The steam thread replies from Brad (as posted by Rhonin, http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/617336568065171463/#p1 ) seem to suggest that he believes tourism is a bit OP, and its a bit too easy to have enough money in the game. Having not mentioned any change to LEP, I am assuming they will simply nerf economics as I suggested above. Adding economic penalties as done w
dansiegel30
thanks Rhonin, quite insightful. I honestly think most everyone's wishes will indeed be put into the game, its just a matter of time.
Great job! yet another reason the AI is so militarily inefficient. One down....too many more to go...
I'd like to see a major expansion with more detailed political and socio-economic factors coming into play. ..government choices - all have pros and cons, for any type of victory path ..war exhaustion, even for an attacking race ..laws effecting entire empire, all requiring political credit to implement, have decent bonuses in the direction you want, with slight counter-productive maluses ..cabinet positions - political credit required to change, amo
I really like your proposal on a queue system. That, in combination with a simple way to pick the exact constructor from your designs and which shipyard (list of shipyards showing range, turns requiring to build the constructor with current sponsorship, and number of turns needed to flush its queue, hence how long you have to wait to begin production), from a mini-menu built into the starbase menu. It would drastically reduce micro, allow long term planning for those that w
One aspect not yet discussed is custom races. Thalan tech can manufacture a helluva lot, but they are expected to have much lower population. Terrans I suppose are the baseline (they only have a +1 in manf, while all other races except Altarian have several bonuses across manf/research/econ), and pretty much use a generic tech tree. Create a race giving you positive traits on the way you like to play, negative traits that are meaningless with your play
I call it like I see it on the screen and tooltips, as of 1.1. Deviating from the names described in the game will just add more confusion. In 1.1, its now called Raw Production, but since its coming from a tooltip, should be easy to remember. Its use is consistent in the tech tree as well.
I think this could only be solved by a cage match between George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry, but unfortunately that can't and won't happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaB_G1WNT70&t=0m52s
The parameters are called tacticalrepair and strategic repair. Tactical Repair modules can be researched via tech and placed on ships. They only work during battle. Strategic repair works outside of battle. There is a strategic repair trait which can be chosen when creating a custom race. Besides that, no other way currently to increase it. I would however love to see some type of strategic repair techs become available in the tree at some
Easier to nerf one or two, than to buff 7 or 8.
Economy is not scaled, as tourism is in no way affected by approval on a per planet basis....which it obviously should be. Watch expansionist players' tourism income grind to a halt with 0% approval, or when at war, or both. Many ways to skin this cat. But until they have numerous individual and separate LEP types of penalities, approval remains the best generic method to affect all facets (except tourism at this time). If they increased the
i have to quite often worry about my economy. The problem is IMO that tourism rewards too much for expansionist play. No tourism malus for being at war? Really? Tourism is the full amount on a planet, which was just invaded, conquered, and lost 20 BILLION citizens? Tourism mechanics literally PAY for your expansion. Tourism really needs to be treated on a per planet basis as well, taking pop, distance from the front lines, and distance from the empire core
Try the ingame tutoral and campaign. They are designed to teach you, while having fun and playing the game, giving practical scenarios to use what you have learned.
[quote who="Enzenx" reply="54" id="3569033"] Quoting marigoldran, reply 50 Which is also totally useless because you can only produce 1 ship per turn. Specialization past a certain point is actually pointless. Indeed it's massively overkill. It wa
As well, if I recall correctly, the concept of logistics is covered in the GC3 tutorial.
Its not a rocket science concept. It simply applies to what I have stated above. It has nothing to do with range, fuel (not even a concept in the game, only range), or repairs. Its simply related to the maximum number of ships you can have in a single fleet.
Logistics is the limit to your fleet size. Every ship requires logistics points, increasing with ship size. There are techs and racial traits which increase your fleet logistics limit, and there is the hyperion logistics building which can further increase all fleet logistics (from its adj bonuses) and reduce the logistics cost of each ship built there by 1. Its quite an important concept to the game, and with the current AI deficiencies in fleet combining,
Mother Hives is colony unique, not player unique? Mother F#$%!!!!!
I havent played Thalan yet, but does indeed sound interesting as its race specific techs seem to be quite useful compared to other races. Nevertheless, after looking at the improvementdefs.xml file (I hate that tooltip doesnt have this info), the hive's +5% to colony raw production per level seems to be a bit INSANE. However, if you want to compare a hive with a proper traditional manufacturing building, you need to use a power plant (namely fusion or q
True, its a tech not needed much at high end levels. I too stop researching it quite early. However, if you do end up putting even just a few life support modules on any military ship, its still worth researching, for the mass reduction techs. But yes, it would be nice to see the ratios increase a bit, from tech to tech. It would be interesting to see a game where initial life support systems have a very poor ratio (say 1:7-8), and only achieve the 1:
The 3 ideologies are not good, neutral, evil, they are all different in the eye of the beholder. Pragmatic is just as different to a Malevolent as Benevolent would be. Hell, because Pragmatic has a bit of military capacity focus (mining, construction, trade) focus, does this mean they are more or less of a threat than benevolent? But Benevolent has research and influence focus, which are 2 direct ways to win the game....so, they are ALL a threat to Malevolent. <
A law suit would not be worth their time, as these mods do not generate revenue. They certainly can't sue Stardock....that would be like the music industry suing the mobile phone industry for pirated music being played on your phones. Yes, they can still sue you regardless if you generate revenue, however I'm sure their research shows them that most modders live in their parent's basement (haha, j/k). The point is, unless you are getting a 'p
Moving planets. Inter-Galactic U-Haul. Astro Mobile Homes. Interesting, I would call it the "AI Killer".
Excellent idea. Reminds me of Hearts of Iron, with Democratic, Fascist and communist. To a neutral country, "which" ideological difference doesnt matter, simply a difference between your own ideology. Pragmatic is not neutral, its just another ideology. And yeah, a faction could hang around a "neutral" ideological position by either a) having never used any ideologies b) have an equal use of points in all 3 ideologies. A roughly neu
Well, I guess the AI isnt as stupid as I thought. It shouldnt be attacking you deep into your territory (invasions), if military strength is equal, not to mention if theirs is below yours. Even if their perceived military is much stronger than yours, current AI tactics make their military strength very ineffective. If your military is stronger than theirs, you can always be the galactic a-hole and DOW and invade them.