Maiden666

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="14" id="3545635"] the point is not that i need to wait until a certain set of conditions need to happen before i can declare war but that i can communicate with the ai that the actions it is taking are making me consider declaring war, this should cause the ai to reevaluate its location of starbases or ships in order to prevent war if i am stronger then the ai or to choose to ignore my pathetic whining if the ai deems itself to be more powerful <br

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="48" id="3545766"] I'm sure that's true, just saying that they aren't stardocks traditional GC audience since the previous game hasn't supported it and they will be a smaller section of the market than than the single player fans who have followed this game series so far. [/quote] to be fair, multiplayer was requested by alot of fans back in GC2 times as well

[quote who="Nadiox" reply="132" id="3545688"] For example, previously I could choose to get all hyperdrive specialisztions and have really fast ships without making all the engine components involved becoming too expensive or using too much hull space. The tradeoff was that I wouldn't have much research left over for weapons or other tech. Or I could choose to focus on weapons, or I could spread my efforts and be a jack of all trades. Now we are basically forced into the j

[quote who="JacquesGauthier" reply="9" id="3544987"] Quoting JacquesGauthier, reply 8 Quoting BigBadB, reply 7 I don't see that there's any need. The AI complains when the player does it to let the player know that it's damaging their relationshi

[quote](one reason why my auto-save is every other turn, so I can reload prior to such things): [/quote] quicksave before pressing turn might save you some time here, yeah I know it's cheesy but we all forget some stuff here and there. (actually the ability to reload is a only-player bonus and that's why I'm universally fine with (hidden) AI bonuses most call "cheating") [quote]which, while nice of them, is *not* one that I wanted & now I

I think the morale penalty is ment to act as a throttle versus growing empires in order to prolong the game (ie. make it more difficult for a strong AI to swallow a weak AI) but if this leads to the situation that all or some AI cannot develop their colony rush (25 to 30 planets is nothing on an all abundant big-size map) then the penalty creates more harm than good....

the thing is that you as player don't have to rely on a diplomatic-evaluation system which will determine if you can go hostile versus someone or not. you can do whatever you want, all options are there for you even against allies or good relations, even if it's harming your own gam emore than supporting it. the AI is in a totally different position. these popups are ment as an info for you that their relationship with you is somehow suffering. hypothetically, if you would giv

Well even if you gift them the weakest of some of the 3 choices, they still will get some bonus, and, at that, will get it earlier than if they would research it on their own, which really means their game is stronger not weaker. And you don't have any guarantee that they never get the other bonuses as well traded from some other factions. The thing is that this might happen anyway via Ai-to-AI trade in alot of games with the player having absolutely no control over it...

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="2" id="3543316"] I played a small game with the patch today and I won a culture victory on T 159, which seems about right for a average player on a small map. I found the AI planets to be fairly resistant to flipping, but theoretically you can win a culture victory without flipping a single planet. All you have to do is surround them with your influence and you win the game. [/quote] what always irritated m

Technologies that come with penalties are problematic in that these techs can destroy/harm stuff that already works well enough and it might even cause bugs. For example, a ship-design could become unproduceable if the penalty of a price-reduction bonus would be increased space. Suddenly, a frigate could only muster n-1 attack modules, and this design (which would have less attack) will become the best new design and the AI might upgrade ships to this, making himself weaker. Even if t

this is just NASA trolling, what has a laserbeam to do with a warpfield? and it's not even confirmed that the beam was faster than light and the test wasn't even setup to determine that and no care whatsoever has to been taken to avoid pausible faults. we already know that there may be particles at the edge of the EM field around neutron stars that are slightly faster than lightspeed, but this, the above NASA fail "experiment" or the fictional Alcubierre drive brings us practi

[quote who="alphaprior" reply="79" id="3542674"] no matter how many games you play you always choose the same thing, the best one. [/quote] your games must be very boring then. the way I see it is that, as each game progresses, it should present a various array of difficulties which have to be addressed correspondingly. granted, the current ways-to-win are too much the same because of some mechanics that still need balancing, but I'm sure this will change in the near fut

Holy crap, I'm being forced to play with one race at startup I cannot stand this limitation anymore. I want to be Yor and Drengin and later on Humans and maybe some Altarians... whatever that might be good for... so many options and choices but no penalties of corpse.

[quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3542089"] I'm not sure if it's bad for the game. You could do the same thing in GalCiv2 and the mapsizes were much smaller. I usually have scouts in the early game with engines sensors and range modules because they are cheaper. After mid game I have big Cargo ships loaded with sensors. I usually stick with tiny and cargo though. Although I might try a sensor battleship. @Dumhed there really is no reason to pickup starbase sensors.</p

[quote who="erischild" reply="16" id="3542046"] I strongly disagree in every way possible. It is the job of the game to give the player challenges. This decision point is a very good challenge. Its consequences affect the value of trade and diplomacy. That is a big win for gameplay. As far as I am concerned, this is genius game design and I hope to see a lot more touches like this. You should never be able to get everything in a game. You sh

I wonder were the remaining damage goes when it's not subtracted from either defense or hitpoints. The update seems more like a bandaid fix to me. It would be better if each weapon module would be calculated separately.

I have no idea how probes would be helpful here considering these probes will have to transmit their data back to the mainship and EM signals travel maximally at the speed of light. It will take years for such a signal to pass from one solar system to another, and with those absurd high sensor probes which can show half the galaxy it would take +10.000 years. Yes, it's true we can almost see at the edge of the observable universe, but what we see lies 12 billion years in the past

The release of a game might be based on a economical decision, ie. upfront-money is more worth than late-money (even if the late one is more altogether). That's why there is stuff like Founders, Name-a-star, buy Beta release (I remember times where you were invited to play Beta for free, because actually you are doing their jobs; "hi" Blizzard). Nevertheless, it worked well with GC2, and if you look at the history of that development you'll see it stopped at the final release

I think the military might should be based on actual power, not on a potentual one, because the potentual one is/can become part of the actual one IF the specific AI/player decides to use it in order to build military. However, there are so many factors available which could disturb this process and that renders a potentual MMR useless. Besides, if I go to war versus someone that already has an actual MMR, and if I'm successful in destroyin ghis fleets (without conquering pla

The problem with sensors is that you generally don't want to put them on any warship because this will reduce the chances of you winning the battle as you'll be producing less ships for the same amount of production. Especially when there are way better option available, such as non-combat sensorships who accompany warfleets, and which are far more effective in granting sensorrange. First, a sensormodule should give a ship an attack bonus on a low scale. This should be a one-p

IMO there needs to be a cap of maximum sensor range, and both this cap and the effectiveness of sensors need to be scaled or put into relation with the galaxy size.

In GC2 the ratio is 8bcs for 1 production point, although it could sink lower to even 3bcs etc when the total amount of bought production is small (ie. like 10 production). There are still one or more bugs prevalent in the calculations that are responsible for this, as well as downgrading stuff could also rise costs in a chaotic manner. That said, I think the reason of why producing stuff should/has to be stronger than buying things is simple: it usually requires more time, because yo

I am totally against any automation (à la Endless Universe or the other games that have been mentioned as examples in this or some other threads, because, all these games are RTS and I don't see how they compare to a TBS game anyway...) Usually one diverts MP to constructors when there's no immediate military threat. For this, the AIs have to pursue a military conquest more aggressively, more early, perhaps some suitable race could be coded to rushstorm its neighbours e

For the AI it's much more easy to distribute its global spending when the income isn't jumping up and down. [quote who="wiezer" reply="4" id="3536103"]going thru enemy Territory + .1% per tile. [/quote] IMO enemy terrain should either be shuned automatically by non-military craft, what civilians in their right mind would go to places of certain death...? or maybe, if their crossed, the route should face a penalty which would represent a sort of tribute.

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="7" id="3527317"] In GC2 *snip* the overflow goes into the next project in the queue. [/quote] Untrue, SP (and MP) was lost, however, the costs to fund this production was refunded. For example, a +10 SP @ 20% social prod racial bonus needed 9bcs to be funded. If a player wanted to purchase 10SP directly it would have costed him between 50 to 80 bcs. As you can see, the refund only helps a little and for optimal results, one had to micro SP &amp