Oh this one is simple. My galactic system uses a VR interface that adapts alien symbology into more immediately recognizable forms. This is similar to how Universal Translation system will allow me to "read" words I normally could not. In this context, the skull and crossbones takes the original symbol and adjusts it into a form a more immediately recognize as dangerous. There you go!
[quote who="darkehound" reply="4" id="3578113"] Until you lose to an ogre with 5 hp left...happened last night to an army with 495 hps. [/quote] Did the outcome say victory?
I thought of a few more. Some UI improvements: 1) Tell me how much food to get to the next level. 2) Tell me how many hammers things cost. 3) Let me see the yields of all of the terrain when I have a settler.
My main 3: 1) Unit Balance: Give me a reason to get units other than paladins. 2) Spell Balance: Make late game spellcasting more competitive with units. Recognize that as the game proceeds the action economy shifts more towards the actions a spell takes, not the mana or the number of spells I have. 3) Doom Clock Balance: Its too slow and too easy to control. I end the game due to boredom not due to having to bum rush the SK because of the clock.
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="13" id="3577977"] The implication here is that it wouldn't make things go along ANY faster, and I just don't find that reasonable. [/quote] The original proposal reduces the amount of science it takes for you to research the tech itself, which I believe is exactly what you are looking for.
I'd say there are two factors: 1) Historic Complexity. Newer games have gotten much better but simple mod installs, but it was not always that way. For me, it wasn't until Civ 5 that I start using many mods, just because it was finally a snap to install. 2) Not the "true game". To many, they are here to play the "true" version of the game made by people who get paid to make games. They aren't interested in modifications from fans. And I think this as
I just wanted to take a moment and say I am really pleased with the AutoResolver. Most tactical combat 4x games have an autoresolver, and inevitably something goes terribly wrong. I lose a critical unit or a key part of my army in an "easy fight". My trust in the resolver breaks down, and I have to do every battle in tactical view....which then dramatically increases game time and ultimately makes me lose interest. So far, I have been very pleased with the resol
Shouldn't this be stickied?
Got to say, I love some of the work done here! Just one note as someone he did a lot of work on the Civ 5 Fan Balance Mods....be careful not to change too much too quickly. It can get very tempting to want to fix every little thing, but sometimes the scalpel approach is the best. Small changes can have big consequences, and it can take a lot of games to see the full consequence.
A very interesting idea.
technically higher tier buildings are stronger now overall imo. adding a new building gives you less overall bonus than it once did because of adjacency. So the extra bonus of the higher tier building is worth more. it may not be ebough to make them competitive, but they haven't been nerfed
When Gal Civ 3 first showcased starbases with initial defenses, I jumped for joy. What a great idea I thought! However, as time goes by, I've wondered if this is the right approach. Between needing transports for planets and strong fleets to attack starbases...there isn't really anything to attack in the early game. It makes the concept of early aggression nearly pointless. In Gal Civ 2, you could try to take the early resources...but you had to fortify
I do think a stockpile model probably makes more sense in Gal Civ 3. In Civ 5, where the current system got its start (at least as far as a mainstream game that I am aware of)....units are relatively few so it makes sense. In Sorcerer King it is the same. I think this would actually have been a better model for Legendary Heroes for the same reason. However, Gal Civ 3 has much higher number of units, and I think a stockpile system would make more sense for that s
The exact numbers aside the concept makes a lot of sense, though there are already people that don't like the fact that the doom counter puts a "forced turn limit" on their game. I am not one of them, feeling that SK is meant to be a different 4x game than most, so I like it!
While not the most accurate, could you add in all of the potential max slider configurations of a planet? So for the sake of argument. Lets take a 10 RAW production planet with 100% research, 25% manu, 50% wealth bonuses through the buildings/planet bonuses...etc. Research: 10 * 100% = 20 Manu = 10 * 25% = 12.5 Wealth = 10 * 50% = 15 Total Power Rating = 20 * (power rating for research) + 12.5 * (power rating for MANU
I vote for a Global Wheel over the Per Planet. The Global Wheel would not stop planet specialization overall, because of the adjacency system. It is still best to clump buildings of the same type together. But what it would do is make special tiles more special (I might consider putting a wealth building on a "lab planet" if the wealth bonus on the tile is good enough). But most importantly is it curbs the impact of specialization. I couldn't make 1
I agree that the tooltip is bad. It should say "provides a second move"
I'm fine with no penalty because it encourages people to use their hero aggressively instead of hide them in the back.
Isn't SK basically Legendary Heroes 2?
I seen the wisp issue too when I play as the priestess
Just tried out SK, played LH. Is there an option that lets you see the yield of each tile, like there was in LH? I can't seem to find it.
I don't mind the 1 ship per turn, but I do think manu costs needs a pass. It is very easy to build a manu world that can build any ship I want in 1 turn, which I think is the main issue.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="3" id="3570769"] It may even be advantageous to skip production improvements entirely, and use money to improve highly specialized worlds, that simply don't have enough room to justify making them efficient to upgrade themselves. The right combination of improvements and bonuses could end up being far better than the money spent to build it up. [/quote] Agreed. Most building upgrades are actually very inefficient if you spend manu
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="3" id="3562205"] Exploits are "strategies" that were not intended by the game designer and completely nullify strategies that were intended by the game designer. [/quote] This is my favorite definition offered so far. So for example, sensor boats. I considered them an exploit because they invalidated a lot of other intended mechanics. 1) Starbase Sensors: Sensor Boats were much stronger.
I also wanted to comment on the TALL vs WIDE argument that is appearing in these threads as well. To me there is a key difference between TALL vs WIDE SLOW-WIDE vs FAST-WIDE The true TALL vs WIDE argument is that a tall gamestyle is equivalent or even superior to a wide one. This argument was the strongest in Civ 5, where a 4-5 city empire was actually superior to larger ones because of extra city penalties. This has