WIllythemailboy

[quote who="TheSoloDriver" reply="4" id="3474057"]I guess the major reason I focus on modern warfare and tactics is well since I'm in the military. I've had to build target packets for both conventional (standard uniformed armies) and non-conventional forces. (insurgents)With games like this I just think of modern military doctrine. It's not the carrier that is powerful. In our modern Navy the carrier is actually rather weak and must have a fleet to protect it. It's what it ca

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="6" id="3474197"] quoting post The Alpha 3 patch is so close, you guys. So close, you don't even know. This might be your last chance to ask Paul about it before you're playing it yourselves, hint hint. aww are you guys cancelling the dev streams after this week thats not fair[/quote] I suspect you were not serious with this post, but the implication we were supposed to pick up is that the new build will

[quote who="erischild" reply="45" id="3473181"] I must be weird. I seem to be the only person who actually enjoyed and agreed with the Influence mechanic and concept in GC2.[/quote] I enjoyed it as well, but then I spent a few dozen hours digging into the math and the modeling behind it. And came up with a few insane cheese tactics to use it. I suspect those who were unhappy with the mechanic either didn't know some of the tactics or wanted somewhat different cheese ta

Can't seem to comment in the stream. No zoom on the minimap is a game-breaker. Zooming the main map is nice, but zooming the minimap is absolutely essential.

[quote who="joeball123" reply="35" id="3472099"] Don't you mean the 12 nautical mile, ~14 statute mile, or 22 kilometer limit?[/quote] Correct. I mixed my units. [quote who="joeball123" reply="35" id="3472099"]And yet in the real world it isn't usually accepted for a nation to claim the waters around some foreign nation as their own territorial waters, and in fact making such a claim would be considered at the very least provocative. Nor does the 12 mile limit app

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="32" id="3472087"] Quoting androshalforc, reply 30i could agree with this on condition that if i had closed borders and you violated those borders without declaring war i could destroy your ship while its in my space without having to declare war But if you do such a thing to any of my ships, I'll declare war on you. No matter my power at the time. Thereby defeating purpose of capturing / destroying my ship without declaring war.

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="28" id="3471923"]It looks like these three UP proposals violate Brad's reply above "They're spheres of influence which different races, to varying degree, try to claim are also political borders", and maybe they should be removed or reworked for GC3.[/quote] I think those proposals are exactly what Brad was talking about; they're attempts to treat spheres of influence as political boundaries. Each one is a way of stating "

[quote who="erischild" reply="4" id="3470718"] So, we are touting GC2 as the tutorial for GC3. Interesting tactic. I do agree, though. If you like GC1 and are interested in GC3, it is very probably worthwhile to get a copy of GC2. There is a lot of fun to be had there while waiting for the Alpha developers to tell us it is okay to think that GC3 is fun, too. (They are so strict!!)[/quote] Most of the people in the alpha are lo

That could be game-breaking in some specific circumstances. At least in GC2, I always ran a very heavy influence game, to the point where someone colonizing a planet near me would not even get a zone of control, so they wouldn't ever be able to build anything from that planet. Constructor spam, maybe, but that's it. Minor civs would have to be exempt from this, since they can't generate a ZOC or fight back against anyone else's. Extreme endgame, there is literall

[quote who="trims2u" reply="29" id="3469472"]I'd go with moving the specialty thingies (the economic/moral/research/etc. gizmos that you create starbases around) onto dead planets, and creating a new kind of constructor which creates a "mining colony" on those dead planets. Such planets would have no influence radius, and could be bombarded (and destroyed) rather than invaded. Basically, just dump the bonus gizmos from space, and put them on dead planets.[/quote] The only positive

[quote who="Schaefespeare" reply="11" id="3467676"] Thanks for the appreciative responses. I didn't mean to sound as if I'm against manual placement, It's a good idea but I was just pointing out it doesn't go far enough in solving Tile useage problems created by the AI.[/quote] Well right now it's not AI placing the colony, it's a random number generator. Other possible solutions: 1. Designate the colony space when the planet is

[quote who="Alstein" reply="7" id="3467175"] I really like that solution to logistics. Logistics in the traditional Stardock sense is problematic. The downside is you might end up with problems with massive AI fleets like 100-200 ships, but wouldn't many Gigs of RAM solve that problem? You'd probably still need a hard cap though- or someone would make a 100 ship fleet, and that could cause memory problems. Log

[quote who="panzar2" reply="4" id="3466991"] The only difference I can see would have any effect is the speed, otherwise a trade module is a trade module. I know you got different incomes depending on where on the route the freighter was but a faster ship not only goes to the profitable end faster it also goes to the less profitable end faster. Doesn't that pretty much cancel out the difference between a slow and a fast ship?[/quote] There would be no differen

Translation: Brad set up a company-wide Quake tournament for today.

At this point they are reusing old icons since the new ones haven't been made yet. It's a known problem that will get fixed when they get around to it.

You're not truly screwed until you see a mini-lop rabbit with a switchblade and a Glock.

Your point didn't really need to be clarified. It was quite obvious what you intended. The problem is that life support scales with map size (or did in GC2, we don't have maps big enough to test that yet for GC3). On a dinky map, your +1 per module roughly approximates the percentage addition, closely enough so that it may well have been used to calculate those percentages in the first place. Life support gives MUCH more range for larger maps. Getting a 10% passiv

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="24" id="3464368"]How about making it so, that this game-mechanic actually has a purpose after the early game? As you said yourself, range was only an issue during the early phase of GalCiv 2. What's the point of having it then, if it is entirely useless for most of the game?[/quote] I'm pretty sure that was the designed intent, to slow down the colony rush and then gradually phase out as a concern. It can still be a problem in very sparse or very

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="20" id="3464331"]Removing the Basic Life Support module doesn't set the range of ships to zero. Ship hulls have a base-range, which is hardcoded (at least in GalCiv 2). He probably didn't take that into account when he made the calculation.[/quote] I'm not convinced he made an error in calculation. [quote who="Gaunathor" reply="20" id="3464331"]I don't see what's so bad about that. If you want to increase the range of your ship

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="18" id="3464286"]So, if my changes don't slow down the game outside of the beginning, then I really can't see how trims2u's could. Especially considering that his Basic LS module has a bigger range-increase than my Ultimate one.[/quote] Unless my math is badly off, he's removed the base life support from the basic hull entirely (or set it to 9 or lower). That's the only way a ship needing to go 100 spaces would require 7 modules giving

[quote who="trims2u" reply="12" id="3464197"]You're going overboard. I'm saying that the current situation, where a ship can effectively transit the entire map (or, 80%+ of a very large map) with only a SINGLE LS MODULE installed removes a very significant tactical aspect of the game. How about something like a Basic LS module provides 15 spaces of range, and subsequent techs provide +5 distance for each module. So, if you've got to go 100 spaces away from a planet/s

[quote who="trims2u" reply="4" id="3464100"] Yup, especially since whatever Hyperdrive is, we have no idea how it works, or any energy efficiency thereof. So there's no "realism" to model. I'm perfectly fine with the current systems for speed. For DISTANCE, however, I'm definitely in favor of having the various lifesupport modules provide a fixed distance (hexes) away from the nearest supply post (starbase/planet). And that distance SHOULD

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="25" id="3463191"] Im out of this thread guys, I do not think you will be able to convince DARCA that his line of thought is flawed. He is obstinate. And he might be using us as a stress reliever for a dentist appointment or something. [/quote] That much was obvious from the first few posts.

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="10" id="3463037"] Open your eyes Max, EVERY single race in galciv is humanoid and is based off one of the creatures I listed. Drengin are evil apes, torians are fish people. Its a fact. And PLEASE max give a reason to your condescending sarcasm. Tell me how you can be a advanced technological race and NOT have the perquisites of being a humanoid? I say its impossible. The examples of opening jars and chewing on leaves, makes me think I

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="3" id="3462147"] Besides the visuals, what would that add to the game? As far as I can tell, this would make it much harder to see what you have built on the planet. You'd need to scroll around in order to find every improvement. The 2D screen is much better in that regard.[/quote] Agreed. It's a cool idea, but would compromise the functionality of the interface.