trims2u

The problem with your metrics are that you assume Victory = Rule. There's plenty of ways that this isn't true, with Culture being the standout: why do you need to conquer anyone if you just assimilate them to your way of thinking (for approximations of "your way"). Who cares if they follow your particular form of political system? Here in the Real World, we're about 80% of the way to a cultural victory for Western Modernism. That doesn't mea

Frankly, I think that Influence Victories should be much less about you owning personal influence over x% of the galaxy, because, as CaptainYar points out, influence victories are really just military victories. Instead, I think we should have a whole section which counts each civilizations' influence over everyone else's. This isn't the same thing as political agreement - it's entirely possible to have a civ whose political leanings to you are qui

I think the best way to describe the new ship combat is rather simple: Admiral of the Fleet. You decide which ships to bring to the battle, then will have the ability to issue general orders to the fleet (full attack, cautious probe, full retreat), possibly during the actual combat. But you're not issuing specific orders to control individual ships. The captains of your ships are all AIs which follow your General Orders as best they can.

Lots of Wagner, I hope. Aka "Music to Conquer By." Ominous Latin Chanting might work, too.

Frankly, 10 years ago, multi-monitor support was a *much* better idea than it is today. The economics of cheap, very large flatscreen monitors vs CRTs has changed the dynamics, such that virtually everyone goes for the largest single monitor they can afford (which is now hovering around 24" for the typical gameplayer). That is, the gaming population tends to upgrade their main monitor size, rather than add a second monitor to their existing setup. Back around 200

[quote who="joeball123" reply="26" id="3483590"] Quoting charon2112, reply 25 It always bothered me that the Korx were evil. A trading race should really be neutral, willing to trade with both sides as long as they make money. I rather suspect that the Korx were generally willing to trade with

Frankly, shipbuilding, planet building/colonization, economics, combat, and tech trees are the areas that I think need the least work and change, since they did a pretty good job in GC2, and while there's the possibility that something innovative could be a huge win, there's also a big risk that it instead turns out be a turkey. The sole exception there would be invasions, which I think have a significant place for some low-risk innovation. Nonetheless, the new "economy wheel" i

As to colonizing moons: given that everything presented is an ABSTRACT measure, and not a 1:1 correlation, it's long been said by lore that some of the value of a colonizable planet is the value that come from the moon. That is, a Value 10 planet with a large moon actually probably is a Value 8 planet, but 2 additional ratings come from the utility provided by the Moon. the same can be said for why we only see 2-5 planets in a solar system ever. Some of the

Just one note here: I was playing GC2 last night, and notices that GC2 has zig-zag movement for small movements (i.e under about 10 squares). The ships do the same wiggle thing, particularly if there are any obstacles (planets/anomolies, etc.) in the way. It got ugly really fast, which indicates that pathfinding in GC2 was hardly a paragon of cleanliness/prettiness. So let's disabuse ourselves of the idea that movement in GC2 was just all nice and smooth lo

But, but, but... I want my GREEN -skinned space babes!

Honestly, even ignoring the "lore" of the campaign, 8 races to start, each with a custom tech tree and graphics, is quite a bit. And, thinking with my business cap on here, adding a race is the kind of thing that fits very nicely within the DLC concept. It would be a good revenue stream for StarDock to be able to put out a new race for a couple of bucks (under $5). Even if I wouldn't be getting them for free via the Founder's bonus, I'd be happy to shell out $3 for a

FYI - a very good description of how different sized opponents fair in a battle (taking into account relative firepower, too) is something called Lanchester's Laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws Related, and relevant to a turn-based game like GC, is the Salvo model of combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model <

I like the patrol idea. Originally, I think there was going to be a patrol option, where the ship would move from it's current hex to the destination hex, and back. But I like your idea of "Patrol" better, because it really does fit. Since click-drag isn't well done for a game like this, maybe, instead, a "Patrol Area" is defined as a (say) 5-hex radius area, and the ship moves to that area and then begins to randomly move around it. It stops when it sights a

I'm against Tactical Combat, for one simple reason: it's the slippery slope to making GC a RTS with 4x stuff bolted on as an afterthought. If we decide that turn based tactical combat is essential to our GC experience, then the next step becomes a TBTC system where you control your ships' abilities, not merely move them around. Turret placement becomes important. Fields of fire make an appearance. Etc. Naturally, once this comes in, there'll b

[quote who="joeball123" reply="18" id="3482826"] Quoting trims2u, reply 12 I could care less about that, but, if in fact each ship does only represent one ship, then either we're getting MASSIVELY ripped off in the cost of small/tiny ships, or an INCREDIBLE discount for Huge/Massive ones.

Nope. Can't happen. The North Carolina state legislature passed a law, saying that the oceans weren't rising. And, well, if it's the law, then... [e digicons]X|[/e] (yeah, I know the NC law isn't quite that, but it's close, and fun to poke at them for being such obvious dolts)

Here's the problem: You'll notice that the "smooth line" movement in GC2 is actually almost always a hockey-stick path - one long side followed by a 45 degree turn and a shorter side. Which, actually, while numerically identical to the actual straight line path in terms of squares crossed, can very significantly deviate from the "true" straight line path. Now, with hexes, it's much easier to approach the true straight line path, but the cost

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="10" id="3482769"] NO NO NO N NO NO NO NO NO NO. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT MULTIPLE SHIPS NOR DID IT EVER. IIRC even frogboy said it was not true. What you see is what you get. everything runs fine in the military because everyone has a job to do everything is governed by a department. Its nothing that needs research in real life its comes naturally, and we don't have little supply ships to simulate this beyond ship range. its especially

As pointed out above, logistics really reflects the ability of your empire to coordinate a number of ships to be effective as a military unit. Besides the factor of supply and such (which is huge, and dominates the modern military above everything else), the other reality is that communications, which are necessary to fight effective, is an Order N^N problem. Coming up with a technical and organizational structure which can handle directing hundreds or thousands of individual

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="20" id="3481152"] Quoting androshalforc, reply 19 Did it? I think starbases were single shot but i never really payed attention to the individual ships Yes, starbases were single-shot, but ships had as many shots as they had weapons. As long as they didn't require all sho

Under ship modules: Fire Control improvement - up the number of shots a ship can take each round. Instead of dividing all the ship's firepower into 1 or 2 shots, able to target only a single opponent each round, each FC modules would add one new target possible, and further divide the firepower. Thus, you have a 100-damage ship that would be taking 2 50-damage shots per round at a single target, good primarily for anti-capital ship use, or one

Questions in reverse order: "tidally locked" means with respect to their moon. Not their star. Only planets very close to a star (well inside the band of the "Goldilocks" zone) can be face-locked to their star. So, in this respect, they're talking about planets which have a moon like ours. Twin moons should indeed mean more than one moon, though there is no requirement for them to look even remotely similar. That said, I suspect that it's mo

[quote who="charon2112" reply="6" id="3480022"] Minefields don't make much sense in GC. Remember, each hex is a parsec, that's 3.26 light years in length. Deploying mines over that large an area isn't feasible. The only way I can think of to make it work, would be to make a 'minefield deployment system' something you can build on a planet or a starbase, so that attacking fleets would have to deal with the mines. [/quote] I see no more

I think DARCA is after the ability to just pay $X, and get any (currently research-able) tech next turn. Not trade for it from another Civ. Personally, I don't want that. In reality, you can't just throw money up in the air and get a technology back down. More importantly, I think it breaks a game balance issue. Right now, you have to research tech - if you can just buy the tech from thin air, then there's very little incentive to ever build any

Now that you mention it, toning down the edit/new post box would be a good thing. Probably reduce the brightness by about 30% would be a good idea. The rest of the forum stuff, I'm fine with.