Well, pardon me, but you sound like a self-entitled prick. I see two stardock team members trying to help you and all you can do is toss profanities at them. If playing the game on really high settings means so much to you, save some money and upgrade your system. Or consider yourself lucky you live somewhere where you can play games on a computer, instead of homeless under a bridge somewhere. Grow up!
I found in GalCiv2 I rarely built starbases, but the new resources make it essential now to build them everywhere there's one of the many resources. It seems like I now have twice the number of starbases as planets. And mid-game I'm cranking out constructors one per turn and sending them to every corner of the map. It can get tedious. As a solution, it would be nice to be able to upgrade starbases without constructors. Perhaps starbase upgrades could be b
GalCiv2 AI was very good. I've always been impressed with the AI. I know sometimes it makes bad decisions, but that's the problem with trying to design a good AI. It has so many factors to consider when making decisions, it's likely to get a few wrong, even if it gets most right. GalCiv2's AI was way ahead of its time compared to any other strategy games I played at the same time. I'm confident that GalCiv3 will get there eventually. It&
Maybe this has been mentioned already, but the list of colonies unsort themselves when you double click to go to one. Govern -> Colonies, then sort, and double click to go to a specific colony. When you come back, your colonies are unsorted again. Not real great for when I'm trying to sort my colonies by manufacturing, research or wealth, and then go down the list and manage all of one type.
I'd like to give some feedback on the AI actually. Good and bad. And I want to start by saying that the AI is spectacular considering how many rules it has to play by and how many factors it has to take into account. But, I think the economic performance isn't quite up to GalCiv2 yet. When playing GalCiv2, I remember playing on the hardest settings and having the AI economies outpace me. Thus I was left up to my strategy to win the game, because I was out
Maybe this has already been mentioned, but the ideology system I think was designed to affect the game differently based on the galaxy you're playing. Since ideology points are earned only one of two ways - colonizing new planets or from buildings - then you almost always have a way to earn them. In a game where you can colonize 40-50 planets for your empire, you may not find it necessary to build any ideology point buildings. But what about a game w
What would prevent SD from giving the player control of exactly how many stars and habitable planets there are on a map, randomly distributed, through a setting in game setup? I've never really liked the probability settings anyway because there's no explanation of exactly what "abundant" means. Sometimes I start and restart games to get the frequency and distance settings I want. So is there a code-related reason we can't say "I want an insane-sized world with 3
Nevermind, just figured out I'm stupid. I had shut down the shipyard a little while ago, so that's why no military manufacturing was being allocated. And the general economy slider is only allocating the amounts that aren't specifically allocated by planet. That's how you can have the slider on military down to zero % and still have a number being allocated to military. No problem, I just need a better understanding of game mechanics.
I just noticed a few things going on with the economy sliders. I'm playing gigantic galaxy, all races plus my custom race. First, when I allocate the manufacturing production, the total being allocated to the social and military doesn't add up to the total manufacturing. I suspect this is just a rounding error. But second, the percentages aren't even close to right. As an example, I was allocating 255 total manufacturing, and when I set social to 100%