Here's the StarDock return policy, if you bought it through them: https://store.stardock.com/policy.aspx#Policy_ReturnPolicy If you bought it through Steam, you're pretty much out of luck: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-wejc-2625#refund You might be able to resell the g
The forum font is fine; some people don't like light on dark, and some people don't like dark on light. You'll never be able to please everyone. I compared the font size for this forum, and it's the same as for most of my other web pages, so I don't think it's too small. If you think it is, then tell your browser to increase the default font size, because that's what this one appears to use. As to the game itself, I think I've mad
Ummm. There's no difference in a cylindrical projection (which is what a map is of a globe) between using hexes and rectangles. I can create a cylindrical projection onto a grid of hexes just a simply (and accurately) as with squares. And we're not necessarily talking about the distances a tile actually represents. We're talking about VISUAL distances - visually, it is further going from one corner of a square grid to the opposite corner than it is to an adja
In the following shots, I've used RED to indicate things that should be taken out of Small Caps and put into a San Serif standard Upper/Lower font. I've used Bright Blue to indicate things which should be changed to use a Serif fonts. I've used Bright G
OK, disclaimer here: I'm running this on a 27" screen at 2560x1440 The color scheme of the forums isn't a problem for me, because I generally prefer light text on a black background for monitors (the opposite of books). So, white on black/dark grey is just fine for me. The font size might be a tad small (it looks like 10pt or so), but that's a personal preference. There's very little extraneous colors in the forums - I count 4 maj
One question here: what are the advantages of squares over hexes? Both suffer from the "wiggle" problem when moving distances. Both have the same solution to that problem, which is simply a smooth pathing issue inside the game engine. Both tessellate just fine. As has been pointed out, when forming large enough polygon shape made from them, both squares and hexes can be "good enough". Hexes provide better distance approximation for fixed-increment movemen
In the United States, NEVER use Paypal if your vender will accept a credit card. Legal protections for a Credit Card are light years ahead of Paypal, which doesn't even conform to the US Banking laws.
The two biggest issues with squares vs hexes for a flat map are: Squares significantly distort distances; worst case is using 1 movement point for 1.4 of distance, and average case is moving a distance of 1.2 per 1 mp. With hexes, the worst case is that you spend 1.15 less than actually traveled, and average case is 1.05. Hexes are significantly closer to reality in terms of distance to MP required. Hexes tessellate better into all other regular pol
Yeah, looks like they were removed. I don't see them anywhere, but I'll have to play more - I've only colonized about a half-dozen worlds at this point in the new release.
The problem with modelling a space empire's economy based on current understanding of economics is simple: it'll be wildly wrong. Economic models change rapid, and seldom last for more than several decades. The system we're using now bares little resemblence to the one in the 1970s, the international trade and finance market has changed radically at least 3 times since I was born in 1970, and economic systems vary widely in implementation detai
[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="22" id="3473257"] There is a few problems with your solution: -limiting the number of ships per turn punishes you for using a lot of small ships compared to a few big ships. -having gates only work manually, with confirmation, and only 1 ships at a time is a lot of micromanagement that gets old fast. Especially if you have to do it 20 turns in a row to get to the other side of the map. I personally think
I'm OK with allowing everyone to see where everyone else's hypergate network is, but I think the mini-map, or as a toggle-able overlay (like Androshalforc said) is required. My image of them is similar to EleventhStars: Each gate is part of a pair Hypergate tech comes along somewhere AFTER you would get Warp-engines You create them with constructors, and they're a separate installation, not tied to any current starbase type
[quote who="perigrine23" reply="16" id="3473128"] From a game-play perspective, I don't like stargates or jumpdrives because they remove the need for a balanced military presence and increase the incentive for maintaining just a few super-powerful fleets. [/quote] With respect to this aspect, it is true to a certain extent. But, given the potential for maps spanning several thousand hexes, and containing hundreds of worlds, I don't see this as a problem.
Ryat is correct, but I do think fixing this (as well as the icons) is the FIRST priority when prepping for the actual beta release. That is, we're still well into alpha mode, figuring out features and stuff, but as soon as that's done and there's serious efforts to stabilize for the beta, this is going to have to get fixed ASAP. Because, I can *guaranty* that it'll be at the top of the bitch list for the Beta people, since it does actually interfere with gamepl
I envision hypergates subject to the same limitations as Starbases - depending on your logistics score, and no more than a small fixed number per sector. Also, I don't know if I made this clear or not, but I expect that hypergates have to come in pairs or endpoints, and for each hypergate, there is ONLY one place to travel. Both limitations, I think, will keep down on littering the galaxy with hypergates. I suggest the distance/transit limits as an
Hypergates supplement, but do not replace, hyperdrive, in the same way railroads supplement, but do not replace, wheeled vehicles. Hyperdrives allow you to go ANYWHERE. Hypergates allow your to go ONE specific place, faster. Having hypergates around would add a whole new strategic dimension to the game, because people would now be concerned with fighting over critical crossroads places, not to mention the fact that bringing along your own hypergate constructor cha
I want my hypergates. Simple, point-to-point transit. Relatively easy to add in, code-wise, too. You could even limit them by number of ships per turn that could use them, to avoid things like being able to teleport vast fleets in short periods of time. The fluff even says we had hypergates before the hyperdrive was invented. So can we have them back again, please?
According to the Release Notes for the current Catalyst drivers: http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-4WINReleaseNotes.aspx The 6800 is still supported.
My issues with Mecha are that even in fantasy Sci Fi, they're only for ground combat. Unless we want to go full-on StarWars where physics means absolutely nothing and we can do completely ridiculous things that are only possible in someone's imagination. Giant Robot combat in space falls into this category of pure fantasy. As to mecha for ground combat, until we allow custom unit builds for ground combat (like we do for spaceships), anything more than them being fl
I'm *meh* on either PS4 or XB1 development. StarDock has the numbers, so I'm perfectly fine with them making the decision. I obviously only really care about maintaining a PC platform. :-) And, in that vein, PLEASE, NO WINDOWS 8-SPECIFIC STUFF. Win7 is almost certainly going to be the baseline standard for a decade, and Win9 will almost certainly deprecate Win8 just as fast as Win7 did to Vista. When Win9 comes out in a c
Giant Mecha break the Square/Cube rule. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw They're never going to be practical. Ground pressure alone makes them completely infeasible, let alone power requirements. They're completely fictional, and fun within that realm of Science Fantasy. Ex: the 6m tall, 100ton mecha from BattleTech have a ground footprint of under 4 sq m at the
I love me some BattleTech. It's just a whole lot of fun to HULK SMASH!!!!! In a 100-ton walking death machine. :-) That said, Mecha only make sense in a ground combat/invasion scenario. So until we have GC3 include a Turn-Based Tactical Combat system, I can't see them being anything more than fluff. I'm actually much more in favor of a Gound/Invasion TBTC than I am the space-based version of it. Mecha in space as combat systems ma
This is exactly the kind of thing a DLC pack would be great for. And, yes, Larsenex, I would expect that a good portion of them are beneficial, not bad. In fact, even outside the Ethics-style portion, I'd like it if the player could chose to react from a couple of different option, and the outcome NOT revealed until after you make a choice. Pick the right option, and you'll end up with goodies, while pick the wrong one, and well... (So, when Bart Simpso
Doesn't have to be a plague. Just a Random Event. There were all kinds of Random Events in GC2, the only problem (from my standpoint) is that they were either (A) far too infrequent - I seldom got more than 3 or 4 in a 1000+ turn game, or (B) tied directly to the Ethics determination, and thus stopped when your researched Ethics. It's a big galaxy, and having a Random Event pop up every several hundred turns (at best) was kinda ludicrous. Having a variety o
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="2" id="3469972"] Based on my look through the game-files, there are going to be open/closed border-treaties. There are also going to be relation-penalties for having ships and starbases within the ZOC of a race you don't have open borders with, and another one for having large fleets near another race's worlds or starbases. Due to this, it's very likely that the other race will soon declare war on you for your transgression.[/quote] <