hardcore_gamer

I don't like sounding negative, but this honestly just sound pretty dull. So we get a new way to buy ships without having to build them and a couple of new races. Are these suppose to be a groundbreaking new features?

When they say February do they mean it will be released then or merely announced? I'm confused.

[quote who="exelsis" reply="7" id="3613965"] Works 100% of the time for me. but it's essentially a mutual DEFENSE pact. Anyone attacked is defended, anyone that declares a war is on their own. [/quote] It should be possible to also sign packs where nations agree to go to war alongside the aggressor. A pure defensive pact is only so useful.

[quote who="Jafo" reply="18" id="3611202"] I think Star Wars all went to poo about the time Yoda turned up.....[though I'd already pined for BETTER 'robots'....like Silent Running [or just about any other SF]. I do remember cringing ... way back then.... ...and that sword fight in Ep 1 [?] ....even more absurd than that Jar Jar Binks thing. [/quote] I liked the sword fights in the prequels more than the ones in the origin

[quote who="WOM" reply="16" id="3611186"] Lets not forget Babylon 5 and Deep Space 9. [/quote] What do they have to do with Star wars?

[quote who="exelsis" reply="3" id="3611193"] You can use tiny ships as buffers, because an unlimited amount of damage will be blocked by a single point of defense. A few assault fighters in front of your battleships might eat 1-3 rounds of fire for little cost while your own ships smash the opposing fleet. However, because carriers are a thing you don't ever need to build tiny ships - just equip a few carrier modules. So... not really. There is almost no situation where the largest s

[quote who="The Sisko" reply="1" id="3611161"] They are less so than before, mainly because they don't replace lost fighters immediately, it now takes 3 turns. Apart from that they still have the same big advantages as before since the fighters don't cost anything to build or upgrade and way combat is designed so ships can't multi-target. You can't control fighters or any other ships in combat. You can't redesign fighters in game. The

I remember many people complaining about carriers being very op in the past. What is the current state of carrier balance? And do you have any control over the actual fighters themselves? Can you customize them? I haven't build any carriers before.

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="1" id="3610959"] They changed that with the notifications button. [/quote] You mean that small button located in the corner of the interface that you barely notice and makes no sound? Yea, it's useless.

Don't read if you don't like spoilers. When I first saw the new star wars movie, I had slightly warm feelings towards it, and considered it an ok action movie. But the more time I spent thinking about the film the more negative my opinions on it became. I have now co

[quote who="Director" reply="17" id="3610946"] Rapidly research some military weapons techs and start putting hulls in the vacuum. That will deter the distant and protect you from the near-by. I find that my having Planetary Invasion gives them pause. Or gives me ownership of their planets... [/quote] Tech is calculated as being a part of the score? And how does the AI even know what techs you have? That sounds like cheating to me. Wasn't this game suppose to have non-ch

[quote who="Director" reply="4" id="3610945"] First, once you occupy a planet all of its citizens are yours to do with as you wish, whether they were your invading soldiers or citizens of the previous regime. There is some justification for this - history is full of armies sweeping up all the able bodies behind their lines and either impressing them into the army or adding them to forced-labor gangs. [/quote] Using them for economic purposes is one thing, but

Now that I have been playing a 1.5 game for the first time and have finished about 300 or so turns I have some thoughts on the current status of the game. My biggest problems are the fallowing: 1. The AI still doesn't really feel aggressive enough. It is thankfully better than the last time I played the game since it now seems able to actually put together strong fleets, but it still doesn't seem to bother actually invading other planets. As far as I can tell, even long wars b

[quote who="Director" reply="2" id="3610833"] Invading with two of these fully-loaded transports may be overkill, but it means I can certainly take the planet and have a transport survive. The next turn I can load up the transport and move on to the next planet. [/quote] Speaking of that, isn't it possible to turn populations of captured enemy planets as soldiers? I think I remember that being possible when I last played the game. It makes no sense whatsoever real

[quote who="naselus" reply="14" id="3610903"] "We love war!" means that the AI has chosen to go for a conquest victory. [/quote] This is one of the problems with the idea of victory conditions. It makes factions in 4x games behave unrealistically for the sake of winning the game. What happens if I turn all victory conditions off?

I am not sure if I buy the idea of the European Union existing as a united faction. I hate getting all political but things aren't exactly going well in Europe with anti-EU far-right parties growing left and right. In my opinion one out of two things will happen in the future regarding the EU: 1. They accept that individual EU nations don't want too much EU control and start easing on their control, allowing individual EU states more sovereignty for the sake of keeping the uni

So within a dozen or so turns I will have the planetary invasion tech and can start building ground troops, but I have a few questions: 1. Since ground troops cost pops, how many troops should be recruited from each world before it starts to harm the economy too much? 2. If pops are recruited into troops and send into space in a transport ship, will the planet regrow the lost pop even though the original pop hasn't been killed yet? 3. If 2 is true, then how wise is

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="5" id="3610800"] I seem to recall someone modding the time from one week to a month. That would be better but still too short. 3 months would be about right. I try to never think in terms of turns having a time factor. I just think of it as a turn. [/quote] The problem with 4x games is that because of the nature of the gameplay mechanics it's not possible to have realistic time frames. If planets grew at realistic s

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="2" id="3610777"] Each turn is worth one week in game time. [/quote] So my 20 colony empire with dozens of billions of people was created in only 6 in-game years?

The game has a date but I don't pay close attention to it. How much time is 1 turn suppose to be in real world time?

lol at the racial traits. Don't know if everyone is ok with a mod like this. Some would argue it's racist.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="21" id="3610609"] Quoting hardcore_gamer, reply 20 That's not what I meant. Putting starbases close to planets gives them a boost correct? So it's possible to boost the same planet with more than 1 starbase correct? Yes, the effects from all starbases stac

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="19" id="3610597"] I'm not proposing removing starbases from the map. I'm just saying that they should be able to occupy the hex of a planet. You can't put multiple starbases in one hex as is. [/quote] That's not what I meant. Putting starbases close to planets gives them a boost correct? So it's possible to boost the same planet with more than 1 starbase correct?

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="17" id="3610586"] Earth has two existing orbital stations. Sounds like a thing you could do. It would probably be a tough nut to crack though with two or more. So for game purposes, it's probably better to only allow one. [/quote] Does that mean I have been wasting stations when I gave some of my planets more than 1?