Turkwise

Forcing or pressuring (via penalty) a player to stick with one and only one ideology will never feel right to me. The races in the game are rarely presented as pure good/evil/neutral. While you can count on the Drengin to be vile and aggressive, the Yor seem to be more calculating (pragmatic), the Krynn are fundamentally good-natured but not opposed to violence in the name of religion And humans, well, we are really good at justifying a civilization with extraordinary contra

Okay, here's the fix: rename Ideology. Call it "Social Development" or something.

Somebody on Steam was saying that ideology is too expensive on smaller maps. There does need to be some kind of scaling, as it's currently balanced for medium-ish maps and on anything else it doesn't quite work right.

In one of the dev streams, I believe, somebody had asked about more "organic" ship design possibilities. Well the Yor have you covered! (infinitely) BETTER than organic life,(which will soon all be dead) it's a machine which appears to be alive: [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ38EKIZgBc[/video]

In the latest dev stream this was mentioned. They talked about some possible fixes but said they will definitely be fixed so they're not so absurdly dominant.

Yes, I agree very much too. Thrusters are a waste of space and combat is over far too quickly. I think weapons are too strong compared to ship HP. Defenses can keep a ship alive long enough so that it can fight back, but if - and only if - you've got the right kind of defense. Otherwise you get eaten alive before you can do any damage at all. By mid-game ships are dealing more damage than they have HP, so any battle with a weapon-defense mismatch automatica

What I want is a game that is fun, not dictionary definitions. I don't care how "Ideology" is defined, I care how it works in the game. Besides, the examples of mixing and matching in my post adhere to ideological principles, just not the way the game defines them. It's all about fun. Not dictionaries. Dictionaries are boring. Flexibility is fun.

[quote who="Taslios" reply="13" id="3520450"] That said... simply cost prohibitive based on the spherical graph would work great as well and is honestly my preferred choice here. [/quote] Limiting players to one tree, any way you go about it, is limiting to gameplay and strategy options. Right now, if I want a "Chaotic Neutral" style civ, I can make that. If I want to pick and choose - both for individual worlds and overall id

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="9" id="3520410"] another solution might be to make the ideology pts all scale together rather then scaling in the three seperate trees. [/quote] That's what it did in Beta 3 and I didn't like that at all. Locking a player out, or penalizing for picking other tree's perks, is no fun and leads to the feeling that you have to chose X ideology when colonizing a new world or getting a mega-event. It takes the ch

I just want to voice my opinion here that I think the Fast Assembly is a lot of fun (maybe too much?*) once you get the hang of it. It's different. It makes the Yor feel different. The assembly project was a chore and a bore. But adjusting playstyle and strategy to fit a very different race is, in my mind, a very good thing. Fast Assembly works in concert with the other things the Yor do well to make them very good at colonizing and invading. *I think

Immense is immense. I won't touch it (ok, maybe I'll poke at it) until more features are added. Such as the ability to make research take longer.

Here's a constructor! Video of animation (which I don't do often, but it was fun): [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJdrbGsWBDo[/video]

I had never even tried building more than one economic starbase for a planet. I figured it wouldn't help. I think it shouldn't help. I hope that's a bug. It is ridiculous for anyone trying to max their worlds to have that option (or requirement) available. I'll continue to ignore that part of the game and have 1 base/planet max. I pretend that things work the way I think they should. I feel like that's the best approach to beta.<

I love the intro. It's beautiful. I mean, you must realize that GalCiv has a continuing story line, and the intro is giving you a quick rundown of the current state of things - Earth is blockaded, the Arnor are decimated, and the Thalan are still giving cryptic warnings. Then we get some nice explosions. What more could you ask for?

Would an old (before Beta 4 Patch 1) save experience a turn hang (end turn, wait forever) bug if loaded under the new patch? I ask because after several hours of playing a save I started a couple days ago, now on v 0.71.1.0, I have encountered this bug again. At this same point, attempting to remove fog of war results in a CTD. Have I encountered an unfixed error or am I more likely experiencing something that was left over in my old save file that's causing the freeze

Well then. In that case, I agree with your earlier suggestion, peregrine23. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="9" id="3519594"] I think the easiest fix for this is to raise the efficiency of the projects from 1/4 to 1/2 or 1/3, but not have the output of the project modified by science or economy buildings or space station modules. In the current system, at a certain point a mixed manufacturing/science world running research project will out perform a pure science world running 100% science. [/quote] I don't think the projects themselves are modifi

You've got 10 manufacturing buildings with incredible adjacency bonuses and 4 research buildings without such bonuses. No matter how hard you try, those 4 buildings aren't going to produce more than the 10 manufacturing buildings. If you were to have it the other way around - 10 research with fantastic bonuses, you'd get a LOT more research than the manufacturing -> research project. It makes sense; that's not a research world, it's a manufacturing

Just as I was putting the finishing touches on a ship, I go to click "proportional scaling," miss and throw my whole ship away. [e digicons]X([/e] If I click "Cancel" I would really, really appreciate it if it asked me if I was sure!

Yeah, whenever you get a "free ship" of any sort, it is based on your current technology. It might give you a hull larger than you have researched, but everything else will be limited by what you've unlocked. It's not so much a bug as an oversight.

I think the logic behind weapon ranges is something like this: Beam weapons hit virtually instantly, and therefore hit easily at long distances. Missile weapons move slower, but can change course. They are, however, limited in fuel. Kinetic weapons are faster than missiles, but travel in a straight line. At long ranges avoidance is easy.

Now that I've read this topic I notice the sound every time it plays. Never really noticed it before... Thanks guys. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]

Based on my testing, I think making fighter craft use logistics would make carriers severely underpowered. A huge ship specifically designed to fight carriers can deal with 10 fighters easily enough. 2 huge carriers w/10 fighters each wouldn't stand a chance against 4 huge ships with good jamming and targeting and an array of weapons. I also discovered my previous suggestion of 1 module per craft is pathetic and wimpy. I still think something needs to change, whe

The manufacturing isn't calculated in whole numbers. The govern window rounds up and down, which often makes the numbers appear to not add up. Ultimately, they do add up. For example, if your total is 9.5, it would say "10." Then you could have a situation like, social is 2.6 social and 6.9 military, and you slide it to 2.4 social and 7.1 military. It would first say "3" and "7" but then change to "2" and "7" because you're not working with the whole 10 to begin with

The on/off is a realistic (and welcome) depiction of laser physics. Slow-moving lasers are, in my view, an antiquated relic of early TV/Hollywood sci-fi that just won't die. But yes, they are a bit...overwhelming. They're very large and tend to make a mess of the battle view. If they had a more focused appearance (rather than the wide beams we have now) I think it would be much more aesthetically pleasing.