I know about tax rate, fixing morale on a planet is NOT impossible. The problem is that if one, usually the lowest class planet is uhappy the whole star system defects even if the rest of the planets in that system are very, very happy. This makes no sense whatsoever. Either low morale on one planet should negatively affect morale on others in the same star system and it should be reflected or vice versa the good morale on other planets should contribute to the improvement of morale on the unhap
Papa718thTFW
I would like to see the following fixed to make sense: Another BUG (or feature Ha-Ha!) or maybe a brilliant design decision, dunno which, so I post it here: Solar system. Three planets in it. Two are class 20 and 24. Third one is class 18. The first two have morale of 100%. The third one has morale of 12%. I am out of money, I watch morale continue to drop. I am building, say Entertainment Net there but it is still a few turns from completion, I have 100% of planet income set t
Another BUG (or feature Ha-Ha!) or maybe a brilliant design decision, dunno which, so I post it here: Real Game example: Solar system. Three planets in it. Two are class 20 and 24. Third one is class 18. The first two have morale of 100%. The third one has morale of 12%. I am out of money, I watch morale continue to drop. I am building, say Entertainment Net there, I have 100% of planet income set to propaganda. Not enough. THEN THE WHOLE STAR SYSTEM (including the two planets
I would like to see the following fixed to make sense: I've had this happen too (a LOT): Working closely with MY spies Alexians or I-League (or whatever minor race) manages to steal all tech of a major race. Then they refuse to trade the techs for ANY price. This has happened to me at ANY stage in the game. All techs may have different purposes but each has a "counterpart" in any field/level. Say, Battleship and Star Democracy are in different fields but at the same general lev
[quote]That is what I don't want. See a dumb tactical ai. I know I'm smarter than an ai. Ever played auto in one of those games? You see so many tactical blunders that it's impossible to resist playing by hand, and I just don't want that.[/quote] No-no. Auto would be EXACTLY the way it is now. No change. You are happy with the way Ship-to-Ship is now. Right? Adding tactical would allow players to win where auto ALWAYS fails. This game is ALWAYS a catchup to the AI in the size and quanti
Question: In the planet Details screen you can review what buildings have been built on the planet and how many BCs it costs to maintain each. If you click on, say, Manufacturing Center you get the option to "Cancel Project". What does this do? Does it destroy the building and if you want it back you have to build it again or does it turn the building off until you click on it again and (supposedly) choose "Resume Project" or something to this effect? Anyone know? Thanks.
:( :( :( :( Thanks :( :( what a stupid design decision... yet another one :sniff!: :sniff!: Hey, I recall Caesar 3 (a very old game). There too it cost you to have industries operating primarily in that your limited workforce would be spread thin and understaffed industries would operate very inefficiently. But you had the option to turn a factory (or whatever) on or off thus redistributing your workers who would then look for work elsewhere. How simple and USEFUL is this?
I've had this happen too (a LOT): Working closely with MY spies Alexians or I-League (or whatever minor race) manages to steal all tech of a major race. Then they refuse to trade the techs for ANY price. This has happened to me at ANY stage in the game. All techs may have different purposes but each has a "counterpart" in any field/level. Say, Battleship and Star Democracy are in different fields but at the same general level of research. On many occasions I have offered a minor races e
Guys, In the planet Details screen you can review what buildings have been built on the planet and how many BCs it costs to maintain each. If you click on, say, Manufacturing Center you get the option to "Cancel Project". What does this do? Does it destroy the building and if you want it back you have to build it again or does it turn the building off until you click on it again and (supposedly) choose "Resume Project" or something to this effect? Anyone know? Thanks.
[quote]The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form.I disagree. I don't want the game to be abusable as MOO (or MoM) was, and don't want it to last forever either.[/quote] Brother, there is always an option to resolve combat automatically, pretty much the way it is now. But many players would welcome the chance to win because they are smarter, not because their ships have more hit points or attack points.
Oh, another Fleet Supply Ship upgrade could be something to help repair the fleet faster. I also forgot to mention how bombing would work. I would imagine that if the planet has defending ships in orbit, sending the bomber there would result in ship-to-ship first. Once (or if) there are no defending ships in orbit the menu comes up with what has been built on that planet and the player can click, say, "Starship Foundry" -- and boom, no more "Starship Foundry" on that planet.
While this suggestion may be a little too late to be included in the x-pack, I hope it is good enough to be considered for future game updates. I can see from great many posts that players agree: We want Bomber class of ships. Here is the rationale: It is not always practical/feasible, nor does it always serve your interests to invade or blockade enemy star systems. Instead, it is often preferable to damage/destroy his infrastructure to make him less dangerous or force him to t
While this suggestion may be a little too late to be included in the x-pack, I hope it is good enough to be considered for future game updates. I can see from great many posts that players agree: We want Bomber class of ships. Here is the rationale: It is not always practical/feasible, nor does it always serve your interests to invade or blockade enemy star systems. Instead, it is often preferable to damage/destroy his infrastructure to make him less dangerous or force him to t
Thread is SO long that maybe this has been said. Still, it cannot be said enough: The game desperately needs some sort of Tactical Ship-to-Ship Combat in ANY shape or form. Why? Because of the following: We have some two dozen combat ship types to choose from but we never choose anything. All ships have the same function and the only difference between offensive ships and defenders/battle hammers and such is speed and range. Simply put, there is absolutely no reason to
Thanks. I will after work :)
Just saw a post on galciv newsgroup about money still being spent on planets even if they are not producing anything. The author was asking if it is a bug. All replies to this post are wrong, so I decided to post this, in case it may help some players figure out the mechanics of the game. Everything you build requires maintenance or it will eventually fall apart. If you are producing (building a project) your expenses on a planet are Production + Maintenance. If you are not producing an
IS there going to be an X-Pack? I recall they said it would be out by August. What's the news on that?
What software tools do I need to make mods, please? There is nothing on the CD, nor could I find anything via galciv.com search. Thanks.
[quote]It doesn't take much in the brains dept. to see the convenience and gameplay benefits of not having to manually retrofit *all* of your ships just so a dumbass like yourself can avoid paying the few BCs maintenance it costs per foundry.[/quote] It is SO not obvious that ships heal up to the newer tech automatically without the need to send them manually to a shipyard that I thought the damage these ships display was from a battle that I missed. As Crackles says in his post below,
[quote]Look, the fundamental point that Papa makes (and forgive me if I get you wrong, Mr. P) is that GalCiv is very deep and complex, but badly documented. The only option (certainly while coming to grips with the game) is to play by "feel". As in, the decisions made have to be based on common sense, until certain game mechanics become clear either from playing many games, getting proper documentation or shuffling endlessly through the forums. So, yeah, it's frustrating to get absorbed in a gam
I agree with Parable entirely... Thanks to all for replies :o)
Okay, it is time I came clean. First, I apologize for the offensive tone of my original post. It was nothing personal in any way. I simply got frustrated with the fact that each time I encounter something in the game that is not explained I have to go to the forum an browse for hours on end to find a clear answer. I got frustrated when after all the time and effort I put into establishing an alliance with the I-League I got zero visible return or benefit. If it were only explained somew
>>>As for your comment about the F-16s... No, YOU misunderstood. Every time a new technology is developed that improves the effectiveness of your weapons or shields, it automatically and instantaneously applies to every ship you have out in the field. I think you are in error here. I am at turn 1000 or so and I still have ships I built during the first 50 turns with the original hitpoints, attack and defense. Maybe this was explained in some obscure post, but it is nowhere in
>>>If you build a Starship Foundry on a ship's home planet, it instantly, no matter how many sectors away it is, has it's Att/Def boosted. If you research exotic alloys, everybody in your entire fleet gets the 10% boost to HPs (but do have to "heal" up to full strength). Come on people, if I have Sol on far left and Orion on far right and I build a ship on Sol because Sol is under attack, but Sol does not have the Starship Foundry, what good is the Starship Foundry on Orion if I can nev
I have a question about Alliances, please. Here is the background of the question: There is no meaningful information about alliances, what they do or don’t to anywhere, but I assumed, based on common sense and elementary logic, that an alliance would benefit my civilization in certain ways. It was turn 900 or so and Arcean have pretty much kicked the s#&$t out of most other civs. Even Torians were seriously damaged. I became number 2 after Arcean, and I knew that they would c