Stalker0

While I am fine with continued discussions about LEP using morale, to me maintenance does seem like a more elegant mechanic: 1) Maintenance is already a global bonus/penalty. Morale could be made such but would take more work and require gameplay changes. Maintenance is ready to go. 2) Increases the importance of economy buildings/bonuses. Common feedback is that money in the game is not important enough, and as such an entire section of the infrastructure tree

So the jist of what I've heard. Even if we take the lower estimates of a star destroyers weapon, they seem to still beat a reaper. so...Star Wars wins this one. Why are still talking about this? ifl

[quote who="erischild" reply="13" id="3567932"] Please do not make a dislike of constructors an axiom of this discussion. It is not universal on the forums and it is possibly even less universal in the overall player base. [/quote] To be fair, there is like no mechanic in existence that would have universal support:) I think the ideas being suggested here would still get you the meat of you what want: 1) Strategic Placement of Starbases:

[quote who="rspiccaver" reply="6" id="3567877"] I had a couple of minutes while packing and I've just double checked, new game, built colony ships to remove population down to 1. Population growth +25% from high morale. Population went 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5 [/quote] Now the next question, is that 1.4 rounded for total manufacturing calculations (or does the game use the actual 1.375 value)? If its the former, that would actually make growth str

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="6" id="3567886"] I know we all want to reduce SB micro, and some good ideas up above, but by NOT building constructors, then you eliminate the risk and time of the constructor's journey to the starbase. You could have a starbase in enemy territory, with your entire fleet garrisoned to protect the immature SB. Have a planet on the other side of the galaxy sponsor it (assuming engineer and pragmatic coordinated will work with this) and build

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="1" id="3567182"] I had 103 pop, and them all being depressed and batcrap-angry, made them work as a team and produce more....WAD??? [/quote] Something to keep in mind, though I will have to look at the final math. 103 pop with 100% approval = 128.75 pop 103 pop with 0% approval = 77.25 pop So by dropping your approval to the bottom, you lose 53.5 pop. It might not be worth the approval buildings, but its

[quote who="naselus" reply="34" id="3567308"] Turns 1-50 in 5-turn chunks for every ideology. Separate and distinct early, mid- and late-game war strategies Military rush AI. Colony rush AI Late-game rush-buying AI [/quote] What happens to the AI's current building if it changes strategy? For example, the AI is building a colony ship, but then switches into a new strategy. Does it finish the colony shi

[quote who="Echillion" reply="2" id="3567173"] I didn't use it in GC2 but I'm not against it either. [/quote] I'm the same with Echillion. I also still wonder if upgrading is too expensive period.

I would say in most games making Venus a Class 3 Toxic planet wouldn't be a big bump. And its not like Terrans have the sexiest tech tree (stares at the Thalen).

[quote who="Potenzo" reply="1" id="3567219"] Much simpler: allow planets to "sponsor" starbases just like they currently sponsor shipyards. Then divert production directly to starbase upgrades, without constructor ships at all (which are abolished, other than for the initial creation of the starbase, to determine location). Show the progress bar directly in the starbase window. [/quote] A alternative of this would be to let shipyards sponsor starbases.

[quote who="corgatag" reply="1" id="3567319"] I start my homeworld as manufacturing + research, but then specialize it to pure manufacturing once my first research colonies are ready to research. [/quote] This is how I approach it as well. Ultimately it doesn't really matter which specialization you choose for your homeworld, but you SHOULD specialize. Going a balanced approach is just plain weaker.

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="3" id="3567002"] Not meaning to be a stickler, but the terminology used always confused the crap out of me. Now that the game uses a CONSISTENT terminology (in tooltops and in techs), lets stick to that. The tooltips over Manufacturing, Research, NetIncome, and Raw Production will be all you need. [/quote] Since we are talking consistent nomenclature, did they change Total Manufacturing back to Raw Production in 1.10? B

[quote who="Captain Patch" reply="41" id="3566994"] At least with the graphic specs, a game's full content can be accessed by setting the Graphics to Low settings. [/quote] As you can in Gal Civ 3. I get every feature in the game on a medium map as I do on an insane one. I think the graphics setting is the best argument I have heard towards this. The game is fully playable on the hardware, just not at the absolute peak that is possible.

[quote who="dansiegel30" reply="71" id="3566901"] I guess stardock doesnt think so..... [/quote] SD has already made some changes, but its a tough problem to solve without changing how carriers operate, which requires more code.

[quote quoting="post"] This has a few silly consequences. First off, as near as I can tell the game doesn't record growth or population to a second decimal place. [/quote] Do we know this for a fact? I know it doesn't visually show it, but does it actually cut it off?

The problem with using real world scenarios is that the game doesn't give you all of the penalties of a "real" diplomatic penalty. In the real world, diplomatic penalties mean you lose intel, trade, your people get mad, you get phased out of UN resolutions, etc etc. The game doesn't offer all of these nuances, so something else has to be added in to prevent the player from just willy nilly breaking treaties. Right now that is a hard cap, and I wo

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="11" id="3566756"] With Content +2, a few harmony crystals, and Patriotic you can effectively ignore morale. [/quote] Except that you didn't ignore morale at all, you hyperfocused on it! You took 2 traits and worked to gain resources that give you morale. In that case, you can absolutely ignore morale tech and buildings for a while...that is what you paid for after all. But in other scenarios, morale becomes more usef

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="7" id="3566653"] The problem is the opportunity cost: you have to research morale tech early on and that's a pain given there are more important things out there to get. [/quote] Based on my previous statement, I would argue this statement as well. Even just the +4 morale tech and the intro morale buildings are a great starting point, you don't have to climb the entire tree of morale to get bang for your buck. In t

[quote who="KD7BCH" reply="18" id="3566699"] This is what the AI needs, it needs short mini-strategies, medium more strategic strategies that last about 50 turns, and enduring goals, which last the length of the game. [/quote] Well, if I was to look at my own gameplay, here are some of the mini-strategies I generally do. 1) Colony Rush / Initial Structure Phase: Focus is on military production, and colonizing planets quickly. New planets

[quote who="Goatmeal" reply="4" id="3566547"] Though, as mentioned many times, morale isn't really that important anyway... [/quote] I question this statement. I did an optimization exercise a little while back, and found that on a Q12 planet building an approval building first (to get to 100%) was the best building you could build to optimize a research planet. Not a hospital, not a factory, approval was the best. Approval increases your base production

Nvm, wrong forum

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="8" id="3564625"] What's the point of building an approval building when you can just plop a factory there in place of it? [/quote] Actually, when I ran the numbers a while back for a Q12 planet, the morale building was the BEST building to build first when starting a research planet if your approval isn't maxed. The production and growth bonus compound each other, and is stronger than a factory first, flat out. That was b

[quote who="Echillion" reply="33" id="3564124"] just limit the amount of modules per hull size job done! [/quote] What this change would accomplish is "every large ship gets X carrier modules....plus whatever other things it can fit". The fundamental problem still remains....anytime I can get carrier modules I will, all other weapons/defenses are "filler".

[quote who="a0152570" reply="35" id="3564140"] As long as the AI gets the same basic things you do (#/module, auto resurrection ..) it fair and balanced. [/quote] Fundamentally what we are discussing is not AI balance, but weapon balance. Regardless of how the AI uses it, right now carriers are so strong that they beat equivalent weapons and defense modules. And as the old saying goes "an obvious choice is not a choice at all". The goal is to make

I think a flavor of this makes sense, though to reduce micromanagement I would probably just say that after X turns the CC is at full level. Basically the colony develops over time until its at full capacity. This would reduce the immediate impact of a new colony, but not added any micromanagement.