[quote]two eyes, one nose, one mouth etc. human model[/quote] Convergent evolution 2 eyes required for stereoscopic vision, the vast majority of creatures have 2 eyes, some critters like spiders have more but not many. 1 nose is all any critter needs 1 mouth is enough for most people! As for "Human Model" you could equally well say "ape model" or "bear model" or "aardvark model" or "ravenous blugblatter beast of Trall model"
[quote] Events, there need to be more,[/quote] Damn right, but perhaps a range of ±1 to ±5 rather than the current ±1 to ±10, but unlike now where you'll get 20 x ±1 to one >±1, a more even distribution would be better. Now this will make me as popular as leprosy but how about the colonization event happening about a year after colonization, after all it's going to take a while to investigate a whole planet! [quote] send in the troops to kill the nasty bug monsters .... never s
[quote]variation in graphics and basic stuff like research rate, population growth, etc [/quote] Well the graphics in GalCiv has never been that important, as for the research rate, population growth and soforth you can introduce vast varience already by changing the political party and by your choice of picks - how would calling yourself "Yor" be any different?
[quote]More, I disagree with the fact that morality should shift continuously toward neutral. Morality defines the philosophy of the civilization. I don't see why it must change to another philosophy if nothing appears[/quote] Yes but currently once you are saintly (or demonic) you can then take as many neutral choices as you want and remain saintly or demonic, surely this also goes against the "philosophy of the civilization" as you eloquently put it.
Some thoughts about morality: One should have to keep being good or bad to maintain ones standing, what I suggest is that every turn a players morality should adjust by a tiny percentage towards neutral. So to stay saintly or demonic a player would occasionally have to do something suitable. The outcome of an action shouldn't be so obvious, each event could have many possible reactions but only a random choice of 3 or 4 of them would be available displayed in a random order. Th
[quote]- being able to set up an “individual” build orders per planet- Governors for each planet, with special, individual boni[/quote] Methinks a micromanagement step too far, but definately give distribution sliders to the governors. I've given quite a bit of thought as to how this could be implemented so to help both the micro and macro managers and this is my proposal: The overall spend would be set in one place, each governor would then be free to distribute his or he
I think the concept behind the AMM is flawed. No one would leave such formidable weapons unprotected. What I think would be a better model would be to 1)Reduce the AMM range. 2)Have a AMM carrier ship with long range and serious defences and able to carry about 8 missiles. One for GalCivII perhaps.
You can probably get away without freighters if you use lots of mods. A quick look at the threads about what mods people use gives this quote from Weyrleader: "I have all of them loaded and use them all, well, they are available to be used." I make no judgment (I use a few mods myself) but I suspect that Weyrleaders strategy would flounder on a virgin un-modded version. As I have expounded at length before, I feel that a lot of the (micro/macro) management problems
[quote]But if the average is 1 paid BC give 2 free research BC, you will gain 200 BC of free research for just diverting 100Bc from military production. So diverting 100 BC from military means increasing the overall research (paid + free) from 300 BC[/quote] What you're saying is that you get 200bc of free research which will cost 200bc, er, hardly free is it? A better term would be "additional" or "bonus" research, the use of the term "free" is highly misleading. Anyway the di
[quote] it's the free research that screws the ETA[/quote] Yes but it's not really free is it, a Mil/Build/Sci split of 33/33/33 costs less per month than 25/25/50. In fact the difference is so pronounced that is is often hardly worth increasing the science percentage as you have to drop the spend so much that the overall science hardly increases at all while the production is significantly cut. I think the science spend is calculated in the wrong direction. I believe that
I've been playing this game for a while on crippling and found it a interesting and sometimes challanging game, so time to try the masochistic level... Plainly I expected the AI to storm off and be more aggresive and what-have-you. Boy was I ever wrong, every maso game I played followed the same pattern, the majors farted about attacking each other until there were just 2 majors left. The remaining pair were then only too happy to ally with me - Game Over - Insert Coin.
[quote]Well, if you know that a planet would flip, wouldn't you use a scorched Earth tactic to make the AI pay for flipping your planet: they will have your planet, but with no improvement which means a very bad moral, so the planet will be improductive.[/quote] Er, no. I either build every improvement to increase morale and cultural influence and resistance going. If that fails (which generally it does not) a military incursion to remove any influence problem generally will do
[quote]But ist(this) will work for you too when you get a planet with lots of unwanted improvements[/quote] So? It apparently takes a few months for the removal to have an effect, so removing them one at a time will make little difference. I suppose you make a demolish queue to do it for you.
[quote]I think that cultural assimilation should be done away with. I frankly hate it. [/quote] I agree to a degree, it seems stupid that a planet with 100% morale should flip, but flip they do. I don't think a planet, regardless of cultural pressure, should ever flip if its morale is above (say) 75%. Is there some way to stop the AI from destroying planetary improvements, I have difficulty understanding why this happens, many times I've 'aquired' a system with 2 planets,
[quote]The battleship can only face one direction at once[/quote] That's true for anything, but think of a (space) battleship like a WW2 flying fortress on steroids; longer range than its nominal escorts, big cannons up front and rear, and lots and lots and lots of tracking gun turrets to deal with smaller irritants. Any designer who suggested a battleship with only a forward mounted weapon should be shot as a traitor and saboteur.
[quote]ships fire first at ships of their own size ie fighters fire at fighters, battleships fire at battleship and cruisers fire at cruisers and then at the ships closest to them in size.[/quote] Tactically this is insanity. Ensign: Admiral there is a wing of enemy fighters approaching on our port. Admiral: Ignore them they are a different class to us, just keep slugging away at their crippled battleship. Ensign: Aye-Aye sir. Incoming. Oh dear we
[quote]It sounds more like a bug than a feature to me.[/quote] Couldn't agree more. It has the unmistakeable odour of cheese, possibly Limberger with a hint of Port Salut.
Attila This was on a small galaxy near the end of the game. There just weren't enough planets to forego one, anyway the 280,000bc I got from them outlasted the game, even at 100% spending, so further milking would have been superfluous and greedy, hardly honourable or judicious behaviour ;) While this can be exploited, I suspect the exploit was not what was in the developers minds when they wrote this bit as the CTD would seem to indicate.
I got the message saying something like 'There is something evil growing on planet x, we advice you to abandon the colony' or whatever. So I did the only logical thing and loaded an autosave and thought no more about it. I seems that I did not go back far enough because a bit later the planet broke away fom me. On the turn they split away I talked to them and was a tad alarmed to see they had just under 150,000 bc, also they hadn't worked out yet that they were at war
Sorry if this is already here, but I'm not going to wade through 262 prior messages. Logistics ability from captured improvements is not added to ones ability until you build another improvement, and even then not always. The Logistics center and the Starbase resupply center & capital (or whatever they're called) totalled should (this is from memory) give a logistics of 35%. I've had abilities from 40% to 80%. On the game I bothered to add up all the goodies I'd built or captur
Had a thought about trade goods; Once a trade good is built by one race no other race can build it because that would break the monopoly owned by the builder. That is fine, except when one is at war with someone there is no incentive to honour such agreements. So my idea is that if you are at war with another race, it should be possible to try to build (for your own use only) any trade goods your foe owns. Should peace break out before the TG is finished, tough, all the production w
Stardock Forums
PP Yes that would do it, as I was building both of them at the time, this rather annoyed me (polite understatement (:( )
Stardock Forums
OK so the computer may not have been cheating there, but I had a game where a minor built Diplomatic Interpreters and Gravity accelerators on the same turn and they only had 1 planet and no cash - explain that! (this was prior to version 1.2)
Don't know if any of these have been suggested before or not. I would like a bit more freedom in the choice of galaxy size . The ability to select any size galaxy from 4 x 4 to whatever the maximum size is (100 x 100 ?). At the moment there is 4x4, 5x5, 8x8, 12x12 and so on, I would like to try 6x6, 10x10 and possibly 42x42 and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to. Toroidal galaxies would be interesting . For the less topographically minded in a toroidal gal
Stardock Forums
[quote]I can do an Alliance/Huge/Maso victory in under 2 hours.[/quote] Oooohhh thats sound like fun! Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought this was a game played for fun . The above methods seem boring and mechanistic.