erischild

[quote quoting="post"] + Added next and previous arrows to the shipyards window. [/quote] Thank you, Paul. Everything else looks wonderful, too. ;)

GC2 had terrorstars, which were clumsy versions of a deathstar. They weren't the clean-up tool you seem to be looking for, but a lot of people liked them. Brad and Paul have talked about bringing in terrorstars or other planet busting technologies, but there is no announced schedule or details. I suspect you will see a DLC of various ultra-weapons some day, but that is an admittedly uninformed guess.

I will add that I do watch the Battle Viewer a lot, but it still does the quick animation as well. Having that be a not-so-quick animation just makes it doubly irritating. It has been mentioned before, supposedly even by Brad. I don't know how to give it better priority.

Please ignore double post.

However, there was mention of talking to other people while Paul was out. I would love to talk with the designer/programmer for the ship designer now that I know a little tiny bit more on that subject. Others would love to talk AI of course. Is there any way to gather some of the regular attendees in an MP game and somehow broadcast that through Twitch during that time slot?

Yeah, in earlier streams, he tried to play and talk at the same time and ended up doing neither well. He really likes the game and gets caught up in it. :)

The late game management is making turns take a while for me. When I reach the situation you describe, I used to always wok it to the end, but I am considering the delay now. In my last game, I knew I had one faction to get an alliance with, but I didn't know how many turns it would take to re-contact them. So I quit. Otherwise I would have pressed on to the win and been more satisfied.

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="46" id="3592803"] And you would do well to read what I wrote. A Dev himself pretty much said that it wasn`t worth the bother of makiing an improved AI at the time. This while the existing AI was brought down to using bonuses to do anything. What happened in the past doesn`t matter when the present working Dev and the present game (at the time) indicates this. By the way I have Gal Civ 2 and was around WAY before you and was quite active 6 years before

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="44" id="3592773"] I am very thankful that Frogboy did not give up on the AI. Cheers for sticking it out and renewing my faith. Have more faith in the future of your ability to make a great AI, m8. [/quote] I understand your experience and opinions. I will add that it would be good for you, and many other posters, to have a little more faith in the future regarding Brad's and Stardock's abili

I have memories of being able to get to relic parts as part of my design efforts. More convincing than that, I have a note that one of my designs would need relic part 48. I try to unlock all styles, but I am not seeing any relic parts. Did something change? Am I doing something wrong?

Much as I understand the desire to tie growth to population, I have to argue against anything that allows growth to be a compounded variable, which is what most population growth equations seem to be. It will lead to population level abuse practices and exploits. All you have to do is play long enough of a game, and it will get extreme. I like how growth is so strictly restricted in the present model, even though my empires hate it. I do, however, agree with the poin

Buy it while it is on a Steam sale. I am still upset that I missed the Cities Skylines Steam sale and kick myself over and over. You don't want to do that.

Have we concluded the streams? If not, what is the schedule supposed to be?

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="3" id="3591070"] Who cares about story campaigns? Nobody plays them anyway. People just play sandbox. [/quote] This shows why you should not confuse hard core gamers with people. Hard core gamers arrogantly think they are the only ones playing games and their game style is the only one that counts. People know better and play however they want without hardcore_gamer's permiss

I have done similar tricks with the combination of settling a planet deeper in their territory than usual and then giving it a couple of influence bases. As they work together, they open a hole in the opponents borders and your bases are no longer annoying them. After you build up your planet influence, you can decommission the influence bases and replace them with economic ones. If I am good, the hole being opened joins up with the encroachment of starbases at their borders

And now for something completely different... I resurrected one of my simple animated designs from back in the Beta. Here is a screenshot of the "Slicer", available on the workshop. The "blade" sweeps around and around constantly. It is all very simple, but it does have a certain menacing effect, especially in synchronized fleets! <img src="http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/29592085085580777/BD2D0F60828A8957FDE8FB455345D70F06

To me, "Terrans" is what other races call "humans", but we humans never use the term for ourselves.

I do see evidence of AI improvements in 1.31 and they are very encouraging. Thanks again and again. And tell Allan thank you, too. I am sure he deserves some of the credit, if not most of it. ;) The tease on 1.4 is also extremely encouraging. Most important, it sounds like you are having fun again. As far as I am concerned, that makes all the difference. Knowing you (and the whole team) are enjoying creating this wonderful toy will allow me to

Elephant or no elephant, I disagree with your premise. I don't get to late Industrial techs until I have set up a lot of the other portions of my economy and enough military tech to have ships worth manufacturing. There seems to be a lot of different ways to play and any claim that "you can't win unless" seems to be difficult to objectively support. It usually turns into people meaning different definitions of the word "win" as in "win in minimum turns" or something

[quote who="Yeller123" reply="7" id="3589290"] It's your mod, and I agree its abstract but I always imagined the defence heavy ships acted sort of like aegis cruisers, a specialist at shooting down incoming missiles so that other ships could focus on their speciality. [/quote] Just a coincidence, but a long time ago, as a young sailor handy with those new things called computers, I worked on the proof-of-concept Aegis cruiser, which wasn't even a cruis

I collected a lot of factions from the work shop. If I want randomized opponents I set up the game with say, 6, random opponents. It cues those up. I then go and set two of them to one level higher than I am playing. I set two of them to one level lower than I am playing. When I start up the game I don't know which factions I will be playing and I don't know which faction is which intelligence setting. That is the best random intelligence and random

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="18" id="3588644"] i have a problem with the snathi being squirrels. In GCII they were obviously teddy bears [/quote] This is what happens when myopic little children have cruel aunts and uncles buying them stuffed animals as presents. "It's a teddy bear, little androshalforc! Honest, it is!" :) I love the Snathi. My cats, however, are convinced that all squirrels were

[quote who="naselus" reply="8" id="3588330"] Big ships already have a slowdown on them for tactical combat. And tbh, it's not uncommon to hear about ships that can move 50+ tiles a turn, so I'd suggest warp drives really do need it. [/quote] What is the slowdown for tactical combat? I haven't seen that discussed. I see your point on warp drives. I have some pretty fast transport ships I create and I can envision other p

[quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="2" id="3588290"] some ftl theories suggest that it would actually be easier yo cheat physics with their particular loophole around C with more mass than less. [/quote] As a point, we are not necessarily talking about warp drive here. I am all for the warp drives being as they are. However, I do think this principle should be applied to the thrusters used in tactical battle. It should be a way to help the battle viewer look a

[quote who="barrybeal" reply="35" id="3587958"] People love to vent - sometimes you just have to listen and let it go. [/quote] Not true. You have just as much right to object as they do to vent. It goes both ways. Collectively, we hold Brad and team to unreasonable standards, just as we do to all other companies in our demanding entitled-customer way. In these forums, we seem to forget how often Brad and team quietly