Cataleptic

Cataleptic

Joined Member # 632804
0 Posts 2 Replies 73 Reputation

I've played over a dozen games now, and the only times I've had serious morale trouble is with the Trogdor event, and getting overwhelmed by destabilisation attacks. If the final population growth is determined by x times a final modifier for morale, and the modifier is 0 at 50% morale then there's only two ways a planet's morale can drop significantly below that (invasions and pop-dumping notwithstanding) 1. You did something to cause morale to drop. Either raising taxes, gett

40 Replies 6,058 Views

So between the work on GalCiv... *taptaptap*... time spent on forums, newsgroups, support, *taptaptap* and time taken up by WinCustomize... *tappytaptappa* *tap* ... good lord! Frogboy's a Timelord! Where are my jellybabys? :) ~SDC~

5 Replies 192 Views

Assuming both sides of a deal are converted into a behind-the-scenes "diplocost" before the AI actually decides whether or not to accept, this makes sense. However, surely even a lead-eating AI running on ENIAC could do the maths on a cash-for-cash deal. Having said that, it does make everyone with a credit-card equally stupid :) Short-term gain for long term loss is not a new concept, and 12% interest over the term of the loan is not unreasonable :) ~SDC~

16 Replies 2,075 Views

Which still leaves the question of starbase-induced slowdowns open... could you make a black-hole sector where enemy ships go in, but never come out? ~SDC~

14 Replies 905 Views

I suspect this is strongly tied into the AI's difficultly level. However, there are several things worth noting... 1. If you've got enough spare production to build yourself several maxed out SBs while still maintaining infrastructure, a strong navy and the development of outlying SBs, you're probably winning comfortably anyway. If you're throwing all your constructors into a last-ditch effort to turn your core system into a fortress, you're probably *losing* anyway :)

1 Replies 136 Views

Nope... you can only set the victory conditions at the start of the game. This is fair enough, as (presumably) the AIs take the victory conditions into account when deciding what to do. ~SDC~

2 Replies 89 Views

Not quite... stabilisation would only serve to counter destabilisation, it wouldn't improve morale on its own. You could have an estimate of how much you should be spending, which gets more and more accurate as your espionage improves. *shrug* Just an idea :) ~SDC~

16 Replies 965 Views

Dreadnoughts can attack, and M-point for M-point can completely thrash starbases... or better still, drag someone else into your war and let *them* nuke the starbases (naturally, make a point of being first on the scene with a constructor to claim the newly-vacated resource :) ) Remember, you don't have to attack SBs at all (Terror Stars notwithstanding)... they can't stop you from invading :) ~SDC~

17 Replies 1,114 Views

I have a couple of concerns (with the normal AI, at least, haven't tried with higher). 1. It seems to value transports (and combat transports) as almost worthless. I ground a war between two other races to a screeching halt by buying all their transports each turn. Then I declared war on them and invaded with about 100B troops, and used the surplus troops to boost the population of my new acquisitions. Yikes! :) Perhaps the game should pull troops off purchased transports, and redis

28 Replies 1,432 Views

Acutally popup, I agree with your suggestion (well, mostly :) ) and was commenting on the suggestions that others have put forward (and pre-empting other ones). Although shifting funding from those that aren't using it to those that are seems a logical, stable and hands-free way to solve the problem, it *would* make it a bit tricky to keep track of and predict who'll get what. I suspect that the only way to tell if it works well is to actually build a version and play it... is there sti

205 Replies 13,063 Views

Perhaps there should be a 'stabilisation' slider, which counteracts destabilisation, but doesn't actually improve morale itself. As your espionage rating on each empire improves, you get a better idea of how much they're spending on you, and therefore how much you ought to spend on stabilisation yourself. ~SDC~

16 Replies 965 Views

If you're buying one dread per turn, you need to be making about $7000 per turn, and in *that* case the only real question is "why hasn't everyone already surrendered?" :) AFAICT, direct-buying (or even leasing) seems to be only for emergencies. However, the *resource* cost for a dread is only 380... that's only 5 core planets churning out a poxy 76 shields per turn. Normally, that production is diluted by the spatial separation of the sources, but being able to concentrate even a small

205 Replies 13,063 Views

When a ship is in orbit, its warp-engine's gravitational flux interacts with the planet's to produce resonances in the tachyon matrix which can be detected from anywhere in the galaxy. Yeah. The fog stops you from seeing ships coming (Eye Of The Universe notwithstanding), but I think it's nice that you can see what you're going to be up against when you're planning an invasion. Otherwise I think there'd be a tendancy for everyone so sit still and build up what they hope is an unstoppabl

3 Replies 489 Views