Ashbery76

[quote who="TS22" reply="62" id="3552378"] I don't really need or care for tactical battles. I just would like the current system to make sense. With range and speed being featured aspects of a ship and weapon type, it is illogical for combat ships to not fully utilize their range/speed advantage. As others have mentioned above, perhaps range should be taken out until it is fully fleshed out by the developers. Combat speed (ie thrusters) could

I think players do not like cheat buffed A.I's.

No.

It seem this system was just thrown in half baked and I'm not sure ever the devs know what is going on.Many games have hands off tactical combat that allows for many viable designs,GBS,Dominions and even EndlessSpace made more sense than what I am seeing here. Luckily for them the reviewers gave them a pass on this.

I don't think they add anything to the game apart from being something to screw over.Another thing from GC2 that have not been developed at all.

I would like to be able to flag some techs to be untradeable.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3550498"] Quoting TheRealWarpstorm, reply 6 Not true, Brad. CK2 had every count in Europe as an individual player trying to succeed. (More if you count the other nobles scheming or waiting for their liege to die) -- I don't remember how many could play in MP, but it was less.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="8" id="3550442"] Trading for "specializations" doesn't make sense (and, like full galaxy sensor boats, I see it as cheating and I don't do it in my games). What they should do, IMO, is make specializations a tradeable resource . You can trade for the specialization buff for 50 turns (or until war is declared) and after the time runs out it needs to be renewed or the buff goes away. [/quote]

[quote who="Lightbanee" reply="1" id="3550439"] thrusters do have a purpose, they allow the ships to turn more quickly when they pass each other. [/quote] And what difference does that make.The ships fire at any angle an all stay in rail gun range.

They run straight towards the enemy at close range.What is point of thrusters if all ships just head towards point blank range, It's not logical Jim.

it's is pretty ridiculous to be honest and breaks the game.What is the point of station sensors,etc.

They dominated my first game.The problem is they are possibly the least developed race in theme.I get no sense in what they are about.

Do not care.Women are making the leaders tea.

I am finding escorts do not fire at stations.

The EU games have over 100 tags for nations that could be in any game.

Paradox would not agree with 12.

I do not think planet building games suit large star counts and I'm a bit surprised they are putting resources into immense sizes.You need a different design ala DistantWorlds mechanics.

It is very annoying that the A.I has political options the player does not have.

Agreed.No tech brokering is very missed.

The A.I building them and actually using them for their purpose is not the same.

The early beta battles looked MUCH better as the ships were at much longer range.It looked epic Now they start too close together.It looks stupid like in GC2..

I think a solid 8.It's a little too bland and lacking imagination compared to the competition.

[quote who="Illauna" reply="2" id="3542013"] I like the new trees. It seemed wierd to have a specialization branch and be able to select all 3. [/quote] This.

Specialization lockout is much needed.Now I think they should also be disallowed in the tech trading or the choice and consequence would not work.

I much prefer the change.One should have to make hard choices.Before specializations felt not very special.