Magnumaniac

Hey Neilo, how's it going (apart from not too well game-wise based on your post)? I haven't managed to get a game as far as turn 100 yet - I get to 60 or 70 then decide I could do better in the col rush, or need to try something different in the race setup - so not encountered any similar problems yet. The only time I am seeing any laggy effects is when the game is transitioning to or from strategic view - but it's a few seconds at worst. I've noticed that at

I think you've already mentioned the main reason why this couldn't be implemented - the need for a super-computer to process it all :) However, you also need to take into consideration that what we are seeing is a 2-dimensional abstract rendition of 3-dimensional space. That nebula shown on the map might not actually be directly blocking line of sight (or sensor) to the star just beyond it. The simplest solutions to such problems are usually the best - just add a

[quote who="joeball123" reply="17" id="3552841"]... that model made it so that worlds automatically upgraded themselves and went back to doing what the player wanted out of them without any significant micromanagement in a relatively short time... ...But people complained about how 'unintuitive' and 'overpowered' the old projects were, and now we're stuck with the current projects. [/quote] This, exactly! The "new" project method vastly incr

Yes - every planet has an option (in the governance screen I think - not in front of game right now) to make it your capitol. Just beware if / when you do so, that you existing capitol will suddenly lose the 5 food bonus - so you could have starving citizens dying on you (could be a good way to deal with approval issues though).

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="4" id="3552748"]...or i guess one could simply overcome that urge to squeeze out optimal performance and build lots of "generalist" planets with a little bit of everything that can be controlled with the empire wide slider [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] If only it was just about squeezing that extra bit of optimal performance from a planet - but it's not. Specialising vs generalising results in at least 3 times the output (often much more when taking adjac

Yes, yes, a hundred times yes! To be honest, a good UI design should have keybinds for every commonly used clickable button - and more besides. As it is, your best bet is to create your own using auto hotkey - or resign yourself to carpal tunnel problems.

Yes, it is not a very good mechanic and doesn't actually add any benefit apart from a cheap 10% bonus for research specced planets (if you can handle the micro-management to do so). I believe it is supposed to add 10% per 10 points of manufacturing allocated. I'm not sure what they were trying to achieve by doing things this way, as setting one of the stimulus projects on a fully manufacturing specced planet provides a potentially big bonus (say 200% for 200 manufacturing

Yep, pretty much agree with all your points OP. I particularly dislike the forced upgrade path for factories / research / markets - would much prefer the old GC2 style. i.e. I have researched Xeno Factories, I can build Xeno Factories directly. And as for production wheel - horrible way to try and set 100% values. A simple option (directly on the colony screen) to one-click for 100% M / R / E would solve a lot of the micro issues. Even better if there was a k/b shourtcut for i

Some clarification and background needed I think :) I'm not seeing system / performance issues (at least not yet - haven't reached 200+ turns) - it is game mechanics I feel are constraining the larger maps. Background: I have thousands of hours (no exaggeration) of GC1 & 2 play experience, and similar time spent in other 4x games... including Stars! - so I am not averse to micro management, and I really want to specialise as much as is humanly possible. I just don&

Space is big... very big even when we are only considering a 2 dimensional abstract representation of it as we are here. ZOC is, by definition, an area that you can control by military presence; so feel free to declare war if you think they are within your borders and forcibly remove them. If you are strong enough they will sue for peace soon enough. If you are not, then maybe your ZOC was not as big as you thought it was :)

A very credible v1.0, and I'm sure that Stardock's notoriously good post-release performance will further enhance the game. Right now, however, this feels like a game with potentially epic scope that is constrained by it's own mechanics to only be functional in smaller galaxies. The Good... Insane is, well, insane - love the potential there Starbases / constructors - lots of kudos here. Significantly reduced the micro-management associated with this vital

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="1" id="3551565"] ...take 'Ancient' as well. You will get a cumulative global 5% research bonus per (ANY) relic you are mining. This quickly stacks up and makes even pure prodution planets crank out 60-180 research just based on empire wide global research bonuses. [/quote] Good to know - thanks - I'll have to try that one. [quote who="Larsenex" reply="2" id="3551568"] Just to let you know, I have an insa

Greetings GalCivvers, So it's finally here (yep, I know it's been around in various alpha / beta guises for a while - but I didn't want to burn out before release). Anyone that remembers me from GC2 days will know I like big galaxies with lots of planets, and games that last hundreds of hours... insane with abundant everything looks like it might just scratch that JOMT itch. However, after a few test game starts on smaller galaxies I am concerned about the

[quote who="Sole Soul" reply="16" id="3405795"] Well, in reply #3312 in the ToE thread (link will only work if you're not logged in-just reported problem here), Mumble begs to differ But whether I'm first or second, Mag's rush was always the bar to beat, for me. It's one of the things that pushed me as far as I went, mechanics wise-so credit where credit is due.[/quote] ... and credit also has to go to the other guys who spent many many ho

[quote who="Weidbrewer" reply="16" id="3405605"] Quoting Gaunathor, reply 13 Not everyone cares about score or plays multiplayer. Aw crap...here we go again.[/quote] No, he has a very good point. A sandbox mode is an essential part of any 4X game, and has been the mainstay of many. Invariably it has come down to player communities to instigate any form of competitive play. Stardock allowed limited competitive e

Hey Sole - good to see you too! I agree - the colony rush was the main portion of the game I enjoyed too. Advanced strategy... more a case of optimal and micro-managed for me as I preferred to do my colonising the old fashioned way (yes, building colony ships and actually sending them to planets, lol). Was fun keeping track of which planets had inbound colonisers on a gigantic map and upwards of 200 colonisers in flight. Kind of satisfying to pick up 80%+ of the

The problem for any tech tree design, regardless of complexity / size, is that it will very quickly come down to: Strategy A requires beeline for techs X, Y & Z for optimal effectiveness Strategy B requires beeline for techs P, Q & Z for optimal effectiveness etc, etc Variation is then thrown out of the window as, especially in multiplayer, anything less than optimal equals defeat (or lower score in single player). Ideally, some form of&nbsp

[quote who="Neilo" reply="6" id="3404938"]I agree the AI were a machine in the colony rush phase... [/quote] Only if you let them Neilo [e digicons]:)[/e] Even without the alternative methods of winning the colony rush, you could out-pace any / all of the AIs on suicidal as long as you could keep your economy up. It is kind of the point of a 4X early game strategy though! Will be interesting to see how they handle this in GC3, knowing what they do about how th

Well well well - never thought I'd see the day! I guess I need to finally upgrade from Win XP soon then [e digicons]:|[/e]