FenrisLokison

I personally don't really care about multiplayer and i really like the idea of playing the underdog. I know of course that many games enable you to compete against greater empires (like Distant Worlds) but they're not specifically designed to be played this way. And i'm extremely interested in this new feature "given the right attitude, you can rename yourself Bob, then rename the game to be Bob's Game, then ally with yourself to win the game". &

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most? in order of preference: 1: "declare war" is the one i like the most because it's the easiest way to expand once the initial rush for colonies has stopped. 2: "non aggression pact" is second, it means basically "i'm too weak to d

Hello I'm part of the 99% of the guys (and women, don't sexist me please x) ) here supporting frogboy, i mean, he's responsible for having me wasting several hundreds of hours on his games, thinking of destroying monsters, gaining experience and conquering worlds instead of working, gaining more money, having a family life and generally be a good man! ... ... ... maybe i should bring him to justice for making all of my life a mess!

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="21" id="3475848"]Next time be like a politician Wer900. Be vague and promise prosperity to players, and try to avoid going into detail and explaining yourself. That way there is nothing to say no to and it all sounds great the first time, especially with your new fan club screaming "yes, lets try it!" (JK*) DARCA. [/quote] Why the (JK*) ? I assure you, this is the way of doing politics, at leas

i bought it and played a few hours. It's between good and not bad. Seems to me AI cheats like hell, ICS seems to work, far too few factions, not sure about diplomacy but seems weak (well, not like it's different from other games) but it does work, it has some nice ideas and the "fresh meat" aura for us hungry gamers. I think I'll probably play it for 40-50 hours in the next months so it's not like it's a bad investment when it comes to price/gaming hou

I don't think Wer900 deserves sarcasm for his proposal. It may sounds too ambitious or too complicated, or you can just don't like it but you should at least respect the time and efforts it took to write this. It has at least the merit to try to get out of the everlasting model of production hammers and research vials that exists since civ 1.

To Wer900 let's see if i understood well: Initial situation - i start with my initial colony, lets say 10 hammers production. - i suppose these 10 hammers generate wealth, lets say 100 currency units for a currency unit value of 0,1. - i suppose this generation must be tied to population somewhere, since a product needs to be sold to generate wealth. - lets say that initially, the first colony is an eden working by itself and doesn't have any maintenance

Hello hmm, i failed to understand OP's point... OP started with the issue of having planets able to make money out of nothing: (population + minting buildings = lots of BC) x tax rate = BC available for player in order to pay for maintenance/rush buy/diplomacy Good, i can understand that it doesn't make sense. OP's solution is to explain where this money comes from (production/productivity) and add to this the creation of the curre

You wouldn't believe what i read in Torture Magazine today... You look great! I mean, it's not like you don't look great usually... well, you always look great! ... look, just don't hurt me okay? Enhanced Miniaturization is better than regular Miniaturization. It is better because it is enhanced. It is different from regular Miniaturization, that is, as we now know, not enhanced. Remember when we said we couldn't impro

nothing's perfect! :p

[quote who="Stalker0" reply="39" id="3470007"]My take: I don't want a scientific explanation of SciIF to deny me a good mechanic:) If mining dead planets makes the game better, then someone can come up with a SCIFI reason that mining it is as good or better than mining asteroids. [/quote] yes exactly, by "making sense", i was just thinking common sense... i have asteroids and planets on map but i only care about asteroids => doesn't make se

ZoC should work as 1). Within the scope of the game, i think a ZoC is defined as the space in which you can deploy starbases and military ships without asking anyone => therefore borders as in political borders. In the ZoC of another empire, you should not be able to move in military ships, deploy starbases or even claim strategic resources or colonize worlds. In fact, even unarmed ships like colony ships and scouts should not be able to cross an empire's borders withou

One other use of dead planets should be to replace strategic resources. I mean, what are these strange cube or triangular glowing things floating in space described as some kind of gelatinious fluid? Where are the ghostbusters when we need them? Wouldn't it make more sense to have these strange materials available on a planet? Same thing about mining, why only asteroids fields? i mean it's nice, but wouldn't it make more sense to install structures on a roc

i think i had it before. if i'm not mistaken, you haven't develop the technology necessary to build on arid tiles, that's why your arid tile is highlighted (well... barely) in yellow instead of green. When you try to build something, i think the game goes with something along the lines: "is the selected tile available for building? yes => build, no => select the first next available tile and build on it" In galciv2 it didn't happened because the l

could you please develop why you find it annoying? Is it because of the features themselves which kind of "cheat" the regular rules (like stealing a tech instead of researching it normally)? Or because of the usual increase in micromanagement generally involved? Or something completely different? And if there were to be a espionage feature, what would make it less annoying in your opinon?

not sure there is an evil plot going on to hide the missing espionage system from the pure and naive players :) I suppose it's more in the lines of money issues, planning issues, lack of detailed specifications, far too optimistic time estimations and generally speaking too big dreams for too little developper's hands. well, that doesn't mean developpers aren't evil, i mean they always complain about wanting to sleep, to eat, to be pai

There's a lot of exotic stuff that can be done with a spying system, but i'd rather have the classic ones first like: - steal maps - sabotage starbase or ship - steal tech of course (but i'll come back on this) - raise unrest on planet - steal credits - disrupt production - disrupt research - and of course, counter espionage all these are of course actions limited to your empire vs another one and nothing like

hey! hey! hey! no HAL or Skynet allowed!!

well i agree with OP to a point. Setting the trade route in itself isn't really a problem since you can just click the approximative destination on the main map and let the freighter on auto until it reaches destination. However, i'd like to have some clues on how good a trade route will be, more than "longer is better", before sending the ship. I mean, hey, i'm going to crush all opposition beneath my heel, my soldiers bravely at my command, my armies unde

am i the only one to make a parallel between existing GC2 aliens and classical heroic fantasy races? Dregin? orcs from space Korath? meaner orcs from space (who like Torture Magazine) Altarians? elves from space (elve babes more accurately) Yor? undead from space Torian? aquatic gnomes from space Iconian? illithids from space Arcean? nice elder guys from space (well... mostly) Krynn? lizardmen thieves from space <p

Hello I think there's a difference between flagship-"most renowned ship" and flagship-"command ship of the current fleet" (although the two concepts are not incompatible) when talking about flagships in a game like GC, i think the following examples (both historical and fictitious) match the idea: From World War 2: England's HMS Hood, Germany's Bismark, Japan's Yamato, USS Enterprise From movies and TV shows: Star Trek's Enterprise, Star Wars&#

Hello (first post on forum, i'm intimidated ^^') A basic solution to reduce the issue would be to automatically merge the isolated enemy ships into a fleet as large as enemy current logistics permits (i think endless space did that). It makes sense since if i was a pilot, surrounded by allies, seeing a big fleet coming in my way, i'll call my allies to join the fight instead of going alone to be slaughtered alone! :D This merge shouldn't include