joeball123

I agree with the suggestion for making automatic fleet formation optional, as well as for automatic fleet formation to only occur at the final destination rather than when flight paths cross and two ships end up on the same tile in the same turn. In a similar vein, I would suggest that non-fleeted ships and understrength fleets stacked in the same tile should be treated as a fleet (up to the logistics limit) for the purpose of defending against attacks made by another player, so as to

I personally disagree with making augmented weapons strictly superior to the base form. Better overall, sure, but not strictly superior. Also, if a 0.5 bonus to the rate of fire increases the rate of fire by at least 18%, it has more than made up the difference in raw damage, though potentially not in actual damage after defenses are applied. Moreover, at present we've only seen the bare bones of the combat system. I would suggest that it might be better to wait until it&#

At least in Galactic Civilizations II, each turn represented one week of in-universe time, and each move action represented an approximately equal piece of that week (for a given ship/fleet, anyways; a fleet with 5 moves takes 1.4 game-days per move action while a fleet with 7 moves takes 1 game-day per move action, and a fleet with 28 moves takes 0.25 game-days or 6 game-hours per move action). These all seem like fairly reasonable time scales for battles; it's only really when the numbe

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="32" id="3477282"]Hexes look sci-fi, squares look dorky.[/quote] In your opinion, perhaps. [quote who="trims2u" reply="34" id="3477652"]Hexes provide better distance approximation for fixed-increment movement.[/quote] I still don't see why this matters when the tiles in GCII and GCIII clearly don't represent uniform amounts of space. [quote who="trims2u" reply="34" id="3477652"]Both suffer from the "wiggle" problem whe

How else did you think it got lost in the first place?

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="24" id="3477386"]Especially a game where all space travel is considered to be FTL anyway.[/quote] Oh, I don't know about that. You do always use the FTL drive for map movement, but it's fairly clear that movement within a system takes place at far less than the speed of light for all but the fastest of GCII ships, unless you assume that the ship is not moving for large fractions of the time it spends in the tiles around planets and stars even whe

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="32" id="3476844"]I don't think that was such a bad move. Quite the opposite actually. It was a good distinction: if you want better ships, go that route, if you want stronger starbases, then go that route. The actual problem, in my opinion, was the sheer number of defence modules (28 for most races), and that they were all over the place. Some were in the weapons and defence branch, some were in the hulls branch, and some were in the starbase branch[/quote]</

[quote who="trims2u" reply="8" id="3476805"]Squares significantly distort distances; worst case is using 1 movement point for 1.4 of distance, and average case is moving a distance of 1.2 per 1 mp. With hexes, the worst case is that you spend 1.15 less than actually traveled, and average case is 1.05. Hexes are significantly closer to reality in terms of distance to MP required.[/quote] This is a valid concern if your tile grid is attempting to accurately depict absolute distances on

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="14" id="3476560"]What about the naval manufacturing ports in the US? They do not have much defense to withstand a military assault. Although, there are plenty of protection provided from the navy ships in the area, but nothing at the actual port itself. Why would this paradigm change when it come to space?[/quote] The US also at present has the most powerful navy in the world and no nearby powerful hostile neighbors, with Russia being the physically clo

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="4" id="3476740"]Well...pixals are tiny and square like and can make convincing circles.[/quote] Pixels are also typically significantly smaller than the circles they approximate, which makes your average circle displayed using pixels into a large-radius arc (radius scale is being judged relative to the size of the grid unit, not absolutely).

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="2" id="3476715"]What is really good is the ability to make round shapes with hexes, something you cannot do with a square based map. [/quote] It is blatantly false that you cannot make good looking round shapes on a square grid. What you cannot do is make good looking small round shapes on a square grid, and in my personal opinion the rectangular grids give better-looking circle approximations than the hex grids do for arcs with a radius greater than a cou

The adjacency bonus for improvements seems to be buggy in Alpha 3, though it had worked fine in Alpha 2. If you open the attached save, you can see that there are factories on Earth which have 4 adjacent factories yet which are only level 3, there is a level 1 factory with two adjacent factories, and there is a level 0 factory adjecent to the initial colony. Mars has a similar problem with its research labs adjacent to the initial colony. If this is due to a negative level from terrai

Are the terrain bonuses that were present in the 0.2 and 0.1 alpha gone? I mean the +1 level to Wealth improvements from Mountainous tiles and stuff like that, not the stuff like the Mineral Rich bonus. Just wondering, because I haven't noticed any such bonuses so far but I didn't see this listed as being removed in the changelog.

If you're referring to the slider beneath the disk, then that would be the brand-new "how much of this planet's output gets sent to the nearest shipyard" slider. I rather suspect it could use a label.

[quote who="Wetballs" reply="17" id="3475058"]It's funny, but I don't recall ever seeing any arguments on the Fallen Enchantress boards about dragons not being scientifically possible. I wonder what's behind all the apparent huff over fighters in Galciv.[/quote] Fallen Enchantress isn't in a genre that has "science" in the name, nor is it in a genre which is considered particularly likely to have some basis in real science. Not that that necessarily means much, but the

[quote who="TheSoloDriver" reply="8" id="3474418"]Single A-Wing took out a Super Star Destroyer.[/quote] After its shields had been taken down by the concentrated fire of the Rebel fleet, and I would tend to think that a fair amount of luck was involved in that crash actually causing the Executor' s demise - there are, after all, only about 20 seconds between the time the A-Wing hits the bridge and the time Executor hits the Death Star. Had there been more time fo

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="4" id="3473951"]If I'm not mistaken, Stardock had something like this in an early GC2 DL build, where soil enhancement, habitat improvement and terraforming all worked on yellow tiles, and turned them orange. Or something like that, that was a long time ago.[/quote] I don't want them to all turn to a single color, though, at least not unless they all have the same kind of bonus. I want the tiles to end up color-coded (or marked by an icon in

[quote]What does 'Flooded' do to the planet? Does it lower its quality and if so why? [/quote] As far as I can tell, 'flooded' does not currently do anything to the planet. [quote]On another note and without opening up another topic, I noticed that when I unlock 'Arid' terraforming tech, that none of the tiles turned GREEN or even an indication that I researched anything. [/quote] To be perfectly honest, I would rather not have the Arid tiles tu

[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] [quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="46" id="3473182"]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 tactic

Personally, as far as the alignment tree goes, I would rather they made it so that you had to be 'leaning' at least so much in a certain direction along the good/evil axis for each set of unlocks in the good/evil trees (and for the neutral tree, you can be 'leaning' no more than so much in a certain direction), and have thresholds saying that you can't have more than X unlocks in the alignment trees until you have Yx total alignment points. Your 'leanings' could th

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="33" id="3472090"] 22 mile limit[/quote] Don't you mean the 12 nautical mile, ~14 statute mile, or 22 kilometer limit? [quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="33" id="3472090"]Nonsense, getting YOU to declare war is the entire point of the exercise. In diplomatic terms, it makes you the aggressor and various treaty agreements are enforced differently if you declare war on him rather than he on you. [/quote] And yet in the real world i

[quote who="perigrine23" reply="26" id="3471540"]I think most people in this thread are taking these names a little too literally. In game terms these are just gates to compensate for the fact that GalCiv's tech tree is a bunch of parallel branches instead of a web. They do not dictate player or AI behavior. The current names do a good job of describing typical behavior in the early, mid, and late game.[/quote] The problem with naming a technological era as the 'Age of X,'

[quote who="jim_viebke" reply="19" id="3471089"]Actually, what's the point of having the Age associated with tech research? Shouldn't it vary depending on the galactic political situation?[/quote] I suspect that the research eras are intended to allow you to give a general indication of where you are, technologically, rather than requiring knowledge of where a specific tech is. As far as what ages should be named for, though? That varies considerably, depending on who

I would tend to suggest that research 'ages' be named for some important or key technology or set of technologies within that era, rather than handing out vague names like 'Age of War' or 'Age of Expansion' or 'Age of Strife.' Age names like that would be best applied to what is happening within the galaxy, rather than to certain portions of the tech tree. After all, who is to say that the early game is an 'age of war' for me, whereas the late game is p

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="27" id="3471074"]Imagine two countries fighting with drones, viruses real/virtual, and corrosive gas? Well the first part is coming soon but the later bit would be a few more years from now.[/quote] Fighting with 'real viruses' has been around for millenia. People have been throwing dead stuff over the walls of besieged cities in the hopes of spreading disease and illness since at least the Classical period, and in more modern times have devised m