Lucky_Jack

[quote who="yarodin" reply="130" id="3419767"]Really parsecs? Not AU?[/quote] Yep. Parsecs. 15 AU wouldn't even get you out of our solar system.

[quote who="Boddicker" reply="16" id="3419795"] Quoting Ashbery76, reply 2 How about Aliens that actually look like Aliens and not a humanoid with a frog head. I'm with Ashbery76. I'm so sick of humanoid aliens. I want silicon based lifeforms (not straight up robots like the Yor), non-humanoid races, aquatic races, high/low gravity races, etc.[/quote] It doesn't really matter at all to me. All I need are

[quote who="joeball123" reply="122" id="3419595"]10% of the speed of light allows for ships to cover about 10 AU in 500 seconds, which would mean that in 3000 seconds we could cross the system.[/quote] Let's see now. Basic information from WikiPedia: An AU is the average distance from the surface of the sun to the earth (149.6 million KM, 92.956 million miles). Pluto

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="5" id="3419511"] While I'm all for planets with varying climates and resources, the primary concern here should be to introduce several new types of planets beyond the six we have now; volcanic planets, desert planets, forest planets, cryo planetsand other types were conspicuously missing in GC2. Beyond that, I'd like to have several dozen planet textures for each type of world and class, to make them seem more unique. This would be

[quote who="Stohrm" reply="5" id="3419439"] When I first read "Population Management" I came here halfway expecting something a little different. Not that I am in any disagreement; but what I was curious about was whether there would be an ability to set up automatic immigration flights (or whatever one might call them). You see, in GC2, I would use Colony ships to transport people off planets with greater population counts to newly colonized planets (

----- yikes. That went well. ----------- Bad post. Most likely operator error. -------

[quote who="Tridus" reply="14" id="3419427"] Quoting Lucky Jack, reply 12 As I said, I don't want to bicker about terms and such. I just want a name for what a combined mechanic in a game might be called. It'd be called "Espionage" simply because that's how most other games use the term. But even in the game, the first and most important goal of your spies is information gathering and counter espionage. Stuff like sabotage, research theft, a

[quote who="Tridus" reply="46" id="3419425"]If auto-reoslve is as good as a player is, there's no reason for a player to do it, because the only outcomes are "as good as auto resolve" and "you screwed up, so it's worse than auto resolve".[/quote] But there is always the challenge. If everyone tells me that I can't fight the battle better than auto-resolve can, then I want to try to prove everyone wrong.

As I said, I don't want to bicker about terms and such. I just want a name for what a combined mechanic in a game might be called.

OK. Interesting how common usage can skew the meaning of a word. According to Wiktionary, you are correct about how espionage is defined. So what would you call the activities of an agency that combined espionage, counterespionage, sabotage, assassinations, and other covert and counter covert actions? I just don't want to bicker over terms and terminology. If any of it goes in let us have all of it.

I'll come to meet the devs again if I can.

Very nice. A great visual that helps tremendously to understand the story line. Two comments: Interesting placement for the entry for the 22nd Century AD being at about 2200 instead of 2100. Also, on my PC the text for 2216 and 2228 overlap and is very difficult to read. If anyone at SD wants a DxDiag I can provide one. I also captured a picture of it, but I haven't figured out how to place it in a reply on this forum.

I think what we should see in a game's espionage mechanics is a list of actions, including 1) information gathering, 2) sabotage, 3) assassination, and so on. Let the player choose which ones to use when (and, of course, let the player beware).

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="4" id="3419038"]I think they did it perfectly in GalCiv3. [/quote] Do you mean GalCiv2? GalCiv3 isn't here yet.

[quote who="minijag" reply="1" id="3418992"] Espionage should be about information. Information is key. If you have a game that creates enough variability and critical intelligence moments, this will be very good. If you can discover caches or resources, or ancient tech ruins, or a pirate base. If its a resource cache, you must race to secure the location before your opponent does. If you have esponiage, now you know its their too. (assumin

[quote who="Zydor" reply="28" id="3418296"]Its like brining Dominoes to a Chess Game[/quote] At first I found this statement very puzzling, because Dominoes isn't played on a board of any kind. So I think you must mean Checkers, as Checkers is the only game I can think of that is played on the same kind of board as Chess.

[quote who="UnleashedElf" reply="7" id="3418800"] Another issue is that we need the AI to take advantage of the tiles.[/quote] Brad has mentioned that there are many weaknesses in the GC2 AIs that he wants to do something about. Has anyone seen anything posted by the SD Employees that show what the planet management screen is going to look like? If it is going to continue the concepts of GC2, then I hope Brad has this one on his list.

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="5" id="3418792"] I like the idea of being able to automate this to an extent. colonize use governor X then let me know so i can choose the final buildings some things that come to mind 1 ) multiple programmable "governors" this way i could quickly choose the basic specialization of the planet based on location / planet quality 2) the ability of the governor to use bonus tiles effectively and possibly be able to ignore bo

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="8" id="3418786"] Quoting Lucky Jack, reply 7Wasn't there an article about an experiment that had neutrons going slightly faster than light? And didn't that same article caution the reader that the experiment was still early days for any conclusions to be reached. Has anyone seen anything about this since? Has there been even one independent re-creation of the experiment? yes it was a glitch caused by (I believe) a loose gps timi

[quote who="jecy99" reply="25" id="3418624"]I would even go as far as saying, anything under Class 7[/quote] Why not be able to mine any class planet, then you have to choose between increasing your empire's population and your empire's available resources?

Space going cruise liners.

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="6" id="3418635"]How about neutron beams that go faster then the speed of light, it is scientifically proven to go faster then the speed of light itself, thus the theory of relativity is wrong.[/quote] Wasn't there an article about an experiment that had neutrons going slightly faster than light? And didn't that same article caution the reader that the experiment was still early days for any conclusions to be reached. Has anyone seen anything abo

[quote who="jecy99" reply="55" id="3418616"]Say a wing is 3 ships grouped[/quote] To me, with fighters, a "wing" would have to be some multiple of a "squadron", a "squadron" would have to be some multiple of a "flight", and a "flight" would have to be some multiple of individual units. Arbitrarily lets say 8 fighters to a flight, 3 flights (24 fighters) to a squadron, 4 squadrons (96 fighters) to a wing, and one wing to a carrier. At least this would mimic what the USAF has do

[quote]Personally i always thought the colony expansion process should be slower. On smaller maps especially but even larger maps can get filled up rather fast, really before any decent fleets are built.[/quote] I like the large maps and find the constraints to the colonization rush too limiting. I like building my empire as fast as I can, but the game makes it difficult. Especially since the computer races also try to build up their empires as quickly as they can. Each colony has a m

[e digicons]:D[/e]