I don't this as a problem currently. Don't want to micro 20 constructors for an econ base? Maybe think about building bigger constructor ships. I usually end up building star base factory ships which have some 20+ construction points on them... One of these ships can build up several econ bases.
[quote who="drakkos137" reply="7" id="3602515"] We need the ability to post notes on our map. [/quote] Hell yes! Especially because a lot of pretty static objects like star bases and shipyards disappear in the fog of war.
While I'm not a fan of constructor spaming, I'm not too fond of what the OP suggested. Gradual automated grow would make it impossible/hard to level up star bases in late game. I think it is key to be able to decide which bases get developed how fast - a simple mining base doesn't call for the development the eco bases around my home planet need. I often use starbases during invasions as forward operating bases. This reduces the need for range mo
I would actually vote to keep them as they are, i.e. you can stack as many as you want... Gives you some nice incentives on very lager maps. :)
+ 1 This has confused me many times as well. It would be very helpful to see: what type of ship was built in which shipyard/near which planets
+ 1 for this bug. Custom foreground, leader portrait and race logo seem to overwrite each other. I always end up with at least one of the three not showing up properly.
It does get a bit silly do... On my last game I just ended up with a ship which had a sensor range of 150-200 units - covering the entire map when placed somewhat in the center and effectively removing the need to ever fit any ship with a sensor ever again.
[quote who="maniakos" reply="19" id="3598982"] Planet/Economy managenet is the core feature that drives all of the other game systems. And is the de-facto system that builds winner empires. Don't expect such passionate arguments for other changes. i.e. for invasions.[/quote] Couldn't agree more. Spending-economics on cities (or in this case planets) has been the core feature driving 4X games since... forever essentially. And as with most strategy games its the economy tha
I'm really surprised to hear that only a small percentage of people were using the wheel... (How was this measured btw?) Planet-local specialization was boosting your efficiency by at least a couple of hundred percent total... How did you ever reach the higher tech tiers without it?
[quote who="Sturmknecht" reply="66" id="3598853"] @Frogboy: Just out of curiosity: let's say my target is a superdreadnaught in the largest possible hull, fit with decent drives/range/defense... and the best possible weapons of one category (let's say beam weapons). What would be the approximate target time (in turns) it should take a player to reach this goal? Let's say on a huge map. Because it took me some 300ish turns, and that's WITH extens
@Frogboy: Just out of curiosity: let's say my target is a superdreadnaught in the largest possible hull, fit with decent drives/range/defense... and the best possible weapons of one category (let's say beam weapons). What would be the approximate target time (in turns) it should take a player to reach this goal? Let's say on a huge map. Because it took me some 300ish turns, and that's WITH extensive wheel microing, a ton of econ starbases
Fair enough, I get the point your trying to get across Frogboy. From what you're saying it seems that there seem to be struggles with the scaling of big games - naturally my empire of 70ish planets will produce 10x as much as some civ on a smaller map. I'm just a little bit surprised to hear that these numbers are considered so game-breaking ... I'm by no means an expert or veteran player, and have easily reached the 1500 research per planet per turn level in
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="37" id="3598508"]GalCiv is my game. I've spent nearly my entire adult life working on versions of it. I don't like the wheel.[/quote] Wow. You realize though that it is actually your customers who pay for this game and your salary, right?
[quote who="naselus" reply="15" id="3598573"][...]read the primary source of information related to the game at any point over the two months preceding the change", which is a rather more reasonable expectation.[/quote] I don't consider some online forum to be a proper 'primary source of information' for a game which is sold over Steam, and certainly not in the year 2015. There are plenty of games who managed easily to keep their communities up to date on updates. For exam
[quote who="naselus" reply="11" id="3598305"]Yes, a lot of player's won't use the forums; that's not something SD can be blamed for.[/quote] Excuse me? When buying the game on Steam I didn't see the notice saying "Btw, we might change everything at any point in time and the only way to figure it out is to constantly track an online Forum". If the channels of communication are not effective then thats the fault of whoever is trying to get their informati
Without proper control over governance of planets all you are left with is global specialization. But if you focus your global spending towards one of the three resources (prod, econ, research) then all the improvements, buildings, etc. built for the other two are essentially worthless, or at the very least very very inefficient. With proper planet-local governance you were able to mitigate this: don't build econ buildings on research planets (and vice versa), don't build rese
This is so frustrating. I have been playing on my current game for the last 2-3 weeks. Now I can't finish it. Why couldn't Stardocks even make this so called "update" backwards compatible?
Couldn't agree more with the last poster. Quite apart from the wheel-discussion being heavily controversial to say the least, communication of Stardock is sadly total bullsh**. I just started the game today and first thought this was some kind of bug... Couldn't you at least put in some kind of pop-up notice? WTH.
I'm devastated by the decision to remove the planet-local wheel. It basically inflates the problem you had managing planets to your entire galaxy: If you focus your global spending towards one of the three resources (prod, econ, research) then all the improvements, buildings, etc. built for the other two are essentially worthless, or at the very least very very inefficient. With proper planet-local governance you were able to mitigate this: dont build econ buildings on res
I am not talking about making money, maybe I was unclear. The wheel was the only way you could direct and adjust planet resource generation in any meaningful manner.
Very sad to hear this, Brad. I think the planet wheel was an absolutely essential construct for resource generation governance. The new system allowing you a whopping 3 options does not do justice to this games complexity at all. Is there at least a plan to improve control over the *social-vs-military* production spending percentage on a non-global level?
I just logged into my game where I control upwards of 60 planets. At least half of them were carefully microed for maximum efficiency. Now my main research planet (my capital) just dropped from 1500 research a turn to 700 . And gives me some prod and money. What in name of all thats holy do I want with production on an already maxed planet lightyears away from any frontier??? And do you think the extra 90ish credits justify missing out on 800 research