I've read that supposedly astronomers have found the edge of the Universe. It IS a wall funny enough, sorta. A wall of super-intense radiation so powerful that NOTHING can pass through. So that answers that for you, the Universe has edges (and maybe corners too) No, not really. You're talking about the cosmic microwave background, the earliest
I don't like the retreat idea that much. As I mentioned in another post on this subject, it can get annoying in RTW when you have to chase down retreating armies. It doesn't really add that much to the game, even though it's historically realistic (in the context of that particular game). The second battle is never that much fun because you're fighting a depleted unit that doesn't have a chance. When you win a battle decisively, you want your next move
First of all, if you had [i]any[/i] idea what a straw man was in the first place, you'd know that it [i]is[/i] a logical fallacy, not just a smear you apply to someone else's opinion. It's not a big step to go from "logical fallacy" to "drivel". Those who rely on those fallacies are stupid and childish. If you don't like my sayin
As noted above, the economic model isn't designed to support huge numbers of fleets, due to the initial cost, upkeep cost, and build time. And also the limited number of planets, and the restriction of one starbase (ship builder) per planet. If those factors were changed to allow thousands of ships to be built more easily, it would probably mess up the game balance for the early to mid game... essentially flooding the galaxy with cheap guns
A few suggestions that may help: 1) This game is designed to be challenging, and it takes a while to learn the mechanics. I started on Beginner level, on small and medium maps, until I got a feel for it. Then I worked my way up. Don't be surprised if you're getting whipped by jumping straight into the medium difficulty levels. 2) To avoid early attacks, try to maintain a military strength that's at least close to the stronger fact
And FYI, RTW would have sucked hard as a game without the tactical map just likr GC2 is mediocre as a game and limiting itself without the option....for you people who dont like the added fun and challenge of ship tactics, why, you could just turn it off and play your gal civ light version. RTW would
Guys, I know that you have to be on top to survive, but the minute that someone surpasses me, even if I'm in the top 3 places, they start getting cool and find reasons to get into a war with me, no matter what I try to do. And it always happen to be that those huge and powerful empires that are much stronger than everyone else is
The Yor AI may not actually bother much with yoking their advantage. That's StarDock's fault, but it's no argument to say that the imbalance shouldn't be corrected. In your opinion, and it's fine to have a personal opinion. Not everyone agrees. Successful strategy games often have factions
Wouldn't that be fun when the AI sicks it on you? (Hint: not so much so) Yeah, it's another of those ideas that sounds really cool in YOUR fleet, but not the other guy's. Like planet-busting Death Stars. I have enough to cope with, without swarms of cloaked enemy ships that I can't detect
By the way, I didn't even realize the Yor started out with the most techs too until now. That's simply beyond belief! There HAS to be something that balances things out. I can't believe Stardock would commit such an egregious error in game balance. Er... it's only a balance problem if you see it
Concerning the retreat idea.... adding a tactical retreat option sounds good when it's about saving your own ships. It's not so fun when the AI gets to use it also. Enemy AI units can retreat from tactical battles in Rome:Total War. It can get annoying when you have to chase them again on the strategy map, after "winning" a battle on the tactical map. In an open field situation (no nearby armies or cities to merge with), it just forces you i
Yeah, we wouldn't know for sure unless we tried it, but I think defender advantage (or even "home space" advantage) would just encourage turtling, and slow down the game. Both the player and the AI would need heavier invasion fleets, which take longer to build. I like the pace of the current design. I like having to keep on my toes. If I screw up and let the enemy hit me first, then I'm not defending very well.... OR, it means I've adopted
The current attack bonus doesn't bother me. Sure, it's an arbitrary game mechanic, but I can adapt to any mechanic if the result is a fun game, and if the AI has the same limitations (and most importantly... knows how to use it!). I haven't found a way to really exploit this to take advantage of the AI, so it seems fair. It also makes for some interesting strategic choices. With a planetary defense fleet, do I go for something relatively sta
Yes, it would be nice to know if there are any hidden bonuses. However, maybe the IGN article was based on early information, and all the stat bonuses are already shown in the game. I've been playing Terran mainly because I have the ship designs tweaked out for them, but I think I want to try Drath next. They start with big espionage and defense bonuses, an extra trade route, and I think they're neutral alignment, aren't they? That suits my
GalCiv2 Forums
I usually get two or three morality check events every game, when colonizing planets. I colonize from 5 to 12 planets in my games, using Large map, common stars, uncommon habitable. So it may have something to do with your map settings, or how aggressively you pursue the colony rush. The more planets you colonize, the better the chances of triggering one of those "do we kill the intelligent worms" type events. I also just got the "zombie arm
really like this game, but I really feel that the tech-tree/reaserch line isn't well optimised. They should have included something to allow more lines of research. Maybe something like 10-15 labs (plus a Research capital?) per a reasearch line. This would allow as much flexability and bonuses that are received by economic and m
GalCiv2 Forums
I understand why some people don't like the currrent system, but I just hope the "fix" doesn't break current gameplay too much. I kinda like how I can have auto-upgrades not causing huge swings in my economy. Economic micromanagement isn't the most fun part of the game for me. I really don't want to be spending any more time fiddling with the economy settings on every turn, than I am now.
Yep, it just hit slashdot: http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/03/11/2049230.shtml
Exactly my gripe. You have to trade to keep up with the AI. The AI trade and trade and then trade some more. When you realise you have to trade you become really good at it and its easy to get a lot of techs for free from other races. You then end up not having to chose between Laser or Missiles. You can ju
Well, kinetic weapons don't all have to be dinosaur-killer sized. That would be counterproductive, unless you're doing a "Sherman's March" through the enemy systems, and not sticking around to colonize. Actually that could be sorta fun. My point is that there really is no defense, if you have no mobile space forces. The enemy can strip away your a
Just my $.02, but I don't like the idea of planetary defenses. Here's why: 1) First, I kinda like the risky feeling of undefended planets in the early game. It keeps me on my toes... forces me to decide how long I can hold off having to build defensive ships. It adds a tense, strategic decision point to the game. 2) If a "planetary defense building" were available, I'd just automatically stick one on every planet, as the second b
Here's an idea, although I don't know how this would play out in practice. For someone who doesn't want to do the colony rush, what if there was a new tech tree for building artificial space habitats? It would be a new type of starbase, basically.... something like an O'Neill Cylinder with room for population growth and slots for buildings. You'd build it with a constructor, and upgrade it over time, maybe eventually reaching the Halo, Ringworld, or Dy
I think the hero idea is better in mixed strategy/tactical games like Warcraft or Kohan, where they can be controlled (or fought against) individually. Otherwise it's potentially unbalancing and not fun. I wouldn't want to see one of my fleets wiped out, in a battle I would have otherwise won, because the enemy happened to have a "hero" unit and that skewed all the stats I had based my fleet action around. My hero in the current game is my f
I know the colony rush can be a bit predictable and nerve-wracking, but I don't think this would fix what you're trying to fix. It will be the same game dynamic, just adding a rush down the logistics tree as part of the initial colony rush. You wouldn't be able to research anything else, without losing a territorial/economy advantage later in the game. None of the AI's would want to trade anything else but logistics tech in the initial rush. It would eliminate a lot of the fun in researching and
GalCiv2 Forums
Just a beginner $.02 here... but it seems to me that part of the problem is that the AI is min/maxing trading opportunities on *every single turn*. I don't want to have to check trade opportunites and try to beat the AI on that basis, every turn. That's too much micromanagement (for me, anyway). Maybe if the AI didn't min/max the trades every turn, and only did it on a monthly basis or something, that might help?