Entropy68

Entropy68

Joined Member # 642572
0 Posts 0 Replies 100 Reputation

In my latest game the Torians, who were leading in Tech, had several techs without any of the required prerequisites. Virus Elimation was one I remember and the tech that builds the terraformer. The games is my latest in the Metaverse.

363 Replies 19,637 Views

Another "cheesy" tactic the long leases allow is using Mitrosoft to buy everything during the end-game. This can make military conquests fast & cheap, since you don't have to worry about paying those leases off. Even if it kills your economy, it's no big deal because the game will end in a year or so anyway.

21 Replies 1,144 Views

In the game I just finished (Gigantic/Crippling), I had the opportunity to win two ways on the same turn. Basically, I reached a cultural and tech victory on the same turn and I ended up with the tech victory. I went back to an autosave and played through, but adjusted my research to delay the tech victory by one turn, thereby getting a cultural victory. Here are my Metaverse scores for the two virtually identical games: Tech win: 3662 Cultural: 1840 With all else being

25 Replies 874 Views

Here's a tip for taking high-population systems with a limited number of transports. First, send them in to attack one at a time, knowing that you'll loose the first few battles. This is a good thing, because you can use some of the other attack methods (besides "traditional attack") to give you a big bonus. You'll kill a lot more of the enemy this way before you die than with the "traditional attack." Here's the nice thing - if you use one of the alternate attack methods and loose t

14 Replies 820 Views

Frogboy, You're correct that logistics is the greatest long-term cost of large pieces of military equipment (Aircraft Carriers and SB's), but the upfront costs are great as well, as are "personnel" costs such as pay, training, etc. But that's probably a subject for another forum since much of that couldn't and shouldn't be added to the game. I'm glad you're looking at a logistics ability - it really makes sense to me! I also am really excited by the possibility of specialized

130 Replies 11,273 Views

Here are my additions to what's been said: I'm against a hard limit of any kind - by sector or by race. Hard limits aren't necessary if the economics of SB's are programmed correctly. In essence, as someone else mentioned, the law of diminishing returns should apply here. Yes, you could build 10 starbases in each sector, but the economic/military/cultural benefit would that much greater than 5, or whatever number of SB's. I kind of relate SB's to US Aircraft Carriers. Maybe

130 Replies 11,273 Views

Horatio, "Milking" weak opponents dry is a separate problem, I think. What I consider to be the main issue is the fact that the AI doesn't treat (otherwise equal) trades it initiates in a consistent way with trades a human player initiates. Witness the example I gave above as well as the fact that the AI refuses trades that are obviously to its benefit (The cash-for-cash and influence-for-influence examples already given). I believe the cash-for-cash problem also affects trad

41 Replies 1,571 Views

I Think Throngor is onto something here. Take this example I just tested: The Arcaens initiated a trade with me (they are "neutral" to me right now and we have approximately the same amount of military force), asking for 1D phasing in exchange for artificial gravity. I declined the trade then immediately made the same offer back. He refused. I then added all the techs I had at that time to the deal - a total of 6 technologies for controlled gravity, and they offer was still refused.

41 Replies 1,571 Views