JorgenCAB

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="216" id="3551697"] The main problem is where the focus of the AI learning how to play the game should be developed? If you are eventually forced to min/max your colonies and build 25 hex range sensor boats on turn one to keep up with the AI on even Normal the game will turn into micromanagement hell, especially on large maps. I would like to see players cry when the AI send their 30 hex movement transport in to invade their undef

[quote who="vadzra" reply="13" id="3551715"] That's why taking patriotic is a must IMHO. All of these problems, costly buildings, techs, possible reduction in production/research/money eliminated upfront. It is way a stronger benefit than others. [/quote] Anythin

But that is only in the short term... I agree that in the short term you are mostly better of with pure enhancement improvement. But games can last many hundreds of turns, even well more than a thousand turns if you don't use that victory condition. After a certain point you will gain allot more from population improvements rather than pure bonus enhancement buildings.

While it is possible to get hundreds of planets on an insane map though building stations and approval buildings and other bonuses it will become quite hard to settle new worlds after a while since they start with huge negatives in morale. it is also not a clear cut case if it is worth the overall population loss on all your colonies you could otherwise get. If you have 100 colonies and settle a new colony you essentially remove a minimum of 20 population cap in total o

Yes... call it whatever you wish.. level 0 mean you get ZERO bonuses while level 1 men you get one adjacency bonus. The "level" are simply the bonus that building give you and zero make perfect sense for me since that mean zero bonus. ;)

The main problem is where the focus of the AI learning how to play the game should be developed? If you are eventually forced to min/max your colonies and build 25 hex range sensor boats on turn one to keep up with the AI on even Normal the game will turn into micromanagement hell, especially on large maps. I would like to see players cry when the AI send their 30 hex movement transport in to invade their undefended colonies deep inside their territory etc... &n

joeball123 math a pretty serious and accurate... I have not done them as explicit as he and rather used a rough estimation. The general rule of thumb in most cases are that you use about 40-60% of a planet for supportive infrastructure, slightly less for pure industrial planets. You then dedicate the rest for whatever you want this planet primarily to do. Supportive infrastructure may be some industry, food, approval, influence, tourism or militar

I would say Patriotic is a bit OP at an insane galaxy in it's current state, to the point the AI will become a pushover by mid game. But then again that depends on your definition of what is fun? I do think the LEP will go through some iteration of balancing over time, but currently you are probably better of lowering the number of habitable planets on insane maps for now to have a balanced and fun game.

[quote who="charon2112" reply="6" id="3551564"] I thought that when you click once on an improvement, the number that shows up in the circle is the current level of the building. If it isn't, where does it currently show the level of the building? Also, buildings don't start at level one? That seems counter-intuitive. [/quote] Buildings don't have levels, they are upgraded to new versions and each have it's own graphical repre

There is a bug that make this information go away after you have done any upgrade of any ship. Saving and reloading the game usually fixes this issue.

It is a way to show the first value is the base value and the second is the exponent... more or less... :)

I have not experience your direct problems in any of my games on Normal but I the AI do get bonuses to range and all sort of help on harder difficulties. These bonuses will diminish as the AI get smarter, I'm sure of that. An AI that starts spamming ships are typically a military inclined race that focus allot in"Manufacturing" and "Military Manufacturing" in particular. You can often view that on the power graphs. All in all it is not all too

Ok... did some battle against pirates with smaller more simple ships... The result are that damage is randomized, have managed to get a slight difference, it's just it matters very little given how deterministic ships target other ships. In the test I had one tiny ship with 24 shields designated as "Assault" and one tiny ship with 6 laser strength designated as "guardians" and no modifications. The pirates had two small ships with a total of 8

Yes, the position and role of the ship do matter... I know that for sure... but here are some more observation running rampart with the crusader in the campaign. In the battles I mentioned above no matter in which order or even between turns did the outcome of the battle change at all.... Every time I engaged the bigger stack of Drengine ships the Crusader ended up the winner with 278 HP. Every time I attacked the weaker stack second the crusader regenerated to 377 HP w

I only play on insane maps and do quite fine with maximum two sensors and a survey module as the cap on number of sensors I need, that and I modded stations to have much further sensor range on their sensor modules. Ship range already scale with map size as far as I can tell. I see no immediate reason to scale sensors on bigger maps, the whole reason to play on them is to make the game epic and not to make them feel as small as a smaller map just

And... allowing obvious abusive game mechanics that can easily be changed to make the AI more competitive seem like an odd choice to me. Why allow players to use a feature to make it easy and then let the AI cheat by knowing where all the good planets are on higher difficulties to compensate. This does not make any sense to me what so ever. If you play the game with no abuse of game mechanics the AI actually are a pretty decent opponent. You can still beat Normal fairly

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="17" id="3551353"] One has to be careful though not to "lock out" either casual players or folks who aren't taking "full" advantage of adjacencies and souped-up buildings by making buildings/ships too expensive. It's the classic problem of Power Player versus Casual Gamer (which is more of a spectrum, but I digress). Still, if folks think it is too easy to build things late game and/or think buildings and ships should be much mor

Yes, what actually scared me was that it did not change depending on which combat I resolved first... having a ship with 750 HP get to exactly 278 HP in the same combat against the same stack although it had been into one, two or no other combat first in the same turn seem quite worrisome to me... as I said... I will keep testing this. This really has to be a very unlikely coincident.

[quote who="Kordanor" reply="29" id="3551219"] The Wiki, which is also checked by the Devs afaik, states: Combat Viewer Players can choose to autoresolve battle directly from the main map, or watch it play out in the combat viewer. This has no effect on the outcome of battle; the combat viewer does not allow players to control their fleets -- though it may give better insight into why a fleet is performing poorly or doing well

To me it basically say that you may auto resolve the battle or use the battle viewer and the result are the same, which is you may not directly influence the battle directly, Just try some station assaults with a fleet that are fairly matched with both the station and its defenders. With auto resolve the battle will be even in the viewer you defeat them both in detail. The fleet charge out and is destroyed after which you attack the base and destroy it easily. You have

This is why you view this from the wrong perspective. It is an "adjacency" bonus, not the "level" of the building. If a building is not adjacent to anything that give it an adjacency bonus you don't get it. The number describe the number of adjacency bonuses the building gets. The level of the building is rather the upgrades you build. At least that is how I see it and for me this is quite intuitive... ;)

yes... I know... the animation of a missile or shot is disconnected from each other. Every shot is basically a hit versus dodge roll and then damage is applied if it is a hit. A ship only fire ONCE per weapon type and do so depending on their cool-down. That is what you see in the log and why you clearly see missile attack results before the missile impact a ship. The animation is just for show, that is true. That does not mean the actual sh

Sponsoring multiple shipyards would make sense... You can already do this with having a super production world alternate sponsoring several shipyards and queue up productions in them. But it requires that you switch sponsoring them every turn or every few turns at least. Yet one more thing that just add micromanagement to the game that could be better streamlined.

Just take station combat as a very good example. The viwer and auto calculator produce very different results. So does also my unarmoured Guardians with missiles. Ships with Guardian role hang back behind the line and get to fire their missiles and generally be unharmed. With the auto calculator this is not that case. The role of the ship matter and it is clear to me that it's not generated before hand, the result are way too different. <

I rather impose restrictions on my own play rather than play against a cheating AI. I also find games in general gets more challenging when I don't exploit AI weaknesses or game the system mechanics even if I can. GalCiv is no better or worse than any other game in this respect. Although... GalCiv do have some really powerful gamey mechanics to exploit that make the AI very weak as a result. I also never ever finish games of this nature, they always get bori