Taslios

I wonder if shrowded flipped somehow and is now doing 25% extra growth? What civ owns the planet?

Dear lord.... there goes my productivity this weekend...

Specific Anti-fighter weapons should already exist... perhaps as a module that can be added on to ships to change all weapons to be anti-fighter... or as stand alone weapons to add. I think if they simply did this AND then allow ships to target more than one ship at a time it would fix everything with the carriers. Right now fighters soak too much because a ship with 16 weapons can only shoot one ship at a time. so if you h

I love the idea of being able to use fighters to bomb the planet and possibly take out planetary defense.. Honestly... I think the best way to balance carriers is to make the drones and fighters something that the player designs. The Fighters on the Carriers should have a set cost based on the design from the ship designer. Speed of replacement should be based on distance from the zone of influence with 100% speed in

[quote who="insomniatrist" reply="4" id="3594428"] Quoting , quoting post I've noticed that when I rename a fleet from say Yor fleet 2005122 to Virus Fleet and then save the game.... the next time I load the game my fleet is back to being Yor Fleet 2005122 &nbsp

[quote who="Achronous" reply="2" id="3593852"] I agree, there should be a delay in some of those. On the other hand, mega events are supposed to change the way your game is playing. If dreadlords happen early then it forces everybody to research militarism much earlier, potentially making the whole game more violent. You also get to conquer a good world early on if you manage to defeat them! [/quote] I like the randomness...

One of the most interesting games I had I got the Pirates, Space monsters, Dred Lords, AND peace keepers... it was interesting watching the AI kill itself while I sat over in my corner building a fleet.....

The specializations are a triggerpoint issue... I like them in the game.... yet I really dislike how they are implemented. I think the specialization should open up new branches of the tree to give you unique techs. These unique techs should not be eligible to be traded. That the specializations simply give bonuses is weak sauce. I also REALLY hate that they have specializations for the planet types... rendering a

I've noticed that when I rename a fleet from say Yor fleet 2005122 to Virus Fleet and then save the game.... the next time I load the game my fleet is back to being Yor Fleet 2005122 As i name fleets based on their roles (defender, Home guard, Fast strike, deep strike etc ) this is really annoying.

I have a better suggestion.... Rather than go the route of just a base increase in speed.... early game speed and life support should make things a struggle.. add engine research technologies... Hyperdrive>Ion Drive>Impulse Drive>Warp Drive>Slip Stream Drive> Hyper Warp Drive> Stellar Folder etc.. it they adjusted the cost down slightly this would give us more control o

Hello Gehennas... good to see you out of the molten core... I think if you read through the forums... almost all of your issues have been touched on my the Devs.... UI and AI improvments due out in 1.4 and 1.5 should help a lot with some of your comments. also... the first few games are major learning curve games. I'd suggest playing through the campaign or some smaller maps, as the changes between GCII and

Honestly, I disagree... On the larger maps spending the money to research ship speed is essential. and having things be massively far apart makes the player plan more. If the ships could easily move across the map in one turn that would really mess with defensive lines and what not...

your formula totally removes morale from the main thing it should impact.... while sex is a distraction from stress and low "contentment" it is also at least in real earth science proven that unhappy people have lower fertility... lower sperm counts and higher chances of miscarriage.... Personally I think there should be higher bonus pop growth tied to "happy" and really severe pop loss to low morale (suicides etc) Again

in GCII it made sense to focus on one weapon tree and max out that weapon tree. In GCIII because of the tech ages and costs... as well as the way shipyards and starbases work, it is often advantageous to have all three types of weapons... I think the game designers need to work on the focus's so that one TYPE of weapon is stronger, but then also change how those weapons are used... as noted... Missles.. big bad long range ship kille

hmmm that's an interesting thought. Either way, thrusters need some documentation so we know if they are worth the space on a ship. from what I've seen, they are not.

Tried that... but with the loony combat system... unless I made the exact same fleet and made them fight each other... I'd not really be able to see WHY the ships are attacking ship A not Ship B I do know that it does increase miss chance... but how much? if each level of thruster increased the miss chance by x% then I could honestly see a reason for them... depending on how great the chance is... <

So... I've built several different ships with multiple different roles just to test things out and see if I could see results first hand. As far as I can tell... thrusters really don't matter... at all. I know they are supposed to affect miss chance and how quickly ships can move into range... But in practice, it does not seem to do much. Does anyone actively use Thrusters?

They just need an algorithm that targets ships based on ease of kill vs threat to me. whichever is bigger is the ship that is attacked. The class roles are good. Add a carrier role and limit support only to ships with no weapons and the roles work as they tell the ship how to behave in combat... rush in or stay back etc... But as far as targeting goes the game should look at kill/be killed by ratios. if I have a ship with 50 b

Rather than remove it, they should have just re-added the color shading... First level teraformalble spots are shaded light blue 2nd level = teal 3rd level = green 4th level = yellow 5th level orange max level = red the Altarians should have been given a few things like the biosphere manipulator that would terriform any three or four adjacent tiles... any tiles.. this would prob

WOOT

[quote who="naselus" reply="13" id="3589402"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 12 But I do not like the command economy style we have now where our citizens are treated like robots working at the command of the supreme dictator. Simple solution to that. Rename 'Production' to 'Tax Inco

And THIS! THIS!!! is why I love Stardock.. Thank you for directly replying in this thread Brad. It means a lot. I've not had a lot of chance to play as much as I'd like to have in the past few months... and I am not following the forums as closely as I did during Beta... so I am sorry if my rant was a bit harsh... I just... find myself flustered by seeing what co

GCII was balanced by economy/money production... Large planets with massive factories were possible, but they were crazy expensive to build. I think the adjacency bonuses were not factored in very well when they decided what each level of improvement would cost to build/maintain. System wide I think maintenance and upkeep costs should be higher... Moral needs to be made much more important... so that

oh... and before anyone accuses me of not really playing the game or not understanding the universe... I joined this forum in 2002... I've played every version of GC including the Os2 version.. GCIII has a lot of promise... but right now it just does not live up to the promise at all.

Honestly the pure min maxing that the game currently favors is flustering... and it removes any engagement with the game... I'm not a space Emperor leading a civilization... I am a guy playing a computer game... Why? cause Knowing how the game works I make counter-intuitive choices to maximize the efficiency of the game... there is nothing about the game that actually feels like your choices are affecting an empire or a nation...