In addition to Stormkeep's good advice, you may want to try a different setup. Using the biggest map possible, set planets/habitable planets/stars to "rare." Have the maximum number of opponents and minors. Basically, everyone is going to get their capital planet and their "Mars" to start with. There will be *no* colony rush at all, and you will likely not build a colony ship the entire game. Develop your two planets wisely, and concentrate also on exploration. You will want to especially find a
Shamgar
I have had the frustration of seeing a starbase destroyed while a guarding ship was left untouched, but not the additional frustration of having the ship morph into a starbase! I kind of like your idea of allowing ships to occupy resource squares as a matter of course. I also think that all attacks on that square should have to take out ships before engaging the starbase.
Yes, that would be wonderful. I have been glad to play many TA beta games, but I miss being able to post on the metaverse. It's not like I'm getting any spectacular super great scores on TA ... pretty much the kind of scores I get in DA ... and I'm wondering if the experience of others is the same.
I have both, and would agree with much of what has been said above. Much of this is personal preference, but from my point of view, GC2 is likely to provide you *years* of consistent play, while SOASE is more likely to provide a nice "change of pace" from time to time when you want to play a shorter game. Another factor which must be mentioned, which there is no way of knowing ahead of time, is how each game will play on your machine. I'm not criticizing Stardock here, they do their be
Yeah, I kind of agree. The "victory" screen is rather abrupt and anti-climactic. Those stats are good, but some kind of a summary would be nice. Would this kind of game lend itself to a "game score" like GalCiv2? That way you not only go for a victory, but for a *better* victory from game to game. Not a big complaint ... it's a great game. Just a thought.
58!! But I I have seen at least a few older guys here ... :)
Sounds like fun. I once won a conquest victory without firing a shot (except once when the prisoners hijacked a ship and started wreaking havoc). I did have a big military, as a deterrent to being attacked. Over the course of the game, planets flipped to me and empires surrendered to me little by little (cannot remember the exact size of the map ... I think it was "large"). I was getting impatient when the last planet would not flip, so I built my first transport ships and sent them toward the s
[quote]In terms of Software, where the black market price is zero.nothing, you have to change the the free market price to match the black market price. Basically give your product away for free. Now, you have to build an infrastructure around your product. Like support contracts, merchandise (e.g. sell some Drengin masks, good for Halloween) or just a plain donation button. The last one actually works very well, lots of people like charity.[/quote] I thought this was a joke, b
Thank you, friend! That was very, very helpful!
As someone above said, try the manual. If you are like me, you will not find it enjoyable to read a pdf file on the PC, so print it out. Set your printer on the fastest draft printing, and the 80 pages come out quite legible. You can lay down on your sofa and work your way through it rather than getting bleary-eyed tring to read it on the monitor. I've just been playing through all of the "small maps" one at a time. Nice variety, and you learn a lot. (Just be ready for the one where you
Adirondack Mountains, upstate New York. Lots of lakes, streams, mountains, and trees, beautiful all year around!
"Terrain" effects on combat. As it stands now, all ships function equally well anywhere they are. There is no "high ground" to help defenders, no "rough terrain" to affect mobility, etc. Some random ideas along this line: - Spots that are bad for capital ships (difficult to maneuver, so more difficult for them to bring weapons to bear or to evade fire). Asteroid belt, perhaps. - Some areas in which fighter/bomber craft may not be safely used due to some natural difficulty
I agree that the ability to build starbases would be a good addition. Think of DS9 Guarding the wormhole in "Deep Space Nine." It could ideally have researchable abilities such as defense & offense, repair, and fielding fighters/bombers, and would give the builder "ownership" of the gravity well until destroyed by enemy attack.
I decided to try the beta drivers (Vista 32x) and the problem continues, although it is better in this respect: Before, the entire OS would crash and I would get the blue screen of death. Now, it freezes for a bit, then goes black for a bit, and then comes back. At least now I can play the game, but here's hoping for a fix before too long.
Continuing to experiment, I turned all of my settings up to the *highest* and enjoyed my longest session before the blackout/crash. Maybe I'll go try those Nvidia Beta drivers now ...
Same problem here. Nvidia GeForce 7300, with latest drivers. Putting settings at a lower level enabled the game to go on a bit longer until the crash. I actually get the Blue Screen of Death from this (haven't seen much of that since Windows 95), after the screen goes dark with the music playing for a little while. I'll continue to fool around with changing the settings. Too bad, it seems like a really nice game, and I would like to play it (:(
I play with mega-events turned off because of a similar frustrating "pirate" event early in my DA experience. Other events did add to the flavor of the game, but that one did kind of end the "fun" for me. I would not call it "cheating," though, since that event hurts the AI just as much as the player. It was just that at that point, you had more to lose. If the human player is *losing* when one of those events happens, it might instead serve to save his skin by bringing down an overwhelming oppo
I like the changes, and see them bringing some freshness and variety to the game. The development of the different race tech trees would seem to be on a straight trajectory from the way GalCiv2 expanded upon GalCiv, where you could only play as the terrans. Most of us will probably work to become somewhat familiar with each race's tech tree, but then settle in on a favorite race to play most of the time. I agree, balance will be an challenge for the developers.
The arguments of play balance might be reasonable if we were only talking about the Xeno Ethics effects, though I still think good to be slightly less attractive. However, no one seems to even attempt to argue that the "ethical choices" are balanced at all. As it is now, playing "evil" it makes sense to postpone researching Xeno Ethics until the colony rush is over, so as to get all of the great bonuses. The one wanting to play for "good" had best get Xeno Ethics as soon as possible to "stop the
For those of you who are beginning to flame one another, I would like to propose three ethical choices in accordance with the present GalCiv2 universe: 1) Apologize for unkind words, and determine that in the future you will addess issues, not attack persons. Result: You will be thrown off the forum for one week, and all Stardock products will cost you double the normal price. In the future, you will be given the opportunity to purchase a product which causes left-handed people with blu
I do play on the metaverse, but regardless ... looking at the final score is part of the game for just about anyone, I would think. What I think we are looking for is the opportunity to play as "good" without penalty. If someone wants to play a harder/easier game ... well, that's what the "difficulty level" is all about.
I'm reading these comments with great interest, and appreciate the thought going into them. I remain one who sees the present system as unbalanced and unfortunate. While other aspects of the game have been carefully changed and tweaked for balance and playability, the ethical aspect remains virtually unchanged from the begining of CG2. Unless we are willing to say that this aspect, alone, was perfectly done from the start, we should all welcome a refinement to the system, if not a wholesale over
I share Honshu's frustration with the present imbalance away from "good" toward "evil." I have played many games, mostly as good, but also quite a few as evil and some as neutral. Playing evil in the TA beta has impressed upon me just how much advantage there is to the "evil" choices I have been ignoring. I can understand that SD has been busy with other aspects of gameplay and balance, but I hope that this neglected aspect of the game will be addressed, hopefully sometime before GC3! I
Like the others, I wait until things develop a bit before considering such colonizations. It takes way too many "weeks" to get the appropriate techs in the beginning stages of the game, less time the further on in the game you get. And, once I get the first half of the tech, I immediately get the second so that those worlds are not limping along at 50%.
[quote]These random events are one of the most annoying features in this game. Why do good choices always have bad consequences? Why is evil always rewarded? Life doesn't work like that. To be as controversial as possible, I will give some examples from the previous century. Herr Hitler, we have found Jews in Germany. Comrade Stalin, the farmers do not want to form Collectives. Chairman Mao, the people are wanting more economic freedom. I would argue that each leader went with option 3 but in ea