Let's add another rules change, then..the inability to upgrade a ship without an attack rating? outside of your controlled space. It's a different thread, but I disagree with the concept of upgrading ships outside of a shipyard. Repairing them: no problem wherever they are. Upgrading them: not when they're not in a shipyard. Let's split the difference. Ban upg
I should add, though, that I'm not for making any ZOC mechanic mandatory. I would be satisfied for to have it as an optional mechanic.
Sneak attacks would be a valid strategy if they there were other, equally valid tactics, but there are not, and sneak attacks are not particularly difficult to pull off in the game as is. And though i somewhat value 'realism', i would trade a pound of it for an ounce of good gameplay.
This is easier said than done. I'll leave it at that... did SD hire a new developer? building unique tech trees and adding a 'willingness to trade' tag to techs is easier said than done, i'm fairly sure, but they're still doing it. i'm not paying for an easy fix; i'm paying for a quality expansion. in the past, SD has always delivered on that. i don't expect a total overhaul, and i made that clear. but it seems they're a
Ships without an attack rating Build Hulls, Build Constructor, get influence, upgrade all ships, sneak attack. Profit. You got me. Damn upgradeability. Though this would still make it more expensive than is currently the case. Let's add another rules change, then..the inability to upgrade a ship without an attack rating?
i saw Cari's post on the previous forum and neglected to check on whether there was a new dev journal, so beg pardon for jumping in late in the discussion. also beg pardon if something i say has been said (and dismissed) already. finally beg pardon if i offer advice on improving the game for suicidal players not being one myself: the AI, however, isn't from what i understand any smarter on suicidal than on tough - it only gets lots more resources. i think look
any ship of theirs in your space can be blown up without declaring war, thought it will cool relations with whoever's ship you just blew up. Sounds too complex. I'd say the simpler way is: 1) Every ship of an empire that does not have PT with you has to get out, or they are automatically go to war. 2) Either they stay out, or go to war. 3) If you click on an closed territory yourself, you
any ship of theirs in your space can be blown up without declaring war, thought it will cool relations with whoever's ship you just blew up. Sounds too complex. I'd say the simpler way is: 1) Every ship of an empire that does not have PT with you has to get out, or they are automatically go to war. 2) Either they stay out, or go to war. 3) If you click on an closed territory yourself, you get a warning like you do before a
I would also just like to reiterate that I'd like to see these rules changes as 'options' atleast for a more balanced game, militarily challenging game. If cari wants to de-nerf engines, I would like to make that optional as well, or atleast boost the tactical difficulty at any given difficulty level to compensate. I like the speed balance as is quite frankly.
A way to define 'sneak attack' for the purposes of diplomatic penalties would simply be a player taking one or more planets within the first few turns of a war declaration. Make the diplomatic penalties universal. Has anyone considered a universal tactics rating for the ai to follow when assessing threats? I.e. number of planets taken/(number*quality of ships destroyed)? I would also like to have the option to have diplomatic penalties determined by the size of the player
Any chance we can still get the culture zone of control thing as an option? I like it for gameplay as much as difficulty reasons. As it is, the tactical side of the game is just too easy, and culture is irrelevant if you are sufficiently aggressive. Any marginal increase in difficulty on this point would be appreciated.
GalCiv2 Forums
Don't you love how he attempts to recast his earlier arguments so as to salvage his fast sinking reputation? That's the classic moron I know and love (not really).
GalCiv2 Forums
'Moron' may not be helpful, but it's well deserved and being justified with each post the idiot makes.
GalCiv2 Forums
@Kryo The triviality of the fix itself is NOT to be equated with the amount of work that may need to be done to complete it; tiny bugs very often do not have tiny fixes. I think you're trying to obscure the whole triviality of the fix vs triviality of the bug thing. The amount of time to fix it doesn't change if it's fixed in GC3. As with any other thing, the sooner, the less problems later. I would like to
GalCiv2 Forums
Fixing something like this could end up being pretty time-consuming potentially. Those are hours that could be spent updating other things. I see kyro already got to this, but just to kick you when you're down, frogboy said: Fixing something like this could end up being pretty time-consuming potentially. Those are hours that could be spent updating other things. PRETTY TIME-CONSUMING. Do I need to define this for you, moron. I know your
GalCiv2 Forums
Personally, I would prefer to have new features, updated AI, new graphics, etc. over some relatively trivial fix that the AI is cycling through planets at turn 0. Are you a moron? Did you obviously not get his meaning? He meant it would FIX a trivial issue. That is obvious if you read te subsequent comments on how much time it would cost to fix this. You can say he could have been more careful, but to argue
GalCiv2 Forums
1) Have quick planet strike tactics result in diplomatic penalties. Every game I've played with the UP vote that prevents suprise attacks has been better than every game I've played where it hasn't come up. Maybe that particular rule should just be mandatory for anyone in the UP. I should have been more clear. These tactics are limited to surprise attacks, i.e. decelarations of war by a player. It also involves pl
GalCiv2 Forums
1) Have quick planet strike tactics result in diplomatic penalties. 2) Attach a cost to breaking alliances, perhaps a mix of morale and diplomatic penalties. The severity of these penalties should be gauged based on the ability of the AI to break alliances, i.e. if they still won't be able to after the update, they should be pretty rough.
GalCiv2 Forums
1) AI for tech trading to be revamped entirely- so AI-AI and AI-Human use the same rules. The current method is broken 2) Bugfixes 3) Make Planetary Defense worth the tile you spend on it. Suggestion- it negates invasion tactics 4) Decrease Starbase Costs, Add modules that improve HP that stack infinitely. Allow offensive modules to stack infinitely as well (both of these should be at an exponentially increasing cost) 5) Anomalies sh
Actually that's an interesting point. I've seen quite a few tech offers from the AI, and they tend to be far more reasonable than what you can get by requesting tech in a trade deal. I'm wondering if the real issue here isn't that trades offered are more reasonable than the reaction to trades requested , both for us and the AI. Actually, its more reasonable to offer a fair deal than to accept one. If a player comes to you with
How did they know you had mass drivers? Go to the dip screen for any AI. Look at his tech list. Now you know what he has. Jeez, if you have this little understanding of the game, its hard to take the complaints seriously.
Assuming the AI's can't tell who the human is, why don't I see more trade offers from them? I don't remember ever getting a nice trade offer from an AI. Because there are fewer trades going on in general and you simply didn't have anything they wanted?
They don't, it's all recorded in debug.err and it's quite clear that the AI's trading much more lightly under 1.5X I guess it's all in the eyes of the beholder my friend. When two AI's trade what I would consider 'good techs' like weapons or something to benefit your economy, then I have issues with that. They won't trade in a similar fashion with me, regardless of what I offer, and that's okay, so long as they don't do it amongs
I think in our dicussions of Tech trading, we ought to avoid discussing the Colony techs. The reason being is the extreme colony tech has an unfortunate variable to it. There is a chance that certian tech will not ever be needed based on the galaxy creation. As a player there is no way that I am going to trade anything valuable for the colony techs unless I can use them. If I can't find any aquatic worlds, why would I need the tech? I for one do not know how t
Silly. That is an extreme example that no player in their right mind would do in the first place. Or do I have to spell it out: the AI acts in its own interest now assuming the player is acting in his/hers. Extreme or not, it occurs, and demonstrates there's a problem. Same with the planet going for 280 BC. The AI "assumes" nothing, nor does it particularly act in its own interests - its a set of algorithms designed to initiate s