but I've certainly seen enough of this belligerent attitude from you regarding those of us who think th
Stardock Forums
subject says it all
Stardock Forums
I've played a lot of games on Painful and it's gotten to where I win about 8/10 games, so I figured I'd make a point of winning a Crippling to see what I thought. Before I've played a handful of Crippling but always lost in the early game phase. Now, this is obviously based on limited data, but after the harder early game was over, it was much easier than on Painful from that point out because of two factors: Those AI econ bonuses that made the early game so hard became a huge
[quote]Ummm, why is this a flaw? Being "good" doesn't mean you don't extort or start wars. Just look at the real world around you.....or even in history. The Crusades where in the name of "good". [/quote] Because a game shouldn't force you into the role of the cynical 'good' of human history. That makes alignment nothing more than another racial pick for the Terrans. It would be nice to be genuinely saintly and try and unite everyone and actually be rewarded for it. Just becau
Well then you should have said that ;) LSN does meet your posted criteria :p
Laser Squad Nemesis :D Squad based tactical combat from the devs of X-Com:UFO; it's subscription based which seems a bit of a turn off at first until you realise for the time you'll probably keep at it, it's not going to cost you more than any other video game. http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/ There's a free demo which serves as a tutorial.
Alliance wins would be less "cheesey" if it weren't so easy to achieve conflicting alliances. Because admittedly, you can just play nicey nice with all the survivors until you get them all close then ally with everyone in a single turn and win even though they may have been at war with one another. OTOH, the alliance win is already penalized in that your pop, tech, etc. is probably much less than in any other victory method so why do we need an additional penalty? If we
[quote]What can you really add to GalCiv II ???[/quote] Possibilities for GalCiv2: More developed diplomacy model. More tactical combat model. More time to improve the basic AI to handle more complex tasks. More balanced tech tree based on what they've learned from GalCiv. Branching tech tree. Branching "story" line based on events (this may be along the lines of whatever the "linked events" in the expansion pack are). Multiplayer support. Streamline
OronHaus, you are the one talking exception. When I focus on culture, here's what I do: Wait until month 12 of the culture win, declare war. By that point I have reached a two fold advantage. First, I've probably flipped a number of alien systems: advantage me. At that point, my military need is minimal because as I weaken and demoralize the enemy, my culture does 50% or more of the conquering for me. Then, within a couple of years, the enemy is gone, and I get all the credit for a mili
[quote]My take (opinion, of course) is that if it is easier, it shouldn't be worth as much. If you are in the position to win one way MUCH earlier than another, it should be worth less.[/quote] The point I was trying to make and why I completely, 100% disagree with you is that you missed the forest for the trees: In the overwhelming majority of cases by the time you can achieve cultural or alliance wins you have won the game except for the button mashing. In the cases of cultur
[quote]Well, you wanted realism!! :)[/quote] Not sure who this was directed at but I hope it wasn't me. I've been championing the cause of good gameplay over realism from day one. Good gameplay is not the result of "forcing" everyone to go for military wins. Alliance wins are worth it sometimes because they can avoid a lot of tedium, but they might as well disable cultural and tech wins because in 9/10 cases, if you're in a position to win by either of these, you're a few years from a
The issue is the penalty applied to every victory path *except* military. Frogboy is under the delusion that these are easier and/or "too powerful" and are therefore properly punished; i.e. the claim is that the longer time to reach Tech or Culture means your score would have been too high because of extra points from pop, tech, wonders, etc. so they must be lowered. Alliance wins are just flat out hosed because not only do you miss out on all the juicy score from personally controlling