Oh boy..cultural victory is not working. The timer doesn't leave 12 months. I went 15 months just to be sure that it wasn't merely the display timer that was buggy.
Bearcave
Something iis definitely peculiar. I just had a dialog pop up saying I had completed stuff that had already finished. This game was started with 1.040...perhaps that's the issue.
CariElf, I'm seeing strange behavior with the updating of the planet list in the domestic policy screen. For instance, I might move a slider down and see the time to complete a project DECREASE. Then if I click the planet, it changes. Also, if i click up then down (on the arrows) repeatedly, the time to complete varies (for a given percentage)...that is, go up then down and the completion time is not always the same. Thanks, this is a wonderful improvement once the kinks are
How about "Your eyes are like two Drengin Overlords floating in the serene vastness of space"?
While it is fun to go into a UP vote knowing you completely control the outcome, this is an interesting idea.
Yellow Sign, thanks for the reminder about what Pontius said. I think he's right and meant to mention that point before. Valamir is also right IMO. We're discussing how the scoring should work without having agreed upon (or understanding what Stardock wishes) the function of the metaverse. Brad, I'm also wondering if any consideration has been given to scoring games by comparing submissions to previously submitted games using similar criteria. That is, if you achieve a military vi
Wow, some great great posts in here. Many good suggestions. I think it is important to recognise where there is overlapping influence on scoring. For instance, production is good, allowing us to build a wonder, which increases morale, thus increasing population, which increases production. Also, after reading some of the posts, I think it is important not to create a system where a mad rush to victory results in a markedly higher score than the player who takes their time and leis
There are sliders...they aren't exceptionally functional, and they are *tiny*, but they are there. I didn't notice them at first either.
Well I'd been fooling around with a military game, but that style of play just isn't for me. So, I decided to start anew, but I'd up the AI level a bit this time. So, medium galaxy, common, clusters, all subnormal. I decided to go with the pacifists this time then added +60 diplo, +10 influence, and luck. The first map that came up had an isolated planet with virtually nothing else within 3 sectors, so I hit ctrl-N. On the next go, Earth had a PQ of 20 and Sol IV had a
For the first question, you can set an auto pilot for a selected ship by right-clicking on the map (you can use the mini-map too). I don't think the latter is possible, but I'm no expert. Maybe this functionality will be added when rally points are added this summer. Actually, the manual says you can click on the icon with the arrow in the ship list and send them to the sector you are currently viewing on the map, but I haven't used this before. [Message Edited]
Thank you Ray. Is this actually documented anywhere? A faq of little-known tricks might be a great idea.
Can you make a group of ships move at the rate of the slowest (e.g. a transport)? If so, please explain what to do.
Code Monkey, This was the rationale I used earlier in Sergey's thread for the factors involving (My X)/(Total Galactic X) where X could be PQ, tech researched, military might, etc. The point of using this type of proportion was to make games equitable regardless of how common habitable planets are. There may well be an adjustment for this in the current scoring algorithm, I have no idea. [Message Edited]
Well I played a game with luck in a mid-sized galaxy and the only precursor ships that showed up were some corvettes that the Alterians found. I did, however, get real lucky with a UP resolution near the start that gave me several free techs...of course that may have had nothing to do with the luck modifier.
Re: Alliances, I thought about that CM, but there has to be some weight given to your strength in the alliance. that is, if you're 10% of the strength versus 90% there should be a difference in the score. Also, it seems to me that an Alliance victory is easier than a military victory, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
You can spend money to boost morale on planets that you are in danger of losing. I think there is a slider for that on the detail screen for each individual planet. If you want to flip an enemy planet that is teetering, a starbase with a few cultural additions can work wonders.
RayChua, I made the same suggestion...yesterday I think. Not one person replied to the thread, which I took to mean noone cares. *shrug* I'd like to see the empire activities and roleplaying encouraged, but not at the expense of the main forum.
I'm not certain why population really needs to be factored in, as it opens up the possibility for exploitation. Aren't there other ways to get at the same thing, such as PQ (or better ratio of PQ held to total PQ in galaxy)? Better still, why not base the score on map size, rather than use population as an indicator of map size? More importantly it sounds as if persons who chose to play with rare planets under the current system will be penalized because population is smaller than if
I messed around with this just a little bit the other day. It is going to get really tedious...lots of clicking turn repeatedly. One problem is ramping up the research machine as much as possible with so few planets. I note you said "offensive ships" so you could mine resources outside your sector, which is cool. The setup I began with the other day had a research resource in the sector and I think 3 yellow stars, one with 5 planets between 14 and 16. Nothing spectacular in terms
You can also select it then click on the info button (the round one with the "i") at the bottom of the screen where the name of the starbase and basic stats are given.
Roy, there are a number of other threads explaining that the scoring has been changed. There is also a thread which said that a number of submissions failed and that you should resubmit your score.
Give them a chance. They'll probably rescore the old games so they use the same scale, then all will be right again.
It would be interesting if you could pay someone a large sum not to trade a technology.
Bruce, I thought you continued to get tribute money even if an AI was eliminated.
Thanks. Apparently Camp Freddie made this same suggestion on 4/25. The sisue seems to be not implementing something like this, but the need to rebalance the game that would supposedly result. It seems the game balance is predicated on a certain amount of wasted production.