I have not tested this extensively yet but so far my defense only ship (escorts most of the time) have been the only ship targeted... but only if they are in front. Assault and Interceptor will take a short beating before the enemy turn their attention to the Escorts. But as I said... I have only tested it in relatively small combats so far.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="DarkNeuron" reply="82" id="3553033"] Ok, I've read this whole thing. So we have two camps: One camp likes sensor boats because: - The AI cheats with map vision; we should have similar options. - On large maps a 40 range sensor boat doesn't reveal THAT much. - Lategame I wanna watch my borders. Did I forget anything? Other camp: - Early game, the
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Franco fx" reply="81" id="3553020"] Quoting SadfaceSquirtle, reply 80 The minority of people who thinks game designers shouldn't even attempt to balance single player games should mod cheap exploits in to their full content, then. No need to mod pal, sensors are in the game and
Yes... I have changed this myself as well and started a new campaign to test it out. What are your experiences so far? [quote who="peteincary2" reply="5" id="3552908"] Yes a combination of capital/escort has no direct counter. You would have to destroy the escorts first... But I think that is the entire point of having escort ship roles, as ships meant to defend the capital ships. What good would they be at defending if not to prevent damage
In mutli-player yes... but then you could just use Capital/Escort instead... escorts are always before capital ship in the priority queue. I really don't care much for multi-player because that is in part self regulating environment. The AI can never adapt and if you use Capital and Escorts only there is no direct counter since the Escorts will always be targeted first. With the above structure you would get more diverse and interesting battle
In my opinion there is always going to be the issue of when is it worth to use the project and when is it more profitable to move planetary production into research or wealth instead. As long as there are two ways of doing the exact same thing you will always have that problem, otherwise one is going to be completely redundant as the project more or less are right now.
We should also not that if you play the game on normal research pacing all colonies already get a +25% research bonus. If you add other passive bonuses you pick up along the way I have a hard time to ever see a research project being profitable above those questionable 10% you can get if you have the will to do it. In my opinion they should just decide if they want the focusing wheel for individual planets or the projects for research and wealth. My vote would be
No, its not really worth the effort... it most often are even more efficient to raze a building or two and build a market or lab and then raze them again and build new factories on huge factory worlds than using the research projects... It obviously depends on how many turns you will try to get some extra cash or research from them. But the extra 10% you potentially can get is so small when you compare with all the passive bonuses you will accumulate over the course of a game it's simply
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Starchaser12" reply="59" id="3552757"] Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 58 Yes.. I have suggested this very same thing several times as well. A very simple way to deal with the problem since it give you quite good sensors in the late game but not in the early game. You should do the exact same thing with en
This whole thing with the projects and focusing wheel are just broken from a micromanagement perspective and should go back to the drawing board (in my opinion). You have two mechanics that do the exact same thing... what is the point?
GalCiv3 Forums
Yes.. I have suggested this very same thing several times as well. A very simple way to deal with the problem since it give you quite good sensors in the late game but not in the early game. You should do the exact same thing with engines as well...
I had the same thought about Interceptors... that would probably be the most interesting way to handle them. When ship "defend" in the game from a mechanics point of view my take is that they simply change their priority target to the one that attacks the ship they defend, for me that is what they should do. And I agree... escorts are high in the priority to pretend like they actually defend something which is just silly and only serve to make combat unbalanced. <p
I have experimented some with this and would like to have a discussion about balancing this better... Now I do wonder why there is such a hard focus on attacking enemy Escort ship that usually have a low threat value, it makes very little sense. It also get worse when you figure in how this can be abused by an observant player. In essence you can do an all fleet with only Escort and Guardian ships... due to how the priorities are constructed such
Double post...
I don't think we should confuse a game like GalCiv with too much reality. For weapons in real space... Classical Rail-Guns would be totally outclassed by beam weapons while beam weapons would be totally outclassed with missiles that have near infinite range in space as long as you can detect the opponent in time. It would be more appropriate for Rail-Guns to launch missiles in a real space combat scenario. There
Playing on an insane map and specialize your planet as the OP mention is in fact an INSANE task to do in the long run with the current game mechanics. ;) I do agree with the OP on all the issues this entails if this is the route you choose to go, which is the most efficient way for sure. Although it totally breaks the game and makes it pointless to play in its current state so why bother with it is my next question. I can easily micromanage
GalCiv3 Forums
I'm inclined to think that most people lack the willpower to resist using exploits... why do we have things like "Ironman" settings in many games... it is as easy to just ignore save scumming. It is becasue many people simply can't resist save scumming. The same is true with a game like GalCiv. Once a player find out about some really good tactics they can use, whether it is a bug or a feature they will use it to their advantage without thinking about whether they should or not. If it
They have said something in the line of giving people more control over ship behavior in combat... and hints about some sort of influence over the combat before a battle starts. But I don't think we will ever see any more direct influence as long as the mechanic work as it does. As far as we are told the combat is simulated before the visuals we actually see, unless this change there will be on possibility to influence combat at any other point than before it starts. <
GalCiv3 Forums
Power gaming is pointless as is raising the level much above Normal, the AI does not get smarter just more bonuses. It is still super easy to beat at the max difficulty if you abuse the system. It just entails horrible micromanagement and you spend 90% of the game just mopping up the map. This is no "real" challenges, just work. ;)
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="35" id="3552314"] I have never claimed to be a power gamer. Just the opposite in fact. [e digicons];)[/e] However, I find I can kick the snot out of the AI on "Normal". No big feat, obviously, and I would never claim otherwise. Next game I play I will move on to Challenging and upwards until I hit my limit. Still, in my current I/A/A/A game, I am on Turn 91, and my ratings are: Me: 319 C
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="29" id="3552298"] Quoting peregrine23, reply 24 I was a little worried about this until I saw the the AI running around with the sensor ships I designed. Now I figure all is fair. Also, those sensor ships are super fragile and cost you 1/2 your initial credits, so its not like it is a choice w
GalCiv3 Forums
If they also fix sensors on stations to actually be useful you would not need to spam tiny hull sensor ships. If stations could get really powerful sensors then ships would only be needed to see in far away places. This would make the game more fun and more strategic with more choices to make. Engines is as bad as sensors but life support is fine. If you want to waste space to be able to take ships around half the galaxy that is fine by me. Engines do get very silly and
With the scope of this game I'm pretty certain that combat will get an overhaul at some point with more interesting choices for us to deal with. But it will not be in the near future. I don't expect to see any tactical combat that we can ever control, but perhaps influence with some sort of choice is not entirely impossible. The thing that I would like to have more than tactical combat that we control would be combat that not always end up
The difference between Production and Manufacturing are most likely the greatest source of confusion in this whole debate and they should really be explained or rather the difference in the game should be more clear. For example... a modifier on Production is usually much more powerful that a modifier on either Manufacturing, Research or Wealth. So... a 100 Approval planet give you a +25% modification on a planets Production value while two basic
That is the part you don't seem to understand... ;) ...the combat simulator is very simple. Which mean that understand what happens are pretty easy once you understand how ship behave in the simulator. By real combat that means that ship range and maneuver really matter, that is why you sometimes see lull in the combat viewer when ships are out of position and need to catch up to what the simulator already decided, more or less. The battle vie