hellknight55

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I have some serious concerns about 2.5. It feels far more unbalanced and less fun than 2.33. The early game is very boring now, and we are substantially weaker than before. Population is a disaster - I hate the food and city mechanics. Constructors went from useful to useless for anything other than influence and maybe relics. The ships and combat are much less balanced now with maintenance costs increase and the money crunch. It seems

Well, that was my other point, that I chose not to speak in my long post. Google is a private company that can do whatever they want, within the loose confines of the law to which it applies to the rich and powerful. It is up to the people to decide for themselves if they will tolerate this dynamic - either because it benefits them, or they don't care to change it. Assuming people do care about ethical behavior, the options for recourse are fairly limited. There is the law, whic

There's a lot of assumptions here. Have you ever considered that he simply knows how to get his blog listed highly because he knows the ins and outs of Google's SEO? There is also other factors like: Do you actually click his site when you search? This could create a bias if you only do this when using google search. People love scandals - so when they search your name and see something unexpected, they click it. It's like how youtubers use clickbaity titles,

I just opt'd in and downloaded 2.5 from Steam. I can't find where the option to set your tech tree is for custom civs. This is very problematic, obviously, especially for synthetic civs. I have the base game with no DLC. Am I missing something obvious here? My custom civs lost their tech trees by the way - they all seem to have the generic tree now.

I noticed some of the skills that reduce manufacturing costs don't work. The hive and second manufacturing one comes to mind immediately (Construction Optimization -> Efficient Manufacturing). I saved the game, researched them, then checked after they were done and my manufacturing costs stayed the same for all buildings. I'm not sure if this is just a tooltip error, or if there is no actual benefit to these skills right now. I'm playing 2.33 with no expansions. <

Yes, please address the large empire penalty. I feel compelled to play with Patriotic on all my races due in part to the LEP, but also because approval is so important. I don't want them to nerf Patriotic necessarily, but LEP needs to be changed. It's not hard to get 20 colonies in any size map, which is -4 approval, which by itself would require a tech to overcome (+4 approval from content citizens). Of course some maps can get much higher than 20...which makes

One of the things I think happens with Econ being unbalanced is: Game Pacing. I am pretty sure that game pacing has no effect on maintenance / costs to rush. This means that there will be a huge devaluation of credits in maps with Fast / Very Fast research / pacing settings. The game will end or at least be 'determined' by turn ~75. However, if you were playing a very slow map, credits would mean much more. It may take twice as long to get

The relative strength you mention is simply your population x soldiering bonus (which gives you 3), and the opponent's population bonus x resistance (which gives you 4.55, rounding up to 4.6). The ratio is approximately 1:1.5 invader vs defender. This is why I mentioned "does this make sense?". So it clearly doesn't count air superiority (which I'm pretty sure is mentioned somewhere in the game itself as mattering). So if relative strength has any meaning, a

I bought the game per-release to play in the beta. I think they did a good job addressing many of the concerns of the beta testers. Like SerakX mentioned, Stardock is known for maintaining a good game long past its release. I expect Gal Civ III only to improve in the next year, and probably years to come. That being said, if you have serious gripes about some of the things you mentioned, I would ask for a refund.

I know that invading seems pretty easy (now and in the Beta). I'm not sure how much this has to do with the difference between soldiering vs non soldiering bonuses / Race bonuses & penalties. It could be a big difference... The other consideration is the concept of Air Superiority. As you may know, there is a huge advantage built in to the invading force due to the fact that they MUST have air superiority, since they can only invade after the defending fleet (if any) has been

I am experiencing a crash when trying to invade a Yor planet. This planet is showing 0 population for some reason. I believe that might be why I cannot invade. I am able to invade two other Yor planets on the same turn with the free transports gained through the malevolent ideology perk, but not this 0 population planet. I will submit a ticket with the save and logs from the support tool so you guys can see for yourselves.&nbs

I agree that abusing the A.I is quite easy right now. I can't imagine playing a game without "Disable Tech Trading" on. However, tech isn't the only issue. There are many potential exploits that don't require tech. For example, the war declaration / peace treaty trades. Since I have been playing Malevolent, I realized that races would generally declare war on me early on (around turn 30-40 with Godlike opponent difficulty setting). So I would simply ke

I've experienced this issue too. I have had a game with just the Iridium (the Trading Race) left on the map. I couldn't invade them for like the entire game. I ended up winning only because of influence and turning them that way (I had killed all the other opponents about 30 turns earlier). Another game I was in, I couldn't invade two separate races. One of them was very powerful and in a good position, but with practically no defenses. The best play would h