Maiden666

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="31" id="3644469"] Combine that with the galactic bazaar (which you can build early if you start with the trade superpower) and its very easy to bribe everyone to war. [/quote] Oh I don't doubt that - no need really for extra gimmicks to instigate wars, just take a look at the MMR & always bribe strong AIs to attack weak AIs of different alignment or close territorial proximity. It's even more easy with SuperDiplomat be

[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="17" id="3644448"] Oh yea, that's rite, the AI used to flog all the resources in Galciv2! Its not a race that the player has any reasonable chance to win except on low difficulty level. but luckily resources don't do all that much in Galciv2, so i just ignore them until later on in the game and then park a constructor nearby and wait for an enemy of that AI (or me) to destroy their starbase, then i flog it. [/quote] Nevertheless it's

Nevertheless, now that you're already thinkinbg about a GCIV I might thrown in some ideas as well: - Planetary exploration: It's somewhat naive to think that just because you've encountered a planet from orbit everything on its surface is already known to you; colonization should happen only on a small spot and the rest of the planet should be subject to extensive exploration - which would greatly influence the ultimate outcome or form of that colony. - Dynamic tec

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="19" id="3644243"] Was playing a bit of Gal Civ II again. Drath Tech is HORRIBLY overpowered on larger maps. War Profiteering. (Shudder). Once you bribe the AI to war, the tech generates at minimum 20,000 credits per turn. Gal Civ has several issues in all three iterations: 1. AI doesn't put enough engines on its ships. 2. OP combinations. For example, in Gal Civ II War Pr

I tell you a secret... these ominous AIs you wanna talk to... they don't really have a true consciousness, like you & me etc so it's not really important or significant or makes a lot of sense to begin with to tell it things it can't understand anyway... although, maybe, yes perhaps for roleplaying purposes ok but you could instead, just try to replace actual reality with your fantasy as well to achieve whatever results you'd like

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="3" id="3633615"]I think resource gathering would aldo give you something to do. [/quote] It depends a little bit on the model that you choose. For example, if these resources is just stuff you'll find in space and you just need to claim it then it's logical that a big empire will be able to claim more or faster, and hitherto is also able to expand faster... then you have 2 mechanisms which boost themselves up and such a relation (wit

I think what should ultimately be penalized is not to simply have a large empire, but to acquire it fast - aggressive expanding. That should invoke some corruption or civil unrest. Think about it, if you build up a society slowly, it'll have more order and be more stable then if you just rush the infrastructure & head towards the next planet.

^Yeah it would be nice to be able to basically give different objects of the game our own designed logical routines - because that's really the only way to ensure that automated features are working out exactly like we individually want them to be. But I don't think alot of people would actually bother, neither will the devs. You simply have to accept that if you want to have something done most optimally, you'll have to micro it. Nevertheless, the claim of

It's illogical that if you're asked for a name for an astrological object, that this name is applied to a bunch of other objects as well. What do you think is the function of a name in the first place? To be able to distuingish stuff! The way it's done is also quite inconsequent in regard of the other already set planetary homesystems, where planetnames differ from their starname. Ok, it's just one line, so the game should decide if that's ment for the star or the planet -

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="10" id="3611849"] No wonder you find it so easy. There's no density in your galaxy, meaning no competition early for planets/resources. This lets you take an early lead where godlike AI's shine the most. [/quote] Still, the AIs do have the same luxuries. The difference here is that they aren't going to use that time as efficient as a player can - not even close - and that's one side of the problem. And their early t

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="23" id="3611113"] There may be a peaceful Alien race that is simply so powerful, it can`t be defeated by other powerful races, yet it has no wish to overwhelm others simply because it is not `made` that way. Perhaps it had so much time isolated that it became that way. Perhaps it exists in such way it cannot be killed (ethereal for example). It`s entirely possible for a peaceful alien race to exist which has not been touched by more powerfu

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="20" id="3610957"] If this was a game like Civilisation I`d say well it`s in Human Nature to prey upon the weak. However, you make a good point about Alien nations always attacking if you`re weak. Shouldn`t some alien nations not attack you cos you`re weak just because they don`t work like that? [/quote] perhaps there once evolved some of these in the galaxy, but then they got extinguished by the now remaining war mongering races (in events that

one problem is that a diplomacy system needs to work out for both players & AIs. currently the player has a strong advantage because he is completely free while the AI needs to rely on a system of relations. for good reason, because to take that freedom of decision away from player will create an unfun game. I also cannot see why you need some sort of abstract "points" to be able to talk to someone, or how that "points" could possibly force me to do something against my will...?</

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="9" id="3610572"] Even the pragmatic and "good" powers dow me [/quote] Of course! Pragmatism means that if they can do something they will do it regardless of morals or ethics. Good doesn't mean these races are pacifistic, that they are just there as a freegift for aggressors. It means that they are *opposed* to your ethics - which is evil. Just forget about the description for a moment, it could be up or down, left or ri

Because of some ill-devised MONSANTO-chemicals, human males in the 21st century were able to become pregnant as well. Which took place automatically. And, just like domesticated mice, the following incest-bred increased their reproduction-rate by +300%... as you can see that led to a real heavy motive to become a space-faring civilization in order to find some places to distribute the people around... Then we met other alien races, and although down by law, there were some multi-racia

It should be balanced dynamically so that things turn out reasonably in most setups. One problem is the technological speed. This shouldn't even be available for the player but be strictly tight to the number of habitable planets - because this number has the greatest impact on your research-strength. Thus, under a tiny mapsetup getting expensive endtier techs wouldn't be worthwhile. Another approach could be to simply cut the techtrees in accordance with the size of t

Bah, most stuff in popular Sci-Fi is complete nonsense. Just look at these "Lasers" - how come they are bullets? You see them flying slowly :))))) A laser moves at lightspeed - it's a staigjt line that goes on/off, and it's impossible for a Jedi to defend against because in times when the eye would register such a beam he would've been already been hit. With Star Trek it's even worse, they have so many inconsistencies. In STO that Andorian vessel which tried to sabotag

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="9" id="3604292"] I've got that one too. Sadly, I foolishly deleted the message before I even thought of reporting it. [/quote] Me too, but it's still in the trashcan. [quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="8" id="3604290"] Have you reported it? [/quote] No, because my initial thoughts were someone playing a joke on me. But seeing that exact message now in the OP made my change my opinion. the userID is th

Thanks for the link, it confirmed that CO2 will be split up by the solar radiation & subsequently, lost in space, although an additional neutron in its core will make a difference. From here, it's not difficult to see that a much more lighter oxygen atom will be lost much faster or: prioritised in its exposure to solar radiation because of higher orbit. The same thing is believed to have happened to venusian oxygen or water, as well. As of now, no more water on Venus is presen

[quote]Hello my dear,My name is Success Samuel, is my pleasure to contact you after viewing your profile today, I am looking for a partner and relationship if you are interested write me back thanks i will be expecting your mail,Your friendSuccess [/quote] Got the same spam, getting the impression that this is a scam. Why doesn't SD take that acount down for good?

[quote who="naselus" reply="33" id="3603646"] Oh, and I'm intrigued by the idea that a bunch of scattered farming groups in the late Neolithic somehow 'prevented another ice age'. Because that's patently absurd. I'd be interested to hear where you got the idea from, because it is not true in any way at all. [/quote] The temperature of annuary climate can be measured by geologists. And deducting from the history of past climate changes we all should be in

[quote who="naselus" reply="28" id="3603328"] You're not thinking in terms of process's. Mars has taken literally billions of years to lose it's atmosphere. If we're even thinking in timescales that relate to the lifespan of humanity as a species, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of factors. If you wanted to terraform the planet in a period to make it use able before humans have evolved into beings of pure energy, the loss factors you'require describing bec

[quote who="naselus" reply="28" id="3603328"] before humans have evolved into beings of pure energy [/quote] sure sure^^ holy crap, now on the verge of being called out for being the most silly person alive - what do you mean with -->that

[quote who="Director" reply="25" id="3603311"] On the same subject, I'd be interested in being able to terraform Venus. Perhaps a sort of 'floating algae' to eat up the CO2 would work. It could replicate into vast mats that would help block sunlight from reaching the surface, serving as a solar shield. [/quote] As far as I know Venus is already deflecting most solar radiation via the sulphuric clouds circulating in its outer atmosphere. A lot of its heat is deriv

Don't know everything I read on this subject is suggesting that CO2 enrichment isn't a solution because CO2 is unwanted as final state, and with the clearance of unwanted CO2 the greenhouse effect will also perish, loosing all temperature gains. That is, if you would be able to magically exchange the current CO2 with N/O the martian temperatur would decrease & its pressure also sink. Mars atmosphere currently is a compromise between the degradating forces of the solar wind