joeball123

[quote][bug] Several AI planets had cultural and military buildings and no farms or hospitals, etc. There is no point building manufacture and research improvements that give a % bonus when your points per turn is under 9-10. You are better off making growth buildings to increase your population and get more points for all three (four if you count the starport) buckets. [/quote] Farms are only necessarily better on the low-population worlds in the long run. You get a much m

I judge a game mechanic motly by its gameplay value, and I still feel specialized planets were overpowered in alpha. Are you somehow under the impression that I want to make specialized worlds better? Because that's not what I asked for earlier. What I want is for the system to not favor one form of specialization over the others. I want all three forms of specialization to be equally discouraged by the morale system, rather than having wealth speciali

This is the cost of rushing production : 15 BC for 1 MP. And judging from GCII, the cost of rushing production has little bearing on the actual cost of producing that manufacturing point in a real factory. Beyond that, it's an utterly incredible difference in expenses - if I have a world that can produce 30 manufacturing points or 8 billion credits per turn, your model assumes that I've started spending 450 billion credits per turn, covered by an i

1 MP costs 15 BC to buy, so "producing" only 1 BC instead of 1 MP means taxes are indeed very low. The problem with this reasoning is that the way that the wealth slider behaves is exactly what you would expect of a spending slider or a tax slider. Increasing the wealth setting instantly increases governmental net income from that particular world, which indicates either spending cuts or tax increases. If it's supposed to represent the government cutti

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="4" id="3487390"] However, that isn't the case for the other bonuses, like planetary defense, tourism, trade route value, logistics, and so on. [/quote] Are you sure that at least some of these bonuses are not empire bonuses rather than planetary bonuses? If tourism follows the same model as in GCII, that bonus only really makes sense as an empire bonus (unless a 'tourism' bonus means that the planetary influence counts for more than

Personally, I feel that the current system whereby setting a planet to wealth production makes everyone happier is a silly penalization of high-production and high-research worlds and over-encourages high-wealth worlds. Plus, it doesn't even make that much sense. The government shut down all its factories (or converted them to compete with the private market) and labs and upped the tax rate, and I'm supposed to be happier because of this? If you're going to create an appro

Another alternative for that clause would be something along the lines of "stricken by this disease, ..." If I'm not mistaken, stricken is a perfect passive participle of to strike and therefore is used either as an adjective (e.g. a stricken vessel) or as a passive verb (e.g. we are stricken by disease), which would make "strickening" an invalid form as that is a present active participial form rather than a perfect passive participial form. If you want to stay with the same verb

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="80" id="3486221"] Grand Moff Tarkin called it a "fully functional battle station." IIRC. [/quote] That would be the Emperor, in Return of the Jedi referring to the second Death Star; I don't recall Tarkin describing the first as a 'fully armed and operational battle station,' though he did describe the Death Star as a station. Regardless, as for the degree to which I care about it being described as such within the movies, may I refe

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="30" id="3486213"] SotS 1, AoW:SM, or Eador. I don't know what most of those stand for but I think its Eador. [/quote] SotS 1 would be Sword of the Stars, with the '1' indicating that it's the old one, probably including all the expansions, rather than the new one. AoW:SM would be Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, which would be the expansion to Age of Wonders II.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="74" id="3486144"] Yes, that is true those starbases didn't move... but the Death Star did. We don't know how large the starports are in this game vs. the size of the starbaes. It could be that starbases are 100 times larger than a starport. Hence impractical to move starbases but not starports. [/quote] [quote who="charon2112" reply="75" id="3486151"] You've got me on the Death Star. I guess I just personally like my space sta

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="61" id="3486007"] Well to start off comparing 10 million miles to 1 lightyear is the same as comparing real space to folded space. [/quote] It really doesn't matter that you're comparing real space to folded space. What matters is the way that you get there and how much time it takes you. Given that stargates are massively expensive, they were almost certainly used nearly exclusively for intersystem travel, while a slower and c

[quote who="trims2u" reply="5" id="3485807"] In our world, agriculture is one: those civilizations that had agriculture didn't just dominate, they exterminated in extreme rapidity any society that they ran into that didn't. [/quote] This isn't particularly true, assuming that by 'agriculture' you mean crop farming or other similar forms of agriculture which resulted in relatively permanent settlements. The Huns and the Mongols were largely nomadic peoples

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="59" id="3485943"] you know i still dont get this 1 lightyear is just shy of 6 trillion miles why would you ever want to make a trip take 60,000 times longer? [/quote] [quote who="parrottmath" reply="59" id="3485943"] I would call that a typo in the gal civ 2 database. Switch out 10 million to be 10 trillion and then it is better, but only slightly [/quote] While it is more common for the statement "A seems like B" to use B a

[quote who="Axe99" reply="38" id="3485335"] it seems like one of the problems is that planets can't defend themselves. Maybe make it possible to build defensive installations on the surface, which can handle a small garrison fleet/early ships, but not a proper invasion fleet, which can be rebuilt if destroyed. [/quote] This isn't really all that much of an issue if the invasion mechanics work out to a similar balance to that seen in GCII. If you can secure control of

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="16" id="3484788"] if i have a cloaking system that defeats x-type sensors mearly adding more x-type sensors should have little to no effect so the detected within x range makes more sense to me [/quote] Real-world and realistic stealth systems do not render a vehicle completely invisible to a form of detection, they make them less visible to that form of detection. The Northrup Grumman B-2 can still be detected by radar, it's just more d

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about seeing a stealth system added to the game. I will however say that any such system ought to be kept simple. [quote who="EleventhStar" reply="9" id="3483536"] 2) Stealth modules weight about as much as a engine module and are difficult to stack without sacrificing other stuff. Each tech level of stealth reduces detectoin range. tech level 1 means you can be detected from 5 hexes away, tech level 5 means you can be detected from

[quote who="Bellack" reply="16" id="3483319"] I like it to. It allows for more customization. [/quote] The system proposed does not actually permit a greater degree of customization than a system with a universal pool with a similar number of points to play with. Under the system proposed, I have no way to trade engine space for weapons, life support, sensors, et cetera, beyond whatever fits into the 'universal' slot. As a result, there is no trade-off to having at l

[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="10" id="3483462"] Homeworld and Sword of the Stars, for two. [/quote] I don't know about Homeworld, but in Sword of the Stars it's only particularly easy to move ships or fleets to or from specific points (the planets, or systems if you prefer, and any ships or fleets in deep space on the map). It was a bit more convoluted to get a ship to an arbitrary point on the map for purposes such as parking a deep scan vessel in deep space to watc

[quote who="charon2112" reply="25" id="3483527"] It always bothered me that the Korx were evil. A trading race should really be neutral, willing to trade with both sides as long as they make money. [/quote] I rather suspect that the Korx were generally willing to trade with anyone they could; it's their ethics and/or morals that placed them into the evil category, not their trading partners. They're described as being willing to do just about anything for money, whic

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="27" id="3483037"] And in a 11 vs 10 joeball123 at least four would survive in ok condition because the first enemy would die 50% faster by being double teamed and the factors would multiply for every enemy destroyed and friendly ship being added to the friendly firing pool. [/quote] Not necessarily true, DARCA1213. If, for example, both sides consist of ships which are each capable of destroying 1 enemy ship per round, then in a 10 vs 11 situati

As far as reducing the number of clicks when managing late-game fleets goes, it'd be nice just to be able to select all the ships in a tile regardless of whether or not they're in the same fleet and issue the same order to all of them at once, and GCII already had the beginnings of the necessary functionality - you were already able to select a stack of ships and select multiple ships or fleets within that stack, you just weren't able to issue a single order to all the selected st

[quote who="dmjung" reply="23" id="3482981"] I'm not sure the massive fleet is indestructible and running wild scenario is necessarily true. [/quote] While it is true that you probably cannot just have one massive fleet, there is a significant advantage to be had from allowing one side to gain numerical superiority. Ever go into a GCII battle with numerical superiority against identical enemy ships? The loses are not 1 for 1; the casualty ratios favor the side with the

[quote who="trims2u" reply="21" id="3482788"] And, well, if it's the law, then... [/quote] ... they can get court injunctions against illegal increases in sea level? Or maybe sue those melting ice caps for illegally dumping water into the seas? Let's go get some lawyers; if the sea level has to pass through all that red tape before it can rise it'll never happen, right? In case it's not clear, the above is meant to be funny rather than

[quote who="trims2u" reply="12" id="3482780"] I could care less about that, but, if in fact each ship does only represent one ship, then either we're getting MASSIVELY ripped off in the cost of small/tiny ships, or an INCREDIBLE discount for Huge/Massive ones. [/quote] While I cannot speak for whether or not it's a rip-off, I would point out that the published figures for the cost of the US Navy's Nimitz-class carriers run at about 8.5 billion dollars [1] while t

[quote who="dmjung" reply="6" id="3482714"] Has the potential for adding new strategies and twists to the game [/quote] Yes, you know what that strategy is? "Beat this stack of 10,000 ships now, sucker!" Moreover, while it is true that the people in high-level government offices are rarely directly involved in the logistical side of how you're actually going to organize and support a fleet of 7000 ships carrying 160,000 invasion troops off the coast of Normandy and land