I too am not having my email recognized as a founder. My wife bought it for me via her email, but then I merged the two accounts and at one point had access to the founders' area. As of today, logging in to the founders' area says I'm not a founder any more. Hmm. So, having said all that - checking my badge. ... ok, the badge works, but I've lost access to the Founder's area. At least the forums re
I actually voted for politics on the poll, but I didn't really understand the difference between that and "advanced diplomacy." I considered boh options to be approximately the same thing. Adding the results makes sense ... or repolling with some definitions as to what the devs mean by "politics" vs. "advanced diplomacy."
xpyre wrote: On 1.2 if they develop the correct defence method to your only attack method (seems random) then there are some almost unwinnable positions. I'd suggest restarting if this happens. I played Achilles' Heel for the first time last night and faced this exact situation. The DL had escort ships with speed 14 and shield defen
I like Brad's idea. Not only does it allow you to better customize the gameplay you will experience, but it also removes the artificial barriers that allow for more challenging gameplay. For instance: in v1.2, the jump in difficulty from crippling to masochistic is difficult for many players to overcome because of the huge resource bonuses that the AI players get at masochistic. Being able to increase the AI resources to 125% or 150% of normal instead of 200% or more as proscribed b
GalCiv2 Forums
pedxing wrote: or Star Frontiers? mmmmm... dralasites! Wow, now that is a blast from the past. I haven't played Star Frontiers in ... well, in a long time. Over 20 years. I still have a boxed set or two sitting around, right next to my original D&D and Powers & Perils boxed sets. If they were in decent shape, they might even be
In addition to El Conquest's tips on relations: Researching up the diplomacy tree helps out your relations with other races. The more you can talk to them in a way they can understand, the more friendly they will be. Also, having a moderately strong military is also important. Races tend to think poorly of you when your military is weak, and they will often attack you for just that reason alone. Make sure that you are in the middle of the pack, or slightly ahead of most races mili
For those who want to know where the other thread is, look here: Link
One thing to keep in mind is that the AI does not cheat. This is relevant in that the AI does not know where your ships are unless your ships come within sensor range of the AI ships. Having scout ships parked all over the galaxy is one way of implementing a sensor net to see what your enemies are up to. Perhaps I am just justifying the presence of enemy scouts all over the place, and those ships are just sitting there because there is no more space to explore. However: you know ho
Finding this thread was a very pleasant surprise. Even though the quality of most posts on these forums had me thinking that we weren't composed of a bunch of 15 year-olds (Marcathonas, you are really 15?!? ... you are the most mature 15-yo I have seen post!), I didn't expect to be surrounded by near-age or older peers here. I'm a child of the 70's. 35 years young here. I've been gaming on PCs for nearly 25 years - I remember cutting my teeth on Loderunner, Wizardry (Proving Groun
Stardock has already done the recalculation of scores, with a minor exception that throws everything off. Any scores from games started during v1.11 beta 1 through v1.11 beta 2 were excluded from the recalc. Scores from those games are still in the hundreds of thousands and are skewing the scores of several players in the top 50 or so (including mine, unfortunately). I don't think that the exclusion was intentional; those games were started when the scoring system was changed to i
I get around this issue by naming each starbase so you know which one you are upgrading. I've actually been doing this since v1.0. For instance, on a military (red) resource, I'll name the base "Red Earth" or whatever sun is closest. An economic base I'll call "Econ Wardell" or whatever. This really helps when you have 10 or 20+ starbases when playing on the larger galaxies. What would really make my day is if the SD team would allow a checkbox for "automatic rally point assignm
Based on how you describe yourself, I think that GC2 would fit the bill perfectly. But don't take my word for it. There is a demo in the downloads section. Try it for yourself! I think you won't be disappointed.
Perhaps I'm a bit ... um, detail oriented ... but I have a system I use. I name my ships by the hull size, the race I'm playing, some short unique name, and the ship's individual characteristics. For example, a common name is SH Mage 4x6x2x23, where: S = small hull (T, S, M, L, H are the options) H = human race (I play all races and save all my designs) Mage = short, unique name 4 = ship speed 6 = attack rating; might be followed by b, m, or g
PirateRob said: selecting "Upgrade" now deletes all the "Jewelry" parts as well as the functional parts of the design. I did not experience this problem at all during my 1.2 beta-1 game, and I upgraded my ships throughout the game. Perhaps the check box in the options screen inadvertently became unchecked?
I just posted my first 1.2 beta-1 score to the metaverse after a nice, alliance-victory game on a painful, huge universe. The new combat system seems much more reasonable than the original, and I like nearly all of the changes that have been made. My bug: the metaverse has detected cheat codes on the game I just uploaded. Link I've never used cheat codes - in fact, I don't even know how to use them in this
Morghenes wrote: I also assign rally points to starbases right a way. But that still leaves upgrading starbases a pain in the a** , because the really points are not sorted alphabetically in the list. Instead rally points are sorted chronologically, I don't find that very handy. This frustrates me as well. I want the option of sorti
P.S. to the OP: how does one pronounce your name, and is there any special significance to it? It must be a b*tch to log in.
The "reload and miss a turn of production" feature is known, and IIRC, intentional, though I am not sure of the rationale behind that design choice. I fully agree about upgrade costs for multiple ships, brought up recently: Link I have had the exact same experience with transports and minor races that you describe. In fact, I had no ships within several sectors of the minor race, and they still
The trade embargo check box on the minor race screen will not let you check it when you are allied to a minor race. I am frustrated by this omission as well. I would very much like to be able to break alliances with minor races. Now that I have learned the hard way that I can't, I won't ever form an alliance with one again.
One more "I would like to see ..." with regard to ship upgrades. When you upgrade all ships of the same class, it costs much more than upgrading each ship individually. This shifts the burden from the computer to the human player to find each ship you want upgraded individually and upgrade it, rather than simplifying the process for the same price. When upgrade time comes, this turns the 4X game into a "hunt down each and every ship and upgrade it individually, else pay a steep fee,
GalCiv2 Forums
I am interested in seeing additional art added (I enjoy designing my own ships for sure). However, I would rather see the same internal funds used on something more relevant to gameplay. If they can be used to further work on another spectacular game (i.e., Society instead of GCII), that's fine with me. This is not an easy call for me, as I can see both sides of the coin. The graphics in GCII are pretty, and I enjoy ship and jewelry variety as much as the next player. At the end of the day,
After checking some of the other scores in the metaverse, I am convinced that there is a problem with no recalculation of all the early beta games. Nearly all of the submissions from players in the top 10 from v1.1 beta-1 through v1.1 beta2A are in the hundreds of thousands, when the subsequent games are in the tens of thousands. I hope that these scores, too, will be recalculated!
Uh oh, one more note: something looks wrong. I think that they may not be totally done with the recalc yet. Or if they are, not ALL of the scores were redone. All of my scores except two feel right. Those two are from games I started during v1.1 beta-1. I know I did well in those games, but not as well as my scores indicate. My scores are here: Link After the recalc, I am not expecting a 102,0
Hooray! Hooray! The recalc has been completed! Thank you Brad and the rest of Stardock! I ended up climbing about 100 spots to make the top 50. That makes me feel much better about how well I think I've been doing playing the game, as I am playing exclusively at crippling now. My initial scores - the ones I submitted while learning the nuances of the game at low levels - are hilarious to see, with most under 2,000 or 3,000. Hopefully all the scores will be m
Watches work for you? Because they've never worked for me. Not once. I've never had a problem with the watch list - it emails me when threads are updated and everything.
GalCiv3 Forums