[quote who="redviper37" reply="71" id="3555311"] Before the AI declares war on another player, there should be some kind of check as to wether or not it can actually reach that race. [/quote] I know Brad has mentioned that such a check exists. Its probably either too weak or its conflicting with another priority which is why it doesn't look like there is.
[quote who="EMH2006" reply="21" id="3555219"] 1. Make the game less micro intensive. Right now with no overflow of production it is crazy micro intensive to every turn adjust ever single planet for 1 turn builds. I think there should be overflow in this game. If this cannot be done atleast in the overview screen let us easily tweak the social manufacturing spending so this can be adjusted more quickly. [/quote] There is actually overflow in the game, manu and research
[quote who="EMH2006" reply="4" id="3555301"] Pragmatic have a very powerful start, get the 3 free constructors and upgrade them for 300 credits to colony ships and voila. [/quote] While true, I would argue this is more of an exploit than an intended power of that ability.
[quote who="Neilo" reply="10" id="3555142"] That's pretty informative, thankyou peteincarey2. Quoting Magnumaniac, reply 6 That seems to be a good strategy to me too. Gone are the GC2 days of the invincible super-dreadnought, it would appear (and that is no bad thing IMO). A combined arms approach seem
[quote who="Kazriko" reply="4" id="3555110"] One strategy in GC2 I came up with was something I called the Mayfly Defense Grid. I built tiny ships with 1 attack and 1 defense, and as many engines and I could pile on. My lesser colonies could pump these things out. I had the big colonies generating my general purpose ships, medium ones making constructors. With the constructors, I formed a line of military bases on my borders, and pumped up their attack and defense assist as high as I cou
I have no problems giving military starbases some bonuses, but taking away the bonuses of other starbases is not going to get you much traction. I don't think people would generally agree that removing this aspect of other starbases is a good idea. So the question is, what additional bonus should be added to military bases to make them more competitive?
[quote who="ShoGuL" reply="35" id="3554201"] I had this thought as well (EG. leave production at 10 or 15% even on science/wealth planets, then when you research an upgrade they will be built instantly from leftover production. The problem with this approach is that the projects seem to soak up as much production as you have available (rate seems to be about 10 manufacture = 10% bonus), which makes it not work since the planet queue cannot be empty.... [/quote] Even if it di
To answer your question, we have been given very little combat info. Here is what we do know: 1) Each weapon type has a range, damage, a rate of fire, and accuracy. So a damage 10 missile may do different DPS than a damage 10 kinetic weapon for example. 2) Defenses only affect 1 type of attack (armor vs kinetic, PD vs missle, shields vs lasers). However, a big change is that defenses decrease during the course of a battle, though we still don't know
To be more specific: You get: 1) +5 production for every planet. 2) An additional +5 for the capital. 3) Production = Pop^.7 * 2 4) A few techs provide more. 5) Approval adds between 25% and -25% more production.
[quote who="Goatmeal" reply="12" id="3553474"] Please don't modify this aspect of the game and ruin it for us players who like detailed controls. [/quote] My issue isn't with detailed controls, its that ultimately the detailed controls don't mean much. The gradual slider doesn't actually have a lot of benefit. The way optimizing works in GalCiv3 its almost always best to go with extremes. Build a science world, go max prod to build your labs, then go
A quasi version of this would be a mod that greatly increases the maintenance of ships. So you impose a soft cap that can overcome by money, but is still fairly limiting
[quote who="Osbot" reply="15" id="3553159"] My point was is that if someone wants to powergame you cannot stop them. They will just find something else, and as a developer often times when you fix something for the powergamer, you break it for everyone else. [/quote] There's always a measure of degrees though. Taking your statement to the extreme, developers shouldn't balance anything. They should just pick numbers that feel good, and let it ride.
Devs confirmed in another thread that this is fixed in 1.02 (not 1.01 the current patch).
As of 6.2, the ships were not slaves to their priorities. I tested this out myself, trying ships with tons of defenses and little attack to see if the ships would target them blindly while the ships bristling with guns got off scott free. In my tests with Beta 6.2, they did not. They still attacked the big gun ships. Ship Type seems to modify their priority but it doesn't override it.
[quote who="easymodex" reply="22" id="3552980"] I'd generally like to point that in terms of general concepts and their orders of magnitude, I don't find "cost" of ship weapons or defenses to be a meaningful factor. If balancing is done around weapon attributes (or attibutes of defenses against them), then I think "cost" should be weighted low. [/quote] Completely agree, effectiveness is a much more important factor than cost right now.
The big thing this analysis doesn't take into account is defenses. We know that defenses have attrition (they weaken over the course of a battle) but we are not yet sure by what method. Ie...is it with every shot, based on the damage of the shot, etc. Theoretically a fast attacking kinetic weapon might drain armor faster than missiles drain PD. Further, armor is actually very heavy itself, so its harder to get large amounts of it. The
[quote who="Vidszhite" reply="24" id="3551909"]if you've got only a handful of those worlds in a 100-world, 400+ hex-spanning empire. Any decent opponent will Hit-and-Run you to death, because you can't get your forces to the attack points in time, as, inevitably, you'll not have your production worlds near enough to the front lines to rely on them for the majority of your ship production. [/quote] This is the power of starports though. Because I have a sup
[quote who="Nastytang" reply="227" id="3551831"] I personally would rush build something else. [/quote] If you are inclined to make sensor ships than I don't think there is anything better turn 1. I can colonize much faster, ignore pirates entirely, get the best planets, and then update my future colony ships to use the minimal life support necessary. I used to rush a colony ship turn 1 but I've found a sensor ship is far superior.</
One way to make the request constructor button less micro intensive is to combine with the govern automation, Right now I can tell all ships to go to X place for example. If I could say "All starbases that need a mining barracks request constructor", that would be great!
Production goes from +25% at 100% approval down to -25% at 0.
In terms of when to build farms, I can say that for a Q10 planet with no real research bonuses....if you want to optimize research over 75 turns, the answer is...never. You don't build farms, the most important thing is keeping your approval at 100%. I made a thread about optimizing a Q10 planet that covers the details. I do still have to try that for higher end farms and see if it changes, but for a regular farm its not worth it.
I pray that I will receive a combat guide one day, and we will actually understand how all of the combat mechanics (attack, defense, speed, range, evasion) work together.
[quote who="Kazriko" reply="9" id="3551194"] and every star port pumping out constructors that I used to make influence bases everywhere, [/quote] Just to check you, where you building those bases in enemy territory? Influence bases don't work like they did in Gal Civ 2, they are built around your own planets and buff your influence, they don't push into the area they are built in like in GalCiv 2. That said, the consulate line of buildi
[quote who="a0152570" reply="7" id="3551116"] That's a great point. Perhaps Steam should delete beta reviews after game release. Or at least segregate them in some way. [/quote] I would agree with this. The beta of a game is not the same thing as the game. Some people will rate it lower because of the unfinished parts. Some will rate it higher because they have connected with the game and the designers in the beta and so give it more than it shoul
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="3551257"] Sadly, most play only small maps. [/quote] I don't know if that is sad per say. Small maps provide an aggressive challenge where you have to fight for land, where every system is precious, and you really have to balance early warfare with expansion. I think its just a better experience for most players, not knocking you insane lovers of course:)