Maiden666

And about the funding - if I recall correctly all modern states signed a treaty to not claim land in space... I wonder which country is the first to break this^^

Mars atmosphere is already 96% CO2, adding a bit more is not going to make much of a difference in terms of climate. Besides, you actually want to decrease the CO2 with nitro/oxigen... The magnetic field might come back if the core crystalizes and releases energy by this. In a very distant future temperature will reach reasonable levels because the sun increases its output. At some point the polar caps might melt, IRRC the southern one holds alot of water. Still, Mars is not g

^that's interesting; what are these techniques for example?

Fascinating. You just encountered a bug, ie. the standard colony mod should not be able to support more than 250b ppl. About the upgrade costs: The sum you did pay is a kinda stardard fee you pay for downgrading a ship. Usually when you upgrade a ship, let's say original design costs 100 MP, and your new design is 200 MP, then you simply pay the missing 100 MP in credits, which would be around ~800. But when the new costs is less than the original design the game charges g

[quote who="naselus" reply="30" id="3599415"] Let's say I decide I'm sick of wasted production. So I'm going to make most of my planets industry and keep the global slider at 75% manu(so that, with focuses, I get 100% output on them). I set econ to zero and research to 25%. Bang, I'm straight back at producing a superdreddy every turn from every industry world. Sure, my econ output is low, as every econ world can only work at 1/4 efficiency, but since money is

I'm completely against any automation IF this automation makes logical decisions for the player, esp. if the game has the ability to calculate the mathematically very best design. Such automation is only necessary in RTS games like Distant Worlds Universe where you don't have the time to look into everything once your empire grows larger even at slower speed. But in a TBS you have all time of the world and before pressing the turn button, even could make a save in order to go

[quote who="joeball123" reply="39" id="3598837"] Also, regarding the command vs free market economy thing, I don't really see it as being applicable. The only planet improvements in the game which are not paid for, owned, operated, and maintained by the state are the trade goods and the colony or civilization capitals (and these only fail the "paid for" criterion). If planetary improvements represent the sum total of infrastructure, public and private, on a given world, then there is

These kinds of discussions always arise whenever you take something away from the game. Don't integrate stuff into the game, esp. if it's overpowered and players use it in order to play/win the game, if you'll have to take it out or nerf it at some point. Remember how forums went hot on the CargoSensorboat-dilemma? It's much better to do it the other way round, esp. if the quality or strength of specific thing is yet foggy: Introduce weakly and subsequently bu

[quote who="Dracul_JOSHI" reply="30" id="3598776"] I have been saying the same thing before, but people seem to understand the customization options of this game less than anything else in the game. Also, we should make a fundraiser, so that Frogboy can take a few classes... like economics 101, Philosophy 101, Gamedesign 101 etc. I am sure the series would benefit from it by the time GalCiv 5 is released. [/quote] [e digicons]:thumbsdown:[/e] &nb

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="52" id="3598657"]Have you read my Ai. post on Joe user forums I would like your input. The galciv equivalent to this is probably where the computer averages what you do for so many turns per turn per game. Not to hold against you, but to dictate on how it plays against you. Game two had a nice civilization screen, and espionage for helping it to do this if the programmers decided to implement this.[/quote] Haven't, but if you could provide a

tbh there's so many logical contradictions to this subject I just think of it that people are either send to work in (a) industry facilities (b) labs (c) markets. and please, for the sake of making a good *strategy* game, don't base its mechanism on some sort of "realism-sense" because (a) alot of people will only come to different conclusion and don't see it as being realistic at all (b) this will only drag down your available options of what can work out or intermingle</

[quote]It has NOTHING to do with the AI I read the forums and I see people talking about the change being made to make the AI easier. That’s a ridiculous argument. Not to be mean but only a non-programmer would say that. Micro-managing is what AIs do best. I could write up an AI that could tweak planetary wheels every turn to a level that would make most micro managers weep. Put another way: computers are faster and better at math than humans and the plan

Exactly. And it further eliminates the need to write code which would have enabled the AI to use this feature in the firts place. So removing it was a smart move from a certain economic standpoint.... ;)

Some of these "gases" actually is the helium-3 isotop and there's so much of it in there that it could sustain all our energy problem until earth becomes uninhabitable in 1.2bl years. besides, this is a game, real-life argumentation in spite of artifical gravity or faster-than-life travel seems absurd... Class0 planets serve absolutely no purpose. perhaps it's a way to tell us that even in the future not all planets can be inhabitated, ok then let's make it realist

okay thanks for the explanation^^ [quote who="phatkarp" reply="15" id="3596495"] the weariness effect should be less for defensive losses than for offensive losses. That would make some sense, as it is always more difficult to justify a costly invasion than to justify losses incurred in defending your turf. [/quote] I like that. I was stressing that point, because, oftentimes in X4 games, you reach a point in military/productive/technological strength we

I like the idea of planets becoming independantly/rogue if the government makes decisions that is against their ethical heritage, blown stupid decisions or general economic or moral dilemmas... on #2: how would you bring them back - back from the dead? unless the invasion mechanic is changed, you've comitted genocide by conquering them...

war in the galaxy will never be the same....

hmm your avatar is gone where did the gremlins take it?

[quote who="naselus" reply="1" id="3596265"] The reason you're walking it is because those embassies are giving you a huge diplo bonus, which is applying +3 relations per turn. [/quote] Remove that crap entirely, relations should be based entirely on what you do who you are what you represent and not on buildings or other constructed stuff

isn't it called "wariness"? tbh I don't like it if a defeated party is penalized (1) they already are usually in a somewhat weaker position because to invade a planet demands for space superiority ie. stronger military on the attackers side (2) the loss of the planet will already penalize the defendant making the weak side weaker, and more weaker with any lost planet will only result in the attacker becoming invincible soon after starting the fight. rather the penalty

Would be nice to have something like a TerrorStar, but this time with the ability to target single planets only. In order to be able to destroy uninhabitable worlds and turn the resulting debris into something useful... ofc that thing had to be slow, very slow, use upquite an amount of production + time to be finished, and perhaps destroy itself during the process, too... in other words to make it unreliable for an ongoing military use.

hmm is there some kind of echo in these forums? because, since about 2 weeks I constantly read someone praising botf, even using the same phrases (it's free, google it etc pp). can't remember who the specific posters were, but in case it's all been you - what's the point of creating a thread with the sole intent to promote another game when all that's been said has been said already...?

Once the win becomes apparent alot of excitement & fun instantly drifts away. At that point I stop alot of micro so turn become better time-efficient. But if nothing happens to stop the roundup - which becomes more & more boring over time - I just stop or restart. Game needs more random elements & penalties to the mighty

The AI will only look at the military power rating and I have doubts that this is ever going to change. It might be hard to program it as being based on the ships themselves (as these are actually the carriers of military power) because they can move, their speed and range can also change dynamically. Looking at the map, recognizing certain territories and using that to make strategic decision is a huge player advantage. Compared to this, most AI decisions look rather randomly + gener

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="31" id="3587938"] The 0% number was an exaggeration. The point is that with super breeder the goal is to keep taxes low for periods of time followed by high taxes for periods of time. What the exact levels are depends on the custom race you're using. It gets sort of weird because on one hand you want to expand as much as possible to get the benefits of super breeder. Unfortunately if you expand too much you bankrupt yourse