Suomi Sotilashenkilo

My first game of Crusade started, and I thought I was doing reasonably well despite not being sure what to focus on anymore with the new construction and build options (and losing my Iconian tech tree :( ). However, I quickly noticed that on an Immense galaxy with 16 players, I was stuck in last place. Finally with universal translator researched, I got a trade offer from the Terran Alliance and realized that I was not just falling behind, I was completely uncompetitive. They had 14 p

Although most of the stuff I've seen from the Crusade journals is pretty great, there is one really big thing that does worry me: I've always hated abilities that disregard everything about the game and everything you've been trying to do; I hate auto-win buttons and abilities, no matter how expensive or potentially damaging their use might be. I can appreciate heroes making a fleet better or giving it an advantage, but not auto-wins. That is one thing I <span

Do have to admit a lot of this was thinking out loud and typing the idea stream, but I had a pretty clear idea with the conical-sensors, though I probably didn't explain it well. Right now, sensors scan in every direction at full power, and everything within is fully identified while everything outside is invisible. If volumetric sensors are added, then at the very least you can vary how far you're scanning at full-power, and how far you're spreading your sensor rang

After reading a variety of posts on what is wrong with sensor boats and what is right, the positives and negatives of diminishing returns, I feel that certain elements of the volumetric sensors provide opportunities, not just penalties. Note that certain of these ideas are highly-dependent upon others in the list. Note that the first set of 4 ideas would take a lot of AI work to actually implement. The subsequent concept would not, and is a quick fix that still takes ad

It would also help having sort of "governor" settings, to group different types of starbases together so you can set a default upgrade stance, versus others that might prioritize upgrades more or less. Not to mention global settings of any type, since disabling the auto-upgrade stance on each new starbase gets a bit old.

One thing that is a huge problem with the Iconians, is that their ships repair in combat. This makes fighting them very difficult. The tech required to do so (versus for other factions) is incredibly low on the tech tree, and doesn't require ship modules (modules that are added actually are far less effective). I actually started to prefer playing custom-races with the Iconian tech tree just for this bonus, which combined with combat attributes (hit points and jamming)

1.) Naming database for ships and starbases (with tabs and potential autoname features); I want to customize what types of ships are named what (i.e. freighters, scouts, survey ships, different-sized warships; as well as mining vs economy vs military starbases). I could do this with an excel spreadsheet but it'd be nice to avoid all the alt-tabbing (plus make sure ships don't get renamed when you upgrade them to a different ship class). It also makes it easier when ideas j

[quote who="J_L_Seagull" reply="6" id="3576521"] Quoting Larsenex, reply 5 There is none Elerium beam because beams are the first weapon you get and if you carefully look at the entire line, beams are the most balanced and at Doom Ray the most powerful. Back in Alpha through Beta, beams w

Right now I'd say that kinetic weapons are usually the best of them (unless your opponent has a high jamming value, which exacerbates their poorer accuracy) since their damage is actually quite good for their size and with the rate of fire module they shoot fast enough to overpower just about anything; the one exception is that the elerium beam is easily the best special weapon type (while the antimatter missile is the worst). Add an accuracy buff to your faction, and kinetics becom

Better AI is basically going to be included (as they are able to) with every patch, according to their plans going forward. I'm guessing that's part of why they wanted more people playing the game, is so they can test the AI against humans and come up with better strategies for it to use (and identify problems). The map editor was one of the last things they added in Galciv2 as an expansion, although I'm guessing it's going to come sooner in GalCiv3 since they&#3

I only use smaller ships for two reasons (both production-cost related): 1.) Late game I have a small-size sensor ship following my bigger ships around, decked out in crappy engines and life support. The stock life support only costs 4 production and the hyperdrive plus is something like 10, so you can get some really cheap ships with decent speed and range plus 12 sensor range. I do similar things with troop transports (which currently only require 1 troop module to take

They're a custom with that tech tree. I am now interested in playing said custom race (which was supposed to be just another random AI nation).

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="1" id="3569308"] Are you saying that between fights a ship you encountered healed 102 dmg or it healed 102 dmg while fighting in the battle viewer? If a ship has 100 hit points but also has 25 each of the defenses, those defenses will go first. They also fully return each engagement in the battle-viewer. Hit points do not, they slowly regenerate unless you have the end line ship repair module in it. That module requires thul

I'm more than a little irritated by this. Without any modules designed to repair a ship mid-battle, an enemy medium-size vessel managed to heal 102 damage in the middle of a battle (which is well over half its health...). This ability is actually more effective than having 50 armor on a ship versus 16 kinetic damage, since the armor wears out over time (while the repairs last forever), and is making me reconsider ever using more than one defense module in favor of more weapons

The biggest problems with games that have both tactical and strategic modes are: 1.) Resources need to be allocated to fund two major projects rather than one. Right now, this game is having trouble keeping up with the projects that they're currently working on and they're talking about people switching projects (since apparently spending over a year working on one thing gets dull). Even worse, the AI is having trouble playing the game as it is right now; coding th

[quote who="Syrris" reply="23" id="3569023"] Quoting hardcore_gamer, reply 21 That still doesn't explain dumb things like pragmatic nations going to war with peaceful ones for no reason other than differences in ideas. If somebody is willing to got war with someone over a difference in world views than that person isn&

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="14" id="3568806"] Explain to me why a malevolent faction should like a benevolent faction, or for that matter why a pragmatic faction should like a benevolent faction? If the benevolent are to be loved by all, does that include the malevolent as well? Is a benevolent faction allowed to hate anyone? If they are allowed to hate a malevolent faction and declare war on them, can the malevolent faction now hate the benevolent? But wait, the benevolent should b

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="12" id="3568794"] I also disagree with 10. My experience that benevolence has as many benefits as anyone else. Civilization 2 was imbalanced in this area [/quote] My problem is how ideology works, not whether or not they're balanced. It's not about having benefits, its about it makes no sense how it's implemented. Benevolent races should be liked by other people while malevolent should be hated, yet in this game

[quote who="Syrris" reply="5" id="3568788"] Quoting , quoting post Make pirates and opposing factions scalable to your level There's no point in even having levels if everything else just scales to them. [/quote] Right now pirates don't level up at all. "Scalable" do

These problems are ones I generally agree with. Hopefully they start working on this in the future.

This is one of my biggest problems with ideology right now. Each ideology isn't so much an ideology as a choice of allies and bonuses, which kills immersion. Evil races are pragmatic by design because they don't hate everyone whereas good races are hated by pragmatic ones...? Choosing malevolent events should generally give you better bonuses but cause problems either for your civilization (reduced influence, population growth, population cap, approval, etc) or rel

It would also be nice if you could see movement paths for things before they moved, so your ships didn't wander off the wrong way on a long-distance movement (they have a habit of randomly pissing off neighbors by flying through their territory for no reason...).

I would also like ultimatums, although make sure the AI can tell the difference between demands and ultimatums ("or we'll declare war" basically, so that races like the Drengin don't end up at war with everyone they meet). [quote who="Seilore" reply="1" id="3567863"] The reverse of the above: once war has started (gimme planet X and I'll call off my fleets) This is already in the game in the diplomacy scr

The biggest reason for calling it a "slightly polished-up remake" (although that would be an exaggeration) is simply that there aren't many substantive changes from GalCiv2 that have taken effect yet, and the game is already released. A lot of the major changes (other than graphical, which are great) are a little iffy to me, and a lot of content from GalCiv2 that I like hasn't been included yet. Also I would like leveling for ships since I doubt most of the game will be

I also do have to point out that specialization techs are what tech trading should be based around. On the one hand, a race's unique grasp of a technology should be what they are willing to sell you rather than the advanced tech that they hold over your head (why sell unique new engines if you can sell engine efficiency techniques?); also, I usually like tech trading for the exact reason of getting past these little gaps. The second and really important thing: a lot of techn