Vorlin, I don't think nobody's post was silly at all. He mentioned that he found that the game was getting boring, and explained why. Even if you disagree, to dismiss the post as "one of the silliest posts I've read in a good while", and reply with snide sarcastic remarks to his valid points is extremely childish.
I believe a part of the probelm is the way combat works. Put simply there isn't really much difference between an offensive or defensive ship since both the attacker and defender will use both their offensive and defensive attributes during any combat (assuming the defender survives past the first round).
Stardock Forums
If someone posted a similar "funny" article about GalCiv here, they would be accused of trolling.
Perhaps it should simply be impossible to purchase trade goods & wonders.
One thing I'd like to see is a message that pops up whenever any race begins work on a trade good/wonder (listing which system it's being built on), as well as another warning shortly before completion. Also, does anyone know what happens to production put towards trade goods/wonders if somebody beats you to completing it?
ICS = Infinite City Sprawl Basically Civ I, Civ II, and SMAC had a design imbalance where founding a new city was equivalent to getting an extra worker (ie. Creating the Settler unit costed you one worker, but then founding a new city would get you a worker in the city centre in addition to another one in your new city). People realized that you could take advantage of this by literally covering the map with as many cities as possible. This lead to a very easy, and very dull, game. Civ
I would have to say that SMAC is a far deeper game. For example, where colony management in GalCiv consists of settling on a planet with a high 'rating' and then setting items in the build cue, in SMAC, it consists of picking an appropriate building site taking into account the various attributes of the outlinning terrain (altitude, climate, mineral availability, defensibility), you then have to choose where to place your people in order to concentrate on growth, energy, or production,
Daetrinn, To be honest, I've never tried to confirm that the bonuses across multiple starbases multiply. I read it somewhere, and just assumed it was correct. It could very well be wrong.
Daetrinn, I read somewhere that different starbase bonuses are multiplied, but I don't remember exactly where. Your math is incorrect. Two multiplied bonuses of 100%, would in fact be 400% Think of it this way, 1 bonus of 100% is: x + (x * 100%) = x + x = 2x 2 Bonus of 100 % (which are multiplied and not added) is: y + (y* 100%) where y = x + (x * 100%) = 2x or 2x + (2x * 100%) = 2x +2x = 4x If you had z number of starbases
Midnightsun, Just a small correction to your summary. Currently, 2 starbases with bonuses of 100% will give you 400% since bonuses across starbases are multiplied (as opposed to bonuses on the same starbase which are just added).
Stardock Forums
I would say that in terms of effective military decision making, this game does seem to lack depth. In comparing the combat system to that of my favorite 4x game (SMAC), it's obvious just how little there is to think about or do in the GalCiv system. -SMAC had 3 different types of units (land, air, and sea) each with their own movement restrictions/rules -SMAC had zones of control, as well as terrain modifiers, which added a tactical dimention to military engagements<b
I like ith's idea as well. The real problem is not the starbases themselves, it's the fact that the benefits stack. ith's solution is simple and elegant.
I remember that Brad mentioned somewhere that the AI does get extra ability points on incredible. I'm not sure about the other levels. Also, for the sake of completness, you should also mention that the AI does know the location of the good planets at the start of the game, and perhaps the resources.
Yin, I agree with you completely. In fact, after a few games, I'm beginning to feel that GalCiv also suffers from ICS (infinite Constructor syndrom). I also just read that bonuses spread accross multiple starbases in a sector are multiplied together, rather then added. This gives yet another reason to create an obscene number of starbases, rather then build up a few good ones, and as a result, reduces the incentive to research some of the higher level tech required for the best modules
I agree with Valamir, it is obvious that the starbase is the better military target. Arguing about semantics is pointless.
Stardock Forums
My rule of thumb is that I want my planets to be at least class 18 after SE and HI, so I would only be able to go down to class 14, even with +15% PQ
Thanks for the replies. I tend to think that having all your trade routes between the same 2 planets is a little unbalancing, simply because it makes it much easier to maximize your income by building all your trade improving starbases along the same route. I suppose it is more risky, but I'm not sure how much of a practical consideration that is.
Can you create 2 or more trade routes from the same source planet to the same destination?
Stardock Forums
Rusty, I'm thoroughly touched by your story. Thank you for sharing.
Actually, I was hoping the game would switch into some kind of Wing Commander or Tie Fighter clone. :)
> Padlock: Because I put in artificial IF THEN's in > there. That makes sense. So the AI was happy to pay you as much tribute as possible until it hit a conditional hardcoded limit! Now I'm really anxious to try a game with the new fix!
Interesting. One question though. Given that paying you tribute was helping the AI, why wasn't it prepared to pay an infinite amount to you? In other words, why when you asked for too much, would the AI refuse the deal?
By the way, if anyone is interested in playing great boardgames online, there a site called BrettSpielWelt which hosts free games of "Settler's of Catan", "Puerto Rico", "Carcassonne" and many other great games. The only problem is that this site is entirely in German. There are a large number of English speakers there however who are always ready to help. For more information, have a look at: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/index.php/BrettSpielWelt <br
I agree completely. The number of starbases any one race can build per sector should be limited. The only potential problem I see as what would you do about TerrorStars that are moved into a sector already at it's maximum?
I believe I read somewhere that you get more money the further the mini-freighter is away from your planet. If that's the case, in order to maximise trade income, it would make the most sense to build all your trade enhancing starbases in the sector closest to the destinatioin planet, rather then all along the trade route. You may not get a boost every turn, but it should average out to be much higher.