WIllythemailboy

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="50" id="3411063"] Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 48 GC2 did that, as long as the tech was in the same chain. If you overkilled Laser II, the excess would go into Laser III, then Laser IV, etc. The only time it would matter is when researching a terminal tech in a chain. That's not to say it wouldn't be nice to be able to redirect the remainder to something else if I wanted to end at Laser II for some reason.<

[quote who="18Zulukiller" reply="15" id="3410948"] Quoting wuphonsreach, reply 14 - Starbase tech didn't keep up with ship advances. A starbase (in my mind) should be competitive with even the largest ship hulls if you invest the constructors into upgrading it. In my mind, a military starbase should be able to fend off multiple of the largest ships. Agreed that's why i never built anything more tha

I'll add a conditional vote for the minority as well. Starbases will be significantly less valuable without the capability of building them quickly, which is what most of the alternative schemes lack. If I blow up a Torian starbase on an economic resource, I want that stack of constructors to build it from nothing to full production immediately, not 20 turns from now. Slow build would suck. If there's a better way to implement that sort of system, I'll support that. Even a

Multiplayer wouldn't be of much use to him either, since it would have the same problem of him losing in about the same time frame as an AI could beat him. I guess he could play against human players much worse than him. He seems to want fun replay value from facerolling dumbed down AI, and it's not going to happen here. Possibly something like Sim City would be more his speed.

I tend to care about certain worlds, specifically high bonus, high PQ, or those with good colonization bonuses. A planet that can crank out +60% ships deserves lots of care and micromanagement, a random 12 PQ planet with a x2 manufacturing bonus tile is going to get a factory on that time, then stock market spammed until I build over the factory and that's the last I'll ever care about it.

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="47" id="3410933"]Why not have the excess research points be automatically be redirected to the next research project instead of being wasted? I'm thinking that when ever you have more than enough research points to complete 1 tech (or several), the excess is put towards the tech of your choosing (you should get a pop up or something). [/quote] GC2 did that, as long as the tech was in the same chain. If you overkilled Laser II, the excess would

[quote who="Tridus" reply="45" id="3410859"]Why would I want to do that? If I can get X, Y, and Z in 15 turns, it makes more sense to get X at turn 5, Y at 10, and Z at 15 than it does to split my research three ways and get all of them on turn 15. The optimal way to do it is so obvious that doing anything else is simply playing wrong, and thus why bother implementing it? Trying to fix it such that it's not lopsided just makes something else optimal, and thus people in the know will still

[quote who="charon2112" reply="264" id="3410569"]It's probably going to be a combination of both, and this thread will be 200 pages of wasted debate. [/quote] Maybe, but hopefully not. Regardless, Stardock has already decided what they are going to do and probably have it 90% coded already, and this will be 200 pages of wasted debate.

I don't know about bugs; I'm one of those hapless beta users that breaks something but can't isolate what I broke or how. However, I will happily volunteer to proofread game text. Maybe a pdf of all the text in the game, rather than trying to find it all while playing the game and hoping I remember to write it down. There's still a few minor-but-annoying errors in Twilight that bug me to no end. One I was recently was a wrong text variable, a instead o

The constructor spam was annoying, but I think I'd find a solely planet-industry-linked upgrade path to be even worse. Being able to do both wouldn't be too bad, though. Maybe drop the 10 or so constructors to make the functional part of the base instantly, then let the planet-based process fortify it. Honestly, I'd be happier if we could put multiple special modules on a single hull. A cargo ship with 5 cargo modules that can be built on a reasonably productive planet is

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="3" id="3410501"]It may also be that Tyrantissar is talking from experience from a particular level of GC2. I had noticed that the re spawning of anomalies quit on at least one particular upgrade. [/quote] There might have been a patch where it didn't work right, but more likely he only played the base game early on. Respawning anomalies weren't introduced until DA, if I remember correctly.

[quote who="Marauder_IIc" reply="4" id="3410127"]I agree, this would be an excellent idea. Infact, this made me think of somehting, as I really want some improvements in combat to begin with (like control) mayby targetabgle vitals and systems, that way you could disable engines and use salvage craft to steal the ship. Knock power off line, drag it back to a space dock or planet, if the crew won't surrended, easy enough,blow a small hole in it and space t

[quote who="jim_viebke" reply="25" id="3409067"]I'm guessing sectors will be retained, just to keep large maps manageable. Hex-shaped quadrants would make sense. I'll be interested to see how it's done. I must add I'm very happy about the promise of still-larger galaxies. GCII Ultimate supported up to 22*22 sectors, or 484 sectors total. With 12*12 tiles (?) per sector, that's a total of 22*22*12*12 tiles, or 69,696 individual tiles.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="4" id="3408764"] Quoting Zydor, reply 3 Stargates will never happen in GalCiv - ever. Yes, because Hyperdrive made them obsolete, not because of your reasons. Stargates wouldn't allow instantaneous travel anyhow. That's not how they work in the GalCiv lore. In fact, they are much slower than Hyperdrive (still better than STL, though). [/quote] That was the lore reason used to explain why they weren

That's the beauty of the post-fix Mind Control Center. In my current game, I could build that and win in 3-5 turns depending on how the planet flipping cascades. I won't, but it's good to know that I can if I need to.

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="40" id="3408129"]You're assuming you'll be the only thinking person. Don't do that.[/quote] If you don't understand the difference between strategic surprise and tactical surprise, that's not my fault.

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="32" id="3408081"]CO-OP never apealed to me, but it is popular even in these kind of games (for me that is more for RTS, 2 vs 2 games for instance).[/quote] It's a good way for people of significantly unequal skill levels to play. Rather than one person intentionally handicapping themselves to give the other a chance, they can team up to take on the rest of the galaxy.

[quote who="Brainsucker" reply="29" id="3408049"]That is the reason why a single super ship can destroy everything in their path. As you won't be able to beat him even if you throw all your smaller ships into it.[/quote] In the campaigns of GC2, that was how you beat the Dread Lords. Especially in the original game, a swarm of tiny ships could rip apart a larger ship with far higher tech due to how the weapons mechanics worked. In Dread Lords each ship fired all its weapons at onc

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="37" id="3408039"]I'm speaking from a multiplayer point of view. The only reason the "combat viewer" worked in galciv2 was because the AI was purposely hobbled in how it would equip its ships. With more than one person you'll have mroe than one challenger with equal ships because they will change their ships immediately to counter yours. And since there is absolutely no substantial difference in weapon systems it will all come down to

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="30" id="3407952"]It looks as if the biggest problems against tactical combat of some sort is that its detractors don't think of themselves as intelligent enough to use it. [/quote] Actually, the opposite is true. I'm more worried that the AI won't be able to use it effectively. Of the few TBS games I've played, each one had AI behavior that could be exploited by the player allowing victories that really should not have happened, and i

[quote who="Farplane" reply="6" id="3407934"]i personally find that more interesting since there is more trust required between allies than in a team setting where it is impossible to backstab your friend.[/quote] It's always possible to backstab an ally, you just have to be more creative about it. Influence flipping their planets, surrounding their planets with ships or starbases that they can't move through or destroy, sniping planets they were about to take, etc. E

[quote who="Cikomyr" reply="21" id="3407787"] Quoting Zydor, reply 18 Stardock have resisted Carriers many times - and that's what this is - a Carrier thread by another name. Yhea, sure. Ignore entirely all my other propositions and just focus on the fact that I propose "carrier" as one of the ship class. [/quote] And the fighters that are the basis of your system, which would be pretty useless without a car

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="19" id="3407700"]So no Carrier module that allows X Tiny ships to not count Logistics wise in the fleet where that module is present? [/quote] As Zydor said, carriers were repeatedly shot down in all three GC2 iterations. It's not likely to change. Although it would be hilarious if Stardock included carriers with the realistic downside of carriers: a successful surprise attack can kill off the carrier before it has a chance to launc

[quote who="Zydor" reply="25" id="3407661"]They have little choice now frankly, multi-player is an "expected" option in *most* of todays "epic" type games. The particular issue with GalCiv is its a Strategy Game that takes a good while to complete. For sure, turn down the size of the Universe, and that shortens game time - it also shortens enjoyment. Its one of those topics that easy to wax eloquent about, but is a dog when deciding how to actually do it, and still keep faith with

I misread the original topic. I was getting a "Your browser is out of date" message, not a win8 message. Only on this site, and with both IE and Chrome. Both browsers are up to date. I got a Java update this morning, and didn't get the message when I opened this site, so I'm hoping that was the problem.