Stalker0

One of the tedious things about late game Galactic Civ 2 is when you would face a large series of very weak fleets that you just had to slog through to get to the end goal. Endless Space has the same problem, and actually it can get to the point where its almost a bug (the AI can throw endless streams of cheap ships that prevent your ships from moving). I have a suggestion to eliminate both issues. Suggestion: If your fleet is engaging a fleet that is wo

[quote who="Cronocke" reply="23" id="3466854"] These questions are meaningless because they don't work that way. It's weapon vs. defense. If your weapon ignores their defense, you do damage. If your defense guards against their weapon, you take reduced damage. And it's not even a surefire thing. Depending on the numbers, you might take reduced damage, but still end up losing the fight because their damage values outdid your defense values. You might ignore t

Maybe the flagship could auto upgrade, so you always have one ship that is at your race's best tech.

One of my first alpha suggestions was to let us place the location of the initial colony when a planet was founded. Eliminates the problem above, and the issues when the colony is sometimes in a corner and can't really use its adjacency bonuses.

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="14" id="3464330"] Something like this could work too, but what you say sounds to much like a mutual defence treaty for my liking. A mutual defence treaty is a agreement between you and the defender. What i suggest doesn't need to involve the defender, just you and the (potential) agressor. [/quote] I think we are both on the same page. It just comes down to: "If you attack my friend, i will DEFEND my friend. I

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="1" id="3464329"] it would make a way better and more interesting game AND ship designer if we could adjust the rate of fire on lasers or the range of mass drivers. Because the the specialized techs seem over and done, its good but its not the same being interactive in a shipyard making the weapons like I suggested choosing something. DARCA [/quote] It all comes down to how effective

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="17" id="3464265"] Range was very much an issue in GC2, but only in the early phases. That was intentional. [/quote] Except its bad for new players, mainly because there are attributes associated to it, techs associated to it, and special events that give you bonuses to it. Most of those are effectively "wasted" after the early phase of the game. That's why I'm still in favor of just removing ra

[quote who="erischild" reply="33" id="3457924"] And save games often break upon new versions. I offer no sympathy on that point. It seems to be an unavoidable consequence of any significant changes. Anything I think I know about game design suggests it is actually unavoidable without extreme effort. [/quote] I will agree with this. That said, one thing I would greatly appreciate is the ability to turn off "autoupdates" in the fina

I have a counter-opinion to the OP, and frankly its a constant debate in 4x games: The notion of "strategic vs tactical" combat. Well in truth, its actually three types of combat: 1) Strategic 2) Tactical Position 3) Tactical Execution Strategic is similar to Gal Civ 2, combat is mainly about building the ships and fleets and slamming them into each other. While positioning mattered slightly with military starbases, 90% of the time how

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="8" id="3464159"] If you declare war on x, i will attack all your ships in x's influence (but ideally not declare war on you directly, i wanna peacekeep without giving powerfull ships to another faction.) [/quote] I think this one is interesting, you basically declare a protectorate on another civ. Basically a lesser state of war, whereas I will only attack things in my neighbors influence that is at war with my neighbor. &n

[quote who="trims2u" reply="12" id="3464197"] The current case is that Range/LS is really only ever thought about during the very first portion of the "colonization rush" phase, then (for all practical purposes) ignored thereafter. If you want, there might be a checkbox that says "ignore range" during game creation, to get pretty much what the game does now.[/quote] This part I do agree with. If range is going to be a factor in the game the

[quote who="Haydun" reply="1" id="3464133"] I wish there was some possibility to spend unused production from the beginning. [/quote] I personally wouldn't mind this either. And I could see a few ways to do this. One idea would be to allow fleets to "slowly" upgrade using production by using the asteroid mining mechanics. Basically you connect a planet to a fleet, and its production gets sent to the fleet for purposes of upgrading the fleet to ano

[quote who="AuraBoy" reply="2" id="3464144"] Quoting Haydun, reply 1 I wish there was some possibility to spend unused production from the beginning. I always get to the point, where i cannot build anymore, very fast, and then all my production is wasted... I don't know if this would be feasible (or even fun) but what if ships and planetary structures degraded over time. Similar to how RPG's treat armor and weapons. Thus your infrastructure woul

Thanks for the info all. To add some more constructive thought, I was initially against the idea of splitting manufacturing and ship building. I thought it was a needless complication of Gal Civ 2. But I do like the centralized starbase idea. I agree that allowing you to combine planets to a single starbase can help reduce monotony. It can also allow for very expense ships without requiring aeons to build. Overall I think its a great idea.

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="2" id="3462701"] Short answer, yes. For long answer Look at the founder`s vault documents.[/quote] Where do I find the founder's vault anyway?

I can say I have no issue with the removal of "features" if it ultimately leaves to a better game. I look back to MOO2, which I started playing only about a 1 year ago, and I realized what everyone was talking about. Even though it is such a simple game compared to today's standards, there is a "just one more turn" factor in that game that is hard to replicate. I think part of that lies in that it is very good at what it does. I look at a game like Endless s

I also tried playing Gal Civ II after playing the alpha. I can say I already like a lot of where they are going with the UI in GCIII, it feels a lot more streamlined than what we had in Gal Civ II. So I agree, while the elements are there it is shaping up to be a different game!

I've played 5 games of the alpha and the AI has never fired a single shot. I thought at first that it was just them building up weapons very slowly, but I have seen cases where I will park a transport right next to an AI fleet with weapons and it will not attack them. The AI just lets me put transports on all of its planets while never firing a shot. Has the AI attack algorithms not been activated yet or is this a bug?

+1

I've put down a few games under my belt, all as the Altarians. Here is my initial feedback. Bugs: 1) Mouse scroll does not work. I have to use arrow keys to move around the map (not sure if this is a bug or just not implemented yet). 2) The planet stats view (right side) does not show the correct statistics for population. It might show 8 when the planet actually has 14. Music: The initial music is amazing. I l