joeball123

[quote who="Goudeau42" reply="9" id="3445055"]Nice. Just one thing- in the second paragraph, you say he was just elected to his 3rd 33 year turn, so hed have been in office for 66 years, but in the 4th paragraph is say in his ''near century'' of leadership. Did you mean 4th 33yr term?[/quote] I agree that the phrasing tends to suggest that this would be a fourth term. However, there are also other interpretations to consider: The office of Head of State

I despise most mechanics of this form. I'm supposedly the ruler of a galactic empire that can build as many ships (and, to a lesser extent, starbases) as my economy can support - or, for that matter, more, since the game allows you to operate in the red. If I want to screw over my economy to support a fleet of nothing but enormous battleships, then the game mechanics had better allow me to do so. They can punish me for doing so, but there shouldn't be some completely arbitrary "only o

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="37" id="3438685"]Whats a ringworld.[/quote] I suggest reading (or looking up) the Larry Niven book "Ringworld." Nevertheless, to answer your question more directly, a ringworld is an artificial structure taking the form of an enormous ring wrapping around a star. Similar to the spherical shell, but instead of being a sphere it's a section of a cylinder. It has the advantage (relative to the spherical shell) of being less resource-intensive, w

[quote who="Tharios" reply="14" id="3432834"]Most rings/spheres are depicted as having shells that are far far thicker than the diameter of most stars. That is what makes them so resource intensive. Such a structure with a shell only a few hundred meters thick, would require far less. Between super-materials that outperform even graphene and carbon nanotubes, and field systems capable of reducing and properly distributing changes in load stresses, the shells of such structures can be radicall

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="370" id="3424712"]3. As I have stated previously, you are 100% completely wrong here. Your particular play style may make tactical control truly optional, but others do not play the game the same way you do. Personally, if I'm not playing at 100% capacity I feel like I'm coasting, and that robs a lot of replay value out of a game. Again as I've said previously, if autoresolve is acceptable if it comes within 5% of what I'm capable of doing m

[quote who="lecek" reply="364" id="3424455"]+1 No to tactical combat. As has been posted many, many times before this isn't an RTS. It is a grand strategy. While I agree the system in GC2 was too simple, we already know better is coming. I so don't want to spend hours on hours micromanaging battles just because auto resolve isn't as good. Nor do I want to auto resolve every battle because I can't compete. And if auto resolve does just as well, then whats

Why make the shipyard a separate program? You could give the shipyard an 'archive' button which moves the ship file to a folder which doesn't get loaded by the game at least as easily as making a separate program just for the shipyard function. The only value in having the shipyard as a separate program is that launching the shipyard would load a smaller portion of the game files than launching the full game would. Additionally, while I am rather doubtful that you intended

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="350" id="3420371"]Star Wars #6 (book? chapter?) -- the third one released. When the Rebel Alliance is planning the attack on the second death star.[/quote] The title scroll for the Star Wars movies uses "Episode", followed by a Roman numeral. [quote who="Ashbery76" reply="347" id="3420140"]Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[/quote] So? Many humans, Mon Calamari, and Ewoks died making use of it (possibly others, as well), and t

[quote who="yarodin" reply="138" id="3420084"]That's right - otherwise, a planet 30-45 parsec (2-3 squares) away from its sun would be a bit on the frosty side... [/quote] Out of curiosity, where did you come up with a 10-15 parsec per tile number? The only things that I can see in that number range are estimates of the size of tiles in the neighborhoods of planets and stars, but those numbers are in AU, not parsecs. Also, I'm reasonably certain that a planet 30-45 par

[quote]One small request for ship designer options. Please allow components/modules to be mounted inside the ship chassis, as opposed to only being able to be mounted externally. Although I really don't care for Star Trek, I do like the visual idea of the Borg ships as just huge squares in space. When I first started playing GC2 I was disappointed to learn that the "square" hulls still required components to be mounted on the outside. (this also solves the ship desi

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="124" id="3419623"]ship traveling at 0.1c about 5000 seconds to travel 1 AU. That is quite a bit longer than 10 AU in 500 seconds.[/quote] 1 AU = 8 light-minutes = 480 light-seconds. So yes, I made a math error. Thanks for catching it. It's still too little time for ships with relatively normal speeds in GCII to be taking a full move action, unless the ships are either accepted take very different amounts of time for each move action or are accepted t

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="120" id="3419371"]I do know that 30 Au's is the distance to Neptune. 930 million miles is still a long distance. That is what u suggested. If I can't thwart a player trying to throw me out of his space on multi player playing against real people then I don't want to be able to throw people out of their space. I though the way people could try to throw u out of their space on Civilization 3 was quant or cute. On Civilization 4 it sucked. It was

Michael, two requests for you: Don't bring Star Wars (or Star Trek, or Babylon 5, or Stargate SG1, or Firefly, etc) in to explain operating characteristics of the various ship components in GCII. There's no real similarity between what we can see of the GCII Hyperdrive and the Star Wars Hyperdrive aside from the name and that both are superluminal travel devices. The general behavior of the GCII superluminal drives seem to be more in line with Star Trek warp drives than

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="109" id="3418776"]4. The ability to use a constructor to plant long ranged mines with hyper drive modules which NO ship can pass (only the owner of the space mines can see them to be fair and autopilot of the owner automatically avoids them) NOTE: I AM Fed up with the conversation on space mines, I will end it forever with this single picture.[/quote] Adding hyperdrives to mines would appear to defeat the purpose of having cheap, disposable weapons, and

There are three problems that I have with this: 1. It requires that battles take sufficiently long that fleets on the far side of the sector can reach the battlefield before the fight is over. However, fighting a battle and winning it take no more of a ship's (or of a fleet's) movement points than a standard move action does, which implies that the actual time taken for a battle is no greater than (1 week)/(how fast the ship is, neglecting units). This would imply that no ship

[quote]5) A Dyson Sphere.[/quote] Assuming that we have a Dyson Sphere with a diameter equal to that of the average diameter of Earth's orbit and a thickness small relative to the diameter, then the inner and outer surfaces of the Dyson Sphere are each equal to the total surface area of approximately 550 million Earths. If we account for the loss of usable surface area due to the oceans, then the inner and outer surfaces each provide an area roughly equivalent to 1.8 billion Earth

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="89" id="3418064"]Part of a mine's electronic package could (and should) be an IFF transceiver. Then you give your trading partners the IFF code and they can get past the mines. If they change sides on you, then you change the code without telling your new enemy.[/quote] A large part of the usefulness of mines comes from that there is no easy way to disable or detect them. An IFF transceiver which disables the mine against certain targets is therefore

About the sensors thing - you can already do essentially the same thing using cheap ships or the occasional space station with sensor upgrades, and the ships have the advantage of being easily relocated. Even a tiny hull can easily have a sensor radius of 4 or 5 in the early game without any sensor upgrades, so why would I bother deploying a network of sensors that are worse than my scout ships at providing early warning and which will not move when the borders do? [quote who="John Fa

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="56" id="3416696"]Third, temperature is technically not defined based off of kinetic energy[/quote] Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles within a given volume. It may not strictly speaking be defined by kinetic energy, but it is a measurement of it, and absolute zero is defined as the point at which the average kinetic energy of the particles in that volume is zero , which leads to the conclusion that the velocity

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="51" id="3416445"]They start going backwards...[/quote] No. Absolute zero is the temperature at which the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules/subatomic particles/anything else has gone to zero. Having something be at a temperature less than absolute zero would imply that the kinetic energy of the particles involved was negative, which requires either negative mass or imaginary velocity (if you have both negative mass and imaginary velocity, your kin

[quote who="Seilore" reply="47" id="3416371"]I agree with some of this, however, I believe that borders should be auto generated, simular to GalCiv2 with some tweaks.[/quote] You'll notice that nowhere in that paragraph of mine which you quoted did I ever refer to how the borders should be generated. And for reference, I think that the GCII influence borders, which are the only auto-generated borders that I can think of in GCII, would be absolutely awful as territorial borders.</p

1. Minefields in space, especially in deep space, are a completely ridiculous notion. If you wanted to place even a single line of mines across 1 map tile in GCII, then you'd need 3X10^13 mines if they were spaced 1 km apart. If we want to fill a cube 1 parsec on a side (basically, the tile of GCII extended to the third dimension with height equal to the base dimensions), then you'd need about 3X10^40 mines, again with a 1 km spacing between mines. This is inadequate to give

"Maybe a simple "space is silent" toggle would/could make everyone happy." There already is a toggle. It's in the audio tab of the options menu, where you can control the volume of sound effects, music, and something else, and there are toggles for each of these things as well. [quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="12" id="3416131"]The audiences of early SF movies and TV shows had sounds in space to try to make their audiences feel more comfortable.<br

It should also be noted that the game map is very clearly a representation of the game galaxy in a more easily understood format (after all, the size of each tile is 1 parsec by 1 parsec - well, guess what, the solar system is less than 1 parsec in diameter; in fact, it's smaller by several orders of magnitude), rather than a literal representation of the game galaxy. Therefore, the colors of the stars on the map don't necessarily match the apparent color of the star as seen by the hu

Alternatively, in GCII you could design a ship in each hull size that consisted of nothing but as many of your best engines as will fit, less any space you require for life support modules, and then 'upgrade' your ships to this design for traveling and 'upgrade' them back to the previous design upon arrival at destination. A small amount of time spent in Battle of the Gods shows that with full miniaturization tech (but no bonuses from random events or structures) and the best