Can't wait for the beta 5! Unwavering- Colonies take twice as long to culture flip Really weak trait considering ideologies. Otherwise an epic change log for sure best of luck to ye.
[quote who="tesb" reply="52" id="3528555"] Anyways perhaps a polish point but I'd put it on the list as number 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999715 to adjust/add because it's that important. if you want to play the game casually on a medium map then you are right; however, if you want to play optimally on a larger map the system is a needlessly complicated micromanagement hell. [/quote]</
Yawn what a non issue. I knew this without any deliberation. With enough bonuses why wouldn't you know this ? Are you all so narrow minded? this is MISLEADING aljwlefjs;lfijafljawl;efjaiefjaf what do we do!!!!! everyone will LOSE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Anyways perhaps a polish point but I'd put it on the list as number 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999715 to adjust/add because it's that important.
There are the tools implemented to deal with overflow of production/research. There not perfect but viable none the less. If I have an overflow of production to shipyard I'll change the sponsors so they can focus on planetary production. Even if there is nothing to build it can boost culture, birth, money etc. Or more simply split the shipyards which seems slightly more beneficial considering the flexibility to have large production numbers to mult
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="51" id="3521821"] I can think of at least a dozen pieces from the constitution and Thomas Jefferson about limiting the rights of minorities or limiting chooses based in majority rule. Though no clear majority is present here, I still think the principal applies that choices should always remain.* (*sorry fro ranting-ish) DARCA '_; [/quote] No where in the original constitution were such laws stated or implemented. &
The way Id fix this would be Picking pramactic as secondary ideology tree would result in -1 per approval per point spent. Picking an opposite ideology would result in -2 approval per point spent. This is logical being that a growth in opposing ideologies increases discontent. Pragmactic is less of a negative approval hit being that devouts and zealots dont approve but some dont mind. This way you have the free
Posted in wrong thread
All of stardock is manevolent! Trying to keep us ninja nerfed I tell ye! I'll never forget this Paul. We are on to you >:O
Accidentally hit post before finishing lol. [quote]im not really sure how the shields and armor work in game i think currently they do restore after the battle or after a few turns but as it is i would assume that the three systems have different ways of restoring and would prefer to see it that way example of something i would like to see shields restore to full after a fight armor restores based on the ships hp, 10/50 hp the ship restores to 20% armo
[quote]so right now we have shield, armor, chaff these already block the three weapon types all this amounts to is a name change [/quote] It's not just a name change. In the battle viewer you would see a yellow shield display blocking a missile. Or a red shield blocking kinetic damage. or multiple colors if being attacked for some cool eye candy. The reason I stated this I know it's just a space game
I honestly abhor evil. However I have always strongly advocated for a strong military. I know that its just a game with no impact. Still its so against my character and who I am even the notion of pretending to be evil irritates me to no end. So da evilz tree is a no go no matter what goodies are in it. I just really hate the notion that only evil gets warlike abilities.
1. I'd change all defenses to shields coresponding to the damage it is suppose to block. Blue shield-beam, red shield-kinetic, and yellow shield-missile. All shield modules would regenerate 1hp per second per module. So 3 kinetic shields modules would equal 3 hp/sec. If you have multiple shields of a different resist type the shields would illuminate to the damage type thats attacking. Id add some support modules that boost regen, add
Good thread. I absolutely agree that defenses are to weak, thrusters need a buff, and weapon balance is wonky.
Pretty cool idea. +1
I always wanted wormholes to have a random life span. Could be 100 turns or 3.
The strikecraft in sins always annoyed me. I had to zoom in 1000% to see them. Its like trying to track a fly. I like to see them. I think the fighter size still isnt properly scaled but I like it. I have been mulling on this for a while. It seems a lot of people would like to adjust fighters. An interesting temporary fix could be 75%evasion for fighters but a 50% reduction in range and damage for perhaps more of a brawl instead of popping ev
Leave my constructor fairies alone! I want to continue to send them out like da zerg! [e digicons]:troll:[/e]
Agreed Turkish. They got to multitargeting but for medium hulls or higher. At the very least for the sake of the battle viewer.
Lol i send huge hulls with 5 constuctor modules or more on it and tell them to fly my pretties! [e digicons]*_*[/e] [e digicons]*_*[/e]
Interesting that you bring up ww2 since the average aircraft capacity was around 70 aircraft. There were larger carriers that could hold over 100 but logistically it was to much of a nightmare. Also to have that capacity made the carriers to slow and unmanueverable. My point is if ww2 carriers could field 70 craft then 20ish isnt that much to ask for. Id prefer my previous post as an overarching fix. I did come up with one simpler. For each fighter
[quote who="Taslios" reply="6" id="3518712"] I wish wormholes could be exploited more than simply being a "penalty box on the far side of the map" A. when going through you discover new ways of warping space. B. They can be made permanent so you have a faster way to go to the far side of the map. C. some other random event is possibly triggered by them Wormholes seem like they are only partially there... they
I agree. I also don't like that they go through a target I find that annoying as well. It would be kind of neat if only the beams that truly missed went through a target.
[quote who="Turkwise" reply="31" id="3518965"] I don't have a problem with carriers being good. But they should have a role in a fleet, rather than be the fleet. When a carrier has the potential to be 5x as good as a same-sized non-carrier ship, that's a problem. Carrier modules should probably be larger. A carrier should indeed be more logistically efficient than a fleet of tiny fighters, but not so much that it&#
[quote who="strayth" reply="27" id="3518912"] Quoting Tohron, reply 9 So from the sound of it, here are some things which could help balance carriers: * Carrier modules cost over 300 production each (since they come with 5 fully built fighters) * Replacing fighters is similar to upgrading - it costs money,
I usually shy away from adding negative adding effects but this trait is to powerful not to do so. The negative effect of this trait should be the loss of trade, tourism, and ability of culture to affect enemies culture. This is also very logical. To stop cultural Influences within a nation you would have to stop communication of most forms which would include tourism, trade, and your citizens from interacting with the opposing influence. Thus removing your