On this forum, I have posted some ideas here WWW Link about GC2 shortcomings on a larger, analytical level. My question here pertains to mere instrumental logic. I no longer understand the point of larger ship hull sizes. When I got the game first and played on difficulties under crippling, I found them neat, like most things in GC2, while they were new and shiny. Now, I no longer see the point, because of this:<br/
I like the new patch, but it really seems to be much less stable than previous incarnations. I dont think I ever had a CTD since 1.0 until I DLed the new patch -- and it doesnt happen a lot, but I have had 4 CTDs in the last 3 days. I play on my laptop, a Pentium M 1.86 gHz, 1 gig RAM, a 124 Radeon Mobility 700x (I think) graphics card. Never had a problem until 1.3. And unfortunatly, I cannot really say when it happens -- everything goes along normally, and I move one ship somewh
Great! and I'm second to congratulate! Am downloading now too.... Thank you
Foolishly I see that I have eliminated a further point from my list that should have been included, and since I am unable to edit my post now, I shall include it here, although it fits very well to point 1, above: 4. Rehauling "Diplomatic Victory" - Currently, it is too easy to cement alliances, and it would be nice if, in order to win a diplomatic victory, one had to form alliances with all existing nations and these nations had to elect you, in a vote, to be "Chairentity" (or some
This is a very small wishlist of ideas I find easily implementable, being extracted from a larger list of things I am sure I will (alas!) never see. 1. Rehauling Alliances and AI Relationships - Currently, once you have an alliance with a foreign nation X, I have found no way to weaken my relations with that ally X aside from failing to declare war on a nation which declares war on X. This, I feel, is greatly suboptimal. In fact, it is THE only reason I have to turn "Diplomatic Vict
I see. I suppose that purchasers of DA will not feel bad about that, but it certainly might estrange those who are just thinking about purchasing it.
These are just two small ideas I have extracted from a longer archive of ideas, the rest of which I realize will never be able to be implemented. 1. For military bases: - Upgrades could be made much more interesting by adding new types of modules which yield bonuses to attack and/or defense ROLLS, e.g. instead of adding 5 points to beam attack power, there could be a module which adds a +2 to the beam ROLL (thus if a ship had an attack value of 12, it would normally roll a number b
I don't want even more advantages. Currenty, I have to turn so many options off because of lack of challenge, I would like the option to start with, say, 1000 bc.
Do I see correctly that as of 1.3, one will start no longer with 5000bc but rather 7500 bc? This I would find to be most displeasing. If anything, I wish we started with less. (I had wished for an option in 1.2 to allow users to customize the starting amounts of money for the human and the AI players. I would really like to be able to start with less, while giving the AI more. Is there any chance of this happening? Is it really very hard?)
I second lintman's succinct summary. Illwinter's team consists of 3 people, and I think all of them are full-time schoolteachers. The Dominions series is, I believe, made and published in their spare time. That's amazing. But of course, it also means that they do not have the resources to make a game with QC that Stardock has. One of their faults is most certainly AI. It is not good. I loved Dom2 for a very long time, but it is only really playable against fellow humans. Their other fau
Perhaps this is worth noting? During a war, the AI (I play at around "crippling") will almost always fight out all battles till the end by constantly producing military units until the war is resolved. Since the AI rarely has constructors in stock, and since the AI (particularly the more aggressive ones) does not make many to begin with, this means that the AI has no constructors and makes no constructors until wars are completed. I have found that this makes "leeching" far too
GalCiv2 Forums
Thank you for the many reasonable and constructive replies. 1. Tastes do differ. Und das ist gut so. If they didn't differ, we'd all be playing Doom, or Chess, or Baseball. So quite obviously, what I am saying is applicable only to the target group of strategy gamers who feel as I do. From the few replies here, it seems like there are quite a few overlaps with many GC2 players on these forums. Good to see, too, that many people disagree because they simply *like* something else. <b
GalCiv2 Forums
This post is meant as a form of constructive criticism which may lead to possible improvements in the future. I hope this somewhat longish post finds a critical reader (particularly among the Stardock staff, whose attention to these forums I cherish) who takes what I have to say seriously (even if much of it be mistaken and poorly formulated), since I dearly hope this is far from a "whine". With that in mind, let me get right into media res: The main reason I will not be purchasing
Thank you. But wouldn't it be wise to include information such as this (there isnt much of it) within the game? Even you say "AFAIK"! EDIT: Also note that the "red", "yellow" and "green" coding of the approval rate as posted above is not germain if the wiki is correct: Red numbers appear in the mid-thirties.
But all things being equal, "- our ethical alignment" must surely yield something LOWER than "neutral" IF "++ trading, + too busy to risk war, + our ethical alignment" is neutral
I am playing the official 1.2 version and have noticed these two odd things: - On the f5 relations screen, I can see that my relations to the Drengi, for example, are listed as "warm", while under "reports" I can see AS THE ONLY LISTING : "- our ethical alignment" (with no other factors listed), while AT THE SAME TIME my relations to the humans, for instance, are "neutral", while for their reports I can see "++ trading, + too busy to risk war with us, + our ethical alignment".
Yes, I have done exactly that, and I know exactly why the morale value is as it is -- but what is needed is information telling me what this *means*. That is, I know why morale is 34%, but I don't know what morale at 34% is good for. It is the rules I am missing. I would like to be able to see what happens if it reaches the value X%. Currently, I see no way to access the "rules" other than surfing and hoping that the wikipedia is correctly updated!
Is there any in-game reference whatsoever as to how exactly morale / happiness functions? I mean: I can see that planet Blah has a morale of 43%, planet Mumbo a morale of 74%,and planet Jumbo of 33%, but I see no indication whatsoever as to what these (or other) numbers mean in game functionality. I know the manual has some info on that, but IIRC that information is no longer correct due to changes via patches. How can one get wise? (And would it be possible to include, in a future pat
Mazel tov!
1) When you sort your colonies by which ever criteria you want and go to a particulary planet, the next/previous button should cycle through the colonies the way you have sorted them. For example if I have sorted the colonies by population size then this selecting 'next' should give me the planet with the next highest pop and 'previous' give the next lowest pop.
Yey!! Would it also be possible for the "Upgrade" section of the Shipyard (f7) to include mouse-over indications of what those units ARE which we may delete or move? (Or have a little tiny text-box section somewhere in which these indications may appear?)
Perhaps it might be prudent to either remove or have a check-box option to remove "precursor"-level planet bonuses on planets. When I get a planet with a 700% bonus to anything, I almost feel like it is cheating. It is just too random.
One more: I've noticed that with tech trading off, the game is more challenging for me. While I can beat "genius" AI fairly smoothly with tech trading, I find "gifted" difficult with it disabled. Perhaps it would be possible for the higher AI levels (gifted and above) to treat HUMAN PLAYER tech deals as increasingly smaller increments -- e.g., gifted might see a human deal at (default) 3/5's of its actual value, and an impossible AI at 1/7th of its actual value, or something like that. Thi
@Chip56: Although the idea might be nice, there is no way such things can be implemented in a next patch. Let's try to keep things realistic!
In order to make the "survey" module more valuable (currently, there is a wonder which allows you to get them for free, but this isnt much use once one gets the tech), Anomolies should be objects which appear randomly in the galaxy during the course of the game (instead of at the beginning). Perhaps there are two or three only in a medium sized galaxy at game's begin if they are set to fairly frequent, but at that setting, one could appear in a random empty parsec once every second or third week