[quote who="FreedomFighterEx" reply="6" id="3651900"] Quoting hfxnikolai, reply 2 The Ai doesn't do either of those things. There's a lot of stuff the Ai should do, and doesn't, and does do that it shouldn't. Most of it is exploitable and should be fixed, especially in regards to diplomacy trade
[quote who="FreedomFighterEx" reply="10" id="3651902"] Quoting Syrkres, reply 8 I really like the trick of "Upgrading" once you use one constructor module. Especially early game and bases are far out. Here is more trick that will make an AI hate you. You fit your cargo hull with nothing but hy
[quote who="Publius of NV" reply="4" id="3651906"] Quoting Mystikmind, reply 2 Does anyone actually use this useless constructor calling feature at all???? Yes. I normally edit the list of ship yards supplying each star base, however, to better control what yard is building what, and ch
Also never noticed it! i will take a look next time i play.
Goodness me, do you think American forces knew how many planes they had on their carriers during WW2?? Its not at all an important thing to know..... just blindly dive into battle and then count them as they fly into combat if your at all curious.
Well the ships defending the starbase always fight their own battle when attacked. Only if the defending ships are defeated, will the starbase get involved. Its effectively a 'separate' engagement. So normally, my focus is on the defending ships only, and to me, the starbase is irrelevant - except for the purpose of increased logistics. Sometimes i will have 'junk' ships defending a starbase, in which case i do not re
Don't forget, you also have to wear a pair of blue suede shoes, and sit at an angle of exactly 48 degrees to your screen and sing cum bi ya..... Does anyone actually use this useless constructor calling feature at all????
[quote who="hfxnikolai" reply="4" id="3651387"] Agreed, ai with constructors and anomalies would be interesting. But you'd end up with all sorts of starbases in your territory that you have (currently) no way of getting rid of short of buying or war. You'd definitely have to give players the "remove starbase" option we get from the Ai all the time in order for that to work. Then again, on higher difficulties, the Ai is unaffected by FoW, so it knows where a
[quote who="Seilore" reply="2" id="3651292"] Quoting Mystikmind, reply 1 Any link for those who are curious? Basically just expressed my frustration with the continued crashes in multi-player games. The ticket included more save game examples as well as more detailed information on when
Any link for those who are curious?
150 bc is obviously a stupid waste of time.... under what circumstance could that be useful? If your going to go to the trouble of developing such an AI diplomacy request in the game, then make it something that will test the decision making of the player, not waste the players time.
[quote who="ManiiNames" reply="1" id="3651050"] All of the ideology generating buildings need to have the text updated. A change a while back set them to 1 point every 5/2/1 turns instead of the previous times of 10/5/1. [/quote] Interesting! I find that the elevation foundation is in an ideology path that is not useful too me.... obviously i want the path that leads to extra tile on every planet, and by the time i get that, morale is a non issue
[quote who="hfxnikolai" reply="2" id="3651022"] The Ai doesn't do either of those things. There's a lot of stuff the Ai should do, and doesn't, and does do that it shouldn't. Most of it is exploitable and should be fixed, especially in regards to diplomacy trades like useless bases and junk ships. The constructor through the wormhole is more of a human ingenuity thing. We primarily do it to get access to more anomalies - or hope to - it's
[quote who="erischild" reply="9" id="3651018"] Agreed that research is too easy to build up. I hope they are finding ways to limit that. I am also hearing an interesting argument to make Starbases consume one constructor point per turn until they are used up, so as to keep consistent. 10 constructor modules at once is indeed out of pace with the rest of the game. Pacing in this context is not about the game pacing controls (which definitely don't control the re
[quote who="zuPloed" reply="17" id="3651005"] Quoting erischild, reply 13 Oh they understood alright, it just didn't matter. The opportunity to complain loudly in public was irresistible. Justified or not hardly matters, either. It's the complaining that is important. Never bet your company or any p
[quote who="erischild" reply="13" id="3650968"] Oh they understood alright, it just didn't matter. The opportunity to complain loudly in public was irresistible. Justified or not hardly matters, either. It's the complaining that is important. Never bet your company or any part of it on the Internet being reasonable. Never. Brad and Stardock have been gluttons for punishment for even trying, judging
This reminds me.... I always thought it was interesting how the tool tip recommends you send a survey ship with a constructor through a wormhole, but the AI never does it? Or do they?
In Galciv2 you really had to have some good science worlds, and you could really feel the difference that a good science world is making..... but not Galciv3, science seems to surge forward regardless if you have good science worlds or not. My new strategy is not to research science technology for planetary improvements, but for starbases! In one turn i can build a starbase and throw 10 science modules on it IN ONE TURN, what use have i for planetary science improvements that can only
[quote who="Horemvore" reply="12" id="3650974"] @ Mystic, I apologise for my gruff/harsh manner. I had just finished a night shift when reading your second post. Not the best idea in world to post on forums when your agitated from work and half asleep taboot. [e digicons]:S[/e] [/quote] No problem..... your first post is very interesting actually, but i did not want to get too deep into it if it is not something that will ever affect my vanilla game, so that
[quote who="erischild" reply="4" id="3650965"] Isn't the whole point to prevent you from creating instant super worlds? To impose some pacing? Otherwise, they would let you rush buy 12 improvements at once or something. With all the bonuses instantly available, the economy already booms in growth as you add planets in late game. This would insanely aggravate that trend. [/quote] Pacing? well what i am learning is that planetary science st
[quote who="mortili" reply="5" id="3650865"] well if your playing with abundant planets and stars thats to be expected, since ther is a max to habitable planets, as soon as you reach that you will only add more dead planets( and thulium+promethion) 600 for insane so more than that is not possible without modding (look at MapSizeDefs) [/quote]
Yea sometimes the progress is very slow..... even when everything gets built 1 per turn. In every single game i have ever played, my main science worlds will not have finished developing even when i have already finished researching all the useful techs!!!!!!!! Then i'm like "don't bother any more stupid, too slow, now start building manufacturing" Its because there are too many tiers of tech structure..... population increases and star ba
[quote who="Publius of NV" reply="3" id="3650854"] Quoting Mystikmind, reply 2 Well if 'abundant' habitable planets actually worked, then you wouldn't need it! Lol - Agreed [/quote] Yep, and I think my record so far is
[quote who="trims2u" reply="6" id="3650848"] Quoting Mystikmind, reply 5 Well actually the point of Alaska and Siberia is to demonstrate that some things can be sold and some things are vital to securing ones territory and should not be sold. It should be reasonably possible to get
Well if 'abundant' habitable planets actually worked, then you wouldn't need it!