joeball123

I am very much opposed to using influence boundaries as territorial borders. If Stardock wants to add in 'national space' as a game concept, then I'd rather that it were some fixed number of tiles around a colony rather than anything remotely similar to influence, with a reasonable rule for settling overlapped claims. Conceptually speaking, there's little difference between 'territorial waters' and 'territorial space' - both represent a region in which the laws

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="11" id="3470075"]and looking at earth and mars let’s say I’m playing humans and haven’t colonized mars for some reason or another and you come along and colonize it should i just give up half of my ZOC just because you took a planet right next to mine?[/quote] If Mars was within your 'territory,' then there's a clear violation and a valid cause for a declaration of war. If Mars was not within your 'territory,' the

Things of this nature are a large part of why I dislike the use of influence to determine national boundaries and would much rather have a fixed limit, like say having everything within three tiles of a colony belong to the colony's owner. Just because my nation has enough influence to paint half the galaxy blue doesn't mean that my nation's territory encompasses that half of the galaxy, particularly if we're talking about things like another faction's homeworld being unde

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="30" id="3469496"]The Galactic Civilizations universe has mass-negation technology and hyperdrive, alongside fusion. Those three technologies make it pretty irrelevant where you choose to do something. [/quote] Out of the three technologies listed, the only one which is easily seen to be relevant to the economics of planetary versus asteroid mining is the mass negation technology, and I don't know where you're getting that from. The two close

[quote who="perigrine23" reply="11" id="3469011"]I think this type of rubber-banding sounds really interesting, especially if they can get the AI difficulty is determined primarily by how the AI plays rather than by cheats and bonuses. That being said, When you hit that tipping-point where you know you are going to win, it may be tough to raise the difficulty enough without it feeling really unfair to the player.[/quote] I don't see the suggestion as proposed as a rubber-banding t

[quote who="ProfoundGlee" reply="7" id="3468866"] allow difficulty level to be increased (but not decreased) midway through a game[/quote] I really must ask why this restriction should be in place. There is nothing at all wrong with deciding that you'd rather play an easier game at an advanced point in the tech tree, or in deciding that the difficulty you originally set (or most recently set) is too high for you or for your tastes, and as far as the single-player side of things go

[quote who="trims2u" reply="2" id="3468052"]Only if the Difficulty level is HARDER than the one you're playing at.[/quote] I see no particular reason why this restriction should be in place. Presumably, multiplayer games will either have computer players at a locked difficulty or require the agreement of the majority (or all) of the participating players to change since the host arbitrarily deciding that the game difficulty should change could be a nuisance, and in single player t

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="12" id="3468034"]4. The colony building counts as an adjacent building for all other types of building. It has manufacturing, research, food, morale, and economy attributes and should be counted as a level 1 of each of those types for adjacency purposes.[/quote] Initial colonies already provide +1 level to any adjacent building, so consider this part of your request granted. I agree that 3 and 5 should be there as well, if we're not going to gua

To be perfectly honest, I tend to find that most espionage systems, particularly ones which include one or more forms of sabotage, in games are more annoying than useful or fun, at least for me. GalCiv II had a particularly poor implementation of it (although thankfully one of the less annoying implementations, since you could essentially turn espionage off by building a Counter-Espionage Center on every planet, which wasn't that poor of an idea since it was a halfway decent morale struct

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="3" id="3466366"]Personally i never liked the idea of the flagship on a game with this scale, they should just call it science/survey/exploration vessel. Surely every fleet has it's flagship? Does it really make sense for a huge empire (or the federation), to have ONE flagship?[/quote] It really depends on how you're defining 'flagship.' It is certainly the case that any organized collection of military ships will have one vessel which h

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="12" id="3464777"]Any Shield or hull that could withstand particle collisions at those relative velocities would be impervious to most combat weapons from the start.[/quote] Depends on how big the particles are. Mass may not have as much of an effect as velocity on the collision energy, but there's a big difference between hitting a 0.1 kg object at 0.9c and hitting a 1 kg object at 0.9c. Regardless, if the vessels truly are moving at relativistic ve

Nebulae slowing ship traffic and sensors I'm mostly okay with, even though it's fairly ridiculous. Normal nebulae causing my ships to get lost or damaged, though? No thanks; any navigational design so incompetent as to rely so heavily on dead reckoning that it could result in the ship becoming lost due to a failure of an IMU should never appear on a starship, particularly not one found in a setting supposedly more advanced than the present. Even a basic setup for navigating by the sta

[quote who="Wer900" reply="9" id="3464185"]The issue with your description of folded space is that it assumes space to be pre-folded.[/quote] It doesn't matter if space is pre-folded or not, the map displays the relative locations of objects as seen by a ship which is folding space. It's kind of like a subway map - it shows you where the stops are relative to the other stops; this one additionally scales it so that you have an idea of the time between the stops.

[quote who="Wer900" reply="12" id="3463413"]I don't gather what you mean by "direct interference in space battles". Space battles are already played out on a large map (although I would wholly support a smaller tactical map) but planetary invasion is purely a numbers game. How planetary invasion works in GCII does a terrible injustice to the military, political, economic, and logistical challenges that accompany the conquest of a planet.[/quote] Planetary invasion in GCII is neith

[quote who="AuraBoy" reply="10" id="3463241"]Even though the bulk of people dislike the notion of a spherical planetary view, I still contend that it would enhance the game. I have recently been playing GalCiv2 again and I do not see how this would detract from game play at all. Plus you could theoretically toggle between a 2d and 3d view. It is nice to see someone else like the idea as well. I still think the Hexagon/Pentagon combo fits in more with the aesthetics of the current game rather

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="22" id="3460882"]i don't think it should be willy nilly it should be considered an act of war unless you have a treaty with the person there should also be three different treaties one for each type of starbase[/quote] You see, I disagree with this significantly. GalCiv's "Influence" bubbles are absolutely terrible as representations of territory. They show where your culture has spread to, but that doesn't mean that that area is

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="1" id="3459018"]further i think economic and even influence starbases should be able to be flipped[/quote] I would very much not want this to be possible. Starbases, in my view, are state-owned and operated. If you want one of my starbases, you either buy it or you take it by force. Moreover, this would tend to defeat one of the primary purposes of influence starbases - namely, changing the culture balance in a region to prevent your worlds from flipp

[quote who="Pwarky" reply="27" id="3459212"]I agree that manned fighters are silly in space, but why are AI drones not an option. Removing the biological parts means that g forces are not a problem for abrupt vector changes and removes the need for Life Support. Uplinked Targeting allows for highly accurate shots to be taken without the limitation of organic sight.[/quote] It's a question of EW and fuel capacity. If the EW is too strong, then there are issues with keeping in touch

[quote who="Liquid Sky" reply="19" id="3459056"] You don't really have to maneuver if your weapon has range. And any weapon you want to put on a fighter, I can make more powerful/better range and put on a ship. And protect that weapon with heavier armour/shields. [/quote] But how well can you aim it? It doesn't matter if your death ray can fire 1,000,000 times further than my death ray can if my death ray can be mounted on something that your death ray cannot reliably hit from

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="11" id="3458742"]-the sheer scale of distances and speeds in space is nothing like you see in scifi, in reality ships would be many hundreds if not thousands of kilometers apart, making the pilots eyesight useless. This goes for weapons fire too, a pilot would never ever be able to dodge any space based weapon except for possibly a missile. This also applies to all the cool fights in asteroid fields, in reality there will rarely be 2 asteroids within a couple

It's really not that difficult if you read it; it boils down to if your current maximum population multiplied by the change in the production multiplier is greater than the change in maximum population multiplied by the current production multiplier, then you build the production structure, while if it's less you build the farm. The change in multiplier or maximum population is simple to compute, you ought to know what your current maximum population is, and in GCII you could get the

[quote who="chepelink" reply="16" id="3458160"]Even though, at this point being forced to do complex maths are going to reduce the attention of fellow readers, specially since we ignore more mechanics that we should in order to make those calculation interesting and useful for non min-maxers. [/quote] You want something that works for 'non-minmaxers'? Fine. Let's call the current population of the planet as X, the increase in maximum population from building one farm as Y,

[quote who="mormegil" reply="37" id="3458013"] Quoting EvilMaxWar, reply 7 I also wonder what we are missing with the sudden disappearance of this part of the gui This data would still be around with pretty picture, but in tool tip form.[/quote] I really feel that this information needs to be present on the map itself, not hidden behind a tool-tip or on the selected tile details. In the absence of a significant production bonus from colonization events,

[quote who="chepelink" reply="14" id="3458067"]the point is not to make mixed planets to be as effective as specialized planets.[/quote] None of what I said would make mixed planets as effective as specialist planets, and both of the synergy bonuses were more concepts than solid numbers. Let's look at a class 4 world where the three tiles you can improve are each adjacent to the other two. Let's further assume that you are only building the basic production structures

I dislike terrain-type induced penalties for structures, at least beyond a one-time fee while building there to represent land improvement, or perhaps a slightly increased maintenance cost. If you want to encourage mixed planets, or at least make them competitive in comparison to specialist planets, I'd much sooner see some kind of synergies between structures of different types than having penalties from terrain, especially given that it's annoyingly difficult to see where th