I'm pretty sure there are devs working on things fairly steadily. Either that or some random confluence of events has made lurking far easier for me in the last couple of days. Usually, unless I was signed in, something aged quickly and I got errors any time I tried a forum link. Haven't seen that problem in the last day or so.
Dachau was a very bad place, but not a Zyklon B shower place. Check the wiki Dachau concentration camp
as we discussed once before it's all in the intent Och, Mumble's a kindly bugger, innee then?
ToS, I think you're foretting that some of us put a fair value on the story parts of the game. I fell into my Neutral rut on account of being a research addict, but I've stayed there b/c I've really grown to *hate* the Torians, who strike me as about as "good" as the Spanish Inquisition. I've never been able to keep playing as Evil b/c that seems to limit options for winning and drastically increase your chances of someone attacking you. Plus matching alignments are a big leg up on the
@Mumble, I'm pretty sure that "bugger off" is a version of "go frak yourself" that involves one's butt. I sure notice it a lot in recent Brit TV, so maybe it's milder. But they're also much less scared of nude people, dunno. @WhoStoleMyNickName, I'm a native Floridian with family branches in several other Southron states, some of which date back well before the War of Northern Aggression. p.s. Don't y'all get flustered at "nasty redneck" talk--I have a pseduo-pedagogical habit
Wild digression: over two months since my (the) last post here, and more than a few things I've read around the forum make me wish OPs could edit thread titles and subtitles. I'm theoretically a professional editor, and the typo here is driving me... Plus I started wondering just how fine-grained Stardock's attention to forum funcionalty gripes might be
why is it that people tend to behave as if stating something more aggressively will give them impression that it's more representative of what everyone feels? If you can answer this question in terms of a roughly reproducible process, you should be able to win high elective office and/or earn fat money helping others do so.
Alright, I was being rather snarky about how money perverts game dev processes in my previous post here. But both Mystik and Deth made posts that beg the question of why the UI doesn't make it obvious and clear what the AI difficulty levels do. I'm sure that the math in the game guts is hardly precise given its complexity, but leaving the difficulty levels as pure "English" in the UI seems almost disrespectful of the GCII audience's basic numeracy. We might not all have master
I get the rhyme, but without a quote (from Wheel), I'm lost re the reason...
@Jennifer1 not logged in, please keep posting here, especially if you don't have a Y chromosome
Let's nix the politics before the fire gets going too hot, mmkay? Kryo, I surely appreciate your request when I think about being a responsible moderator for a net forum, but seriously, how can you say "nix the politics" when the game we're here to talk about (and around) is "Galctic Civilizations?" My best guess is that you haven't res
IMO, the fact that vlr3d was able to make the OP points directly to the question of how internal Stardock design and testing copes with the larger maps. By necessity, those of us who favor longer games must address situations like this, and the stacks-o-ships parts of GCII are among the game's weakest elements, at least in terms of how much your hands must work to keep playing.
This is a clear case of "flavor" language winning out over clear UI guidance. Why doesn't the GCII UI openly state the AI penalties and/or bonuses associated with each difficulty level? My guess is that too many funding-empowered people at Stardock are persuaded by the larger IT-world assumption that most PC users are scared by math. I disagree with this on multiple levels and hope that my assumption is wildly misguided.
I must first say that I might not make another try at the campaign stuff until well after the DA expansion ships, but nonetheless I'm quite interested in any advice and/or remarks the short-game crowd might have for us long-game types who want to grok the campaign but have so far been put off by the apparent need to be an aggressor. Hardcore strategy buffs: Is there a non- or less-aggressive path though the campaign scenarios? Or, if the game demands butt-kicking instead of cud
The Drath are still in my current b2 huge map game, and "a while ago" I saw a fairly high volume of war-for-unnamed-power messages. MarshalO's question makes me wonder whether the Epic Generator effort included a basic map I could use to dig into the details of a question like this. With a b2 game, do I have an XML (or other) file that's both relevant to the OP's point and that I could try to read in plain language?
Thanks for the replies guys. It will go to the top if I totally leave the site for a few minutes I found, but if I stay browsing the forums for even say, a half hour it won't update and it's only my own posts. Deth, what you're saying here (plus some other broadsides about "buggy forum" stuff) make me at least half-confident that there's some bro
I'm still finishing my last beta 2 game on a huge map, but I'm pretty sure I see changes (improvements?) in the AI surrender behavior. I hope that 2A has not somehow undermined progress in this area. Seth, do you have a few more specifics about why the surrenders you saw made you think they were ridiculous? I'm pretty sure details in the feedback can help the devs.
I'm having one problem on the forums though. Whenever I would reply or post when on IE, when I go back to the everything link the reply would be at the top as normal. I mostly use Opera and have not used anything in the Firefox family since before Netscape Communicator. I have a fairly different set of complaints I've not yet bothered to describ
Best definition of this that I've seen. Best (well, most direct, anyway) compliment I've yet had on these forums. Here's hoping the lapsed anarchist gets promoted after the Beta
As with all the posts here I usually ignore the junk. I consider some of your posts to fall into this catagory but there are good posts as well. Some are very funny. IIRC, Fuels Chief is active duty US Navy. His post #11 is a great reassurance to a pinko hippie peacenik who's never let go of the notion of an honorable warrior. Not to mention that
Fraktard is a conflation of pop culture, "obscene language" for sex, and the longer-standing tradition of picking on "village idiots," or in the contex of this term, "retarded" people. Battlestar Galactica uses the verb "frak" for our oft-banned word for having sex. A "fraktard" is apparently someone with the audacity to have sex for reasons another person cannot understand.
Re the talk about fleets of constructors, the details there really depend on the size of map you like to play and how the speed business shakes out during the DA development process. In my DL 1.4X games, constructor fleets were perhaps *the* solution to late game micromanagement fatigue. But that's perhaps because I favor Huge maps and assume that a "mature" constructor is moving at least 30 parsecs per turn.
And influence starbases are a sure way of getting in a war very quickly. I'm pretty sure there are significant competing factors here. I've gone for more than a few influence wins (mainly on account of finding *military* wins boring!). In the early (and sometimes mid) game, I usually take a minimalist approach to warship production (jus
Re screen caps, I sent email per Kryo's request and I can't (won't) post here b/c the site demands third-party hosting for images (at least that's how I read the UI). Re the notion of trying to semi-formalize feedback from the Large+ Map crowd, I heartily concur. I like that notion *much* better than eliminating larger maps, as has been suggested in other threads (esp. re the speed thing). It's popular right now to praise the GCII AIs as exceptional in the genre, and I agree wi
Now I've got a headache. Well, more of a hoot-ache . This here thread was right funny after the OP's business got handled. 1) I love a good digression, but appreciate how much of a pain they can be in threaded discussions. This one seems safe enough. 2) Descending into the s
GalCiv2 Forums