Librarian

Adding more "character" to the Expansion Pack in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

GalCiv is an awesome game with great depth. Reading other boards, some of the people who seem to be leaving it are doing so because although it is addictive and challenging, it is somehow not "fun." Often it is described in terms of "special events only adding percentages" and feeling sterile/chess-like. This applies less to the hardcore players, but will affect the size of the GalCiv community in six months or a year. Along with the great suggestions for the expansion pack already l

Reply to Senseless in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

I am fine with the PQ in GalCiv. The planets even have different sizes and colors. As someone who enjoyed ship design in MoO, I don't think GalCiv needs it. One cool feature in MoO was that not all techs were available every game. If you loved gauss cannons and rushed to them, sometimes they would be unavailable. Would people like it if some of the dead-end techs in GalCiv were randomly unavailable each game, esp. if more are being added for the expansion pack? The only o

Reply to My Suggestion in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Routing constructors and selecting modules (if you know in advance which ones you want) is pretty menial. GalCiv is great in most areas of letting you make decisions, but making it easy to implement them. CariElf, Since I gather starbases were a late addition, what was the endgame like before you added them? Was there even less to do? You could solve the starbase glut/micromanagement by limiting starbases to one per race per sector and having resources appear randomly through

Reply to My Suggestion in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Instead of governors, how about you set a priority for each starbase (economic, cultural, military, etc.)? Then, on the tech tree, add an "automated constructor" that automatically upgrades the base to the specified priority, if possible. Combining rally points, starbase priorities, and automated constructors might work. Maybe the base constructor should have automation, not sure.

Reply to Message Forum Feature Requests in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

A subsection for teams/clans so that those postings come off the main board.

Reply to Whats the point of production bonuses?? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

This is baffling lots of people. How about if under the percentage on each slider, the # of BC to be spent on that activity appeared? That way you could equalize by BC or by %?

Reply to Starbase Maint Idea Thread in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

I have never seen a starbase become the victim of a culture flip. Could the threat of that (easier than a system, bases mining resources harder to flip than unattached) combined with a max number of bases per sector work? If you wanted research techs, the tech could permit you to place an additional base in 1 sector, two sectors, etc. It could be a UP event as well. It could be tracked the way trade routes are.

Reply to Starbase Maint Idea Thread in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Some starbase proliferation is due to the "wasted resource" issue. If I want three planets creating frigates, I can either waste the resources on the six other planets or create constructors. Once the constructors are built, there is nothing to do with them but build starbases. How about finding another use for constructors, such as when you send them to another system, they expedite the social projects in that system. I am sure you can think of something better, but the combinatio

Reply to Starbase Maint Idea Thread in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

How about a tax/multiplier on multiple starbases in a single sector so that this would apply to larger and smaller games? If that is a bad idea, have the tax kick in based on the number of sectors in the universe so gigantic can have more starbases before the tax kicks in than tiny.

Reply to Mid-game 10% PQ improvements wanted in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Do you think this has to do with the AI not colonizing sub-15 planets? Reducing the number of mid and late-game PQ bonuses limits the utility of sub-14 planets that the human can snap up virtually at will.

Reply to Anyone Else Missing The Two +10 PQ Tech Tree Bonuses? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

If things stay as they are and these remain "overpriced speed bumps" and Metaverse data supports the assumption that in smaller galaxies, the game is almost always decided long before tech victory, then how about removing some of the final slog techs when the galaxy is tiny or small to make it more roughly contemporaneous with the other victories?

Reply to How much money does the computer players have? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Some folks set spending to 100% and go 100,0,0 until they have enough colony ships, figuring to cherrypick weapons research targets later, thereby avoiding leasing.

Reply to Complex trade add-on in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

To avoid micromanagement of triangular trade routes, could it be tied to a research project that would then use the AI to travel between two worlds you already have independent trading relations with, thereby generating more $$. I guess a basic question is whether you care about these routes to raise more money or to micromanage/use for new diplo moves, etc. If the former, let the AI do it (placing your freighters at more risk in times of war). If the latter, I am not sure how to make

Reply to how could anyone play on a map smaller than large? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Zorlond and others, I have not seen the AI colonize sub-15 planets on small or tiny (the sizes where they are most important). It an AI has +7% PQ + SE + HI, why not?

Reply to Suggestions 1.03 in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

AI colonizes sub-15 planets when they have the tech to make it a productive planet.

Reply to Tech victory too easy? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

In the "Tech Victory Poll" thread, LDiCesare suggested: "if you look at it, the tech victory is "beyond human", so you no longer care about the silly small planets and suns. I'd rather have an alien race that technologically reaches "beyond the Yor" to vanish and leave for another space time continuum or whatever and leave the pesky small humans and other carbon life forms to play by themselves. Then the score could be divided by 100 or 1000, but let me keep playing afterwards." For tho

Reply to Bug Report Thread in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Ability modifier screen - Speed "Parcecs" should be "Parsecs" for the two options.

Reply to Tech Victory Poll in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

The issue is whether tech victory is disabled at the start or only when you make a push for it at the end. Imagine a penultimate tech with two final techs coming off it - Final Frontier and Final Closure. You start Final Frontier and if an opponent can get to Final Closure before you get to Final Frontier, then you cannot have your tech victory (not that the game is over, just that you have to win via culture, military, or alliance). That is very different from turning off the tech

Reply to Tech victory too easy? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Stevious, turn off culture victory at the start. That way you can use culture to convert AI planets to the Terran Alliance and have them support your research without worrying about a culture victory. On smaller universes, culture victory comes long before tech victory, so by turning off culture victory, you can dominate in culture and then shift all resources to research. Get ready to click the turn button a ton while maintaining peace with everyone (and exterminating those who won't

Reply to Tech Victory Poll in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

If you give up on the happy "everyone can ascend" model, which I am not sure I am ready to do, you turn the universe into a giant Colosseum with no exits and only one winner. Alliances make sense, but don't seem very popular with the AI or many humans on this board. If we go the single ascent route, I like the idea of fighting fire with fire. How about a final killer tech that closes the Final Frontier forever, locking everyone into a future to be determined by cultural or military vi

Reply to Tech Victory Poll in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

My point about distance to victory was that, unlike cultural or military victories, tech can sneak up on you. Clegg's idea would be fine (no notice unless sufficient espionage), but if there is sufficient espionage, your intelligence network should give you increasingly urgent messages, rather than forcing you to seek a single number buried three screens deep.

Reply to Tech Victory Poll in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

I sure hope that *if* the powers that be go with permitting AI a game-ending tech victory, that there will be a countdown just as you suggest. In fact, it would be cool if it started 6 techs away, but projected a final loss date: "At the current research rate, the Torians will achieve Beyond Torian in 54 months." Just think HAL's voice. If that does not send shivers down your spine, you are not human. I would actually like to be able to choose between my hybrid and your total

Tech Victory Poll in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Could you add a third option to the tech victory poll? "Sort of, game does not end when AI reaches Beyond AI, but you are informed of the milestone and Metaverse score is substantially lower if AI reaches it before you win"

Reply to Tech victory too easy? in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

I took their using "Final Frontier" as a Roddenberry tribute, not to mention all the other ST references in the game. The addition of a non-competitive victory condition seems like a very conscious choice, rather than just having tech facilitate conquest, permitting human tech victory even when AIs reach transcendence first is a philosophical game design choice.

Reply to Some fun with ROI calculations in Strategies Stardock Forums

Sorry to be dense. Does this account for ongoing maintenance costs?