Not a game bug, just bad wording. It actually gives +1 level to each manuf improvement, regardless of adjacencies (so you don't get more for 2+ adjacencies, which would be sick). Similarly, Env Re gives +1 level to all research improvements. Think of it as a spire you build on the roof, which is adjacent vertically downward but not to the sides :)
I think military starbases should project power! Like really big flashlights! Cell phone towers broadcast EM radiation (radio waves), which are still just photons. Ergo, a tower is really a radio flashlight / floodlight, which broadcasts a beam. An omnidirectional tower / antenna simply dumps its energy radially (spherically) outward in all directions, including parallel to the ground and up into space. It's the radio equivalent of
Sounds just like SE{3,4,5}. You do design satellite units, which are immobile in space and must be carried by ships as cargo. I promptly design a sensor satellite, and dedicate one satellite layer to run around the map and lay down rings of 6 for full-time remote view of each sector. The AI does not understand this, and neither mimics it, nor shoots down my satellites. SE* ship design does include Crew Quarters, Life Support, Sensors, Mine Layer, and other components
Space Empires has always allowed: multiple techs in 1 turn (as many as you can finish) multiple units in 1 turn. A unit is a small commodity, not self-mobile, which is carried as cargo on ships. Units include fighters (tactical in space, but cannot warp), satellites and mines (immobile in space), weapon platforms (immobile on planets), and troops (tactical on planets). They cost so little that even a tiny planet with
[quote who="CaliforniaBill" reply="8" id="3529181"]"... a Win-Win situation for us, not you."[/quote] "A victory condition will be achieved!" [e digicons]:meow:[/e]
From Stardock's perspective, the main problem with Beta testers using console commands is that it defeats their ability to investigate your saved games. So any bugs you find in such a game are basically useless to them. They can't reproduce them, they can't analyze your reports, and they can't even be sure that it's a game bug. You can have fun with the console commands as much as you want, but you're on your own. Basically, you opt out of the
[quote quoting="post"]... your turns could take hours...[/quote] Yes, they do [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e]
As a fellow Excel/algebra geek, I vote this for Best! Thread! Ever! We loves math!
Hey, I like it for one reason: Because it's counter-intuitive, and I understand it better than my opponents do. That's how I win every game, in all of my games [e digicons]:hrmph:[/e] So ... all your objections are like music to me, and taste of citrus and honey. Mu-ha-ha. I write C++ template meta-programs that way, too. Seniors and grad students in CS see my code, sputter in shock, and say "How does that even compile? It
It's correct, as intended. Look at my equation above. Research Project is defined to create raw rp, which then goes through your entire +rp% pipeline, exactly as if you had that much raw production from the wheel. You do get the double benefit of both of your pipelines: all of your +mp%, divide by 4, then all of your +rp%. Let w be whatever raw production you get from 100% wheel. Then: settin
Hover over your manuf points and show us your +manuf% bonuses tooltip. (Also hover over your rp and show the +rp% tooltip.) That's the critical information we need to assess the math. If your manuf tooltip is Other testers have ba-roken the economy to generate > 30k rp, so nothing impresses us any more :)
[quote who="Gilmoy" reply="22" id="3526235"]Actually, until it approaches the exhaust speed of its propellant. A rocket can't go any faster than that (because then its exhaust particles would end up with net forward drift, which would require some exhaust-exhaust for the exhaust to have pushed against).[/quote] [quote who="anninhilator" reply="24" id="3526777"]It makes absolutely no difference if you have a rocket engine with an exhaust speed of of 4 km/s or
[quote who="peregrine23" reply="66" id="3527274"]... one of the main strengths of chess AI is that it has a huge bank of previous games in its memory, and so can look at a situation and find the same or an analogous situation and understand how certain moves might play out for each player.[/quote] Chess programs don't actually do that. What you described is case-based reasoning , and it is an AI technique suitable for some ill-defined domains, but not chess.&
Looks perfectly reasonable. A maxed-out planet will easily have >> +300% manuf. Then setting the wheel to 100% manuf, and queueing Research Project, is indeed better than setting the wheel to 100% rp. Suppose your raw production (i.e. your pop * all bonuses) is X. At wheel = 100% rp, you get X * (1 + rp%) rp. At
I actually wrote a 3-hour response with my reply to the OP (plus some ... sidetracks). When I clicked "Post Reply", it took me to a login page. Logging in did not post it. Going back in my browser cache took me back to the previous reply I edited (the one above). So this damn Forum software ate my post. I'll know to never trust it again.
[quote who="aaronofely" reply="54" id="3526996"]As far as deep blue beating Garry Kasparov it is a very questionable if the machine acted alone being they kept it in a separate room out of site. There is allot of fishy stuff about that match and IBM had allot to loose in share holding if they lost.[/quote] There is no longer any question that Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Looking back with hindsight, and taking into consideration further advances in the field in 18 years since 1
[quote who="aerez4546" reply="20" id="3526165"]In space a missile ... would ... theoretically keep accelerating until it approached the speed of light ...[/quote] Actually, until it approaches the exhaust speed of its propellant. A rocket can't go any faster than that (because then its exhaust particles would end up with net forward drift, which would require some exhaust-exhaust for the exhaust to have pushed against). Hence we have a 21st-ce
Influence starbases are probably too weak to overcome the "influence clock" lead. Influence still depends solely on game turns x influence growth. Click enemy planets and check their Influence Growth (which is public). Multiply that by the turns you think they've held the planet. That's their total current influence. (Actually, it's an upper bound. You don't know the history of their +ig improvements, if any, so you can't know t
Suggestion: You Get What You Pay For. (And then you pay.) Add a +mp cost to "finish" a Colony Capital. Colonization Event screen also has a Capital Placement choice, with the following choices: Prefab. Random hex, but fully built. (this is what we have now) Bad: Game engine picks a random hex for you. (Or maybe it deliberately picks a "bad" hex?) Good: Your capital is instantly f
You're missing a constant of 0.25 in your equation, representing the intrinsic 4:1 cost of Research Project (4 mp => 1 rp). Hence your +manuf% must be exactly +300% to break even, and > +300% to make a profit. You are correct that a medium-large planet that builds a (nearly-)full ring of manuf, or overlaps 12 economic starbases, can easily exceed +300%. Then it is more profitable to migrate your research and wealth planets to be some convex combi
When his invasion fleet beats your defense fleet ... quick, scorched-earth your own farms and rush-buy some Planetary Defenses just to soak up more of his droptroops. Then he'll have to pay 4 transports per planet, instead of using 4 transports to take 4 planets. So maybe it's fine that Planetary Defenses takes a hex. Most of the time, you build social stuff instead. Only planets that are actually in imminent danger of invasion go into panic-build mode and re
Kentucky Fried 4X does tactical combat! Well ... Mounted! Long ... Range! Enormous ... Warhead! And if you get past those, then you can invade. More seriously, today's prototype next-gen beam (laser) and kinetic (electromagnetic railgun) weapons still run into an energy wall. To deliver a certain number of MJ (megajoules) to a target, you must generate that energy somehow, which means you still must carry around at l
Different weapon ranges is, in fact, historically accurate ;) It's just that B4.2 damage rates must all be tweaked to achieve a playable game balance. Using energy-per-damage as the unifying concept: long range + fast transit (beams) ==> low damage rate short range + slow transit (kinetic mass) ==> high damage rate? This postulates that the most efficient energy delivery is kinetic. That's true in 21st-century Earth.</li
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="2" id="3521670"]keep that colony ship going around in circles[/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] Seems a perfectly good use of five ships. All engines, no modules.