Scintor, That's an interesting idea, and the more I think about it, the more I like it. Thank you for splitting this off, too. I don't even look at the long tech trading threads at this point. Too much abuse for not agreeing 100% with a certain poster. :(
That depends. If you can use the editor to create DL and DA mods, then it does have some use.
That's because many conservatives aren't exactly conservatives, but...er...self-appointed morality police. They wear conservative clothing, but their approach to social reform is actually pretty radical and coercive (and not exactly healthy for society).
Eh, I'm happy. I'm just sort of not getting anything new from playing, and the bugs aren't showing up so much - at least nothing that has not already been identified.
Ouch, just minutes too slow!
You mean aside from [link="https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=164&aid=173618"]these patch notes?[/link]
We have two months until release. Another week for AI/tech updates is fine. [color="#FF0000"][B]But only [i]one[/i] more week.[/B][/color] :HOT: But that's just because I'm a bit burned out on the state of the tech trees.
[quote]"She then quotes a study that says young boys can not distinguish between video game violence and real violence." And another thing: did the afromentioned "Study" mmention any demographics? What about the age of the players? The length of time these games were played, and most importantly, what games were played? I would like to see this study myself, because if it does not mention the varibles listed above it is unreliable. Simple as that. [/quote] Here's an [
Yay, thank you. Really hoping the next patch will include AI/tech updates, though. :)
Yes, the AI doesn't react as well as it could to WMDs. It doesn't get especially offended at spore ships, either. There should also be something when you use one for the first time. Some reaction.
This sounds like a great game - but I love comebacks. :)
[quote] As for Terror Stars being a one shot weapon, I have to disagree there. Something that is THAT handicapped and costly shouldn't only have one shot. I guess you can say that the weapon on a Terror Star is also linked into a special force field generator that will protect it from a star going nova. [/quote] Yeah. You already have to research five techs, build the terror star with five constructors, wait ten turns for it to become mobile, and then move it to the target at on
GalCiv2 Forums
Maybe they just name it "Heavy Fighter M1 V2" and the game appends Altarian for you. Not that I know right at this moment if "Heavy Fighter M1 V2" is too long or not.
[quote] When he's rational, he does make good points. But that's not the point. If he was telling you that you were retarded, and needed to learn to play, you would get rather upset with him too, I think. Phae makes some good points also, it's not like either of them are ignorant of how the game works. Personally I don't like dealing with people who get flambouyantly angry...it interferes with the exchange of ideas. [/quote] I also don't feel that my responses were incredib
[quote]Sheesh, what a thread. Uranium and Phaedyme, you two stop your bickering, damn it. I tend to agree with Uranium's beliefs that trading needs some level of nerfing, but dude, chill! We all know the trees need balance, hence the beta. Phaedyme's position isn't really even that different from yours.[/quote] Don't call me out on this - I'm not calling anyone a moron or accusing them of having head injuries, or otherwise [i]insulting the hell out of them[/i] with my disagreement. I'm
[quote] It would be nice to have some ability to tell a civ to remove the SBs in my territory or else; as it is, I have no ability to explain to them why I'm about to nuke them back into the stone age. You do in a way. You can demand that they gift you the base and declare war if they don't. Not much different from what they do.[/quote] On the contrary, since you can't explain why and ask them to simply dismantle the starbase, it's not even the sa
GalCiv2 Forums
Wasn't the UI made with one of Stardock's apps? "Object Desktop?" I thought I read somewhere that it was potentially customizable with OD.
Yeah, it bothers me that the AI can say "Your starbase in this location is a threat, and we will respond accordingly," but we can't pick a unit of theirs and say "We see this as a threat. Get rid of it." I would love to have the option to request that the AI trash starbases, as opposed to handing them over. For some reason, I can occasionally put my entire empire up for sale and still not be able to buy one not-maxed-out starbase.
Whenever I play the first mission in the DL campaign, the Altarians start building several influence starbases around my planets. I don't see major races do it so much elsewhere, though.
Yes, a good solid helping of that.
Yes, I've noticed influence starbase spamming in Dark Avatar and Twilight games fairly frequently. I once had six minor race-built influence starbases around my homeworld, which ultimately led to said race's conquest.
True that. User mods made it much better. But I mean, you have games like MoO3 that completely fail expectations, and you have games like Oblivion, which are good right out of the box (but with flaws), and both are improved greatly by user mods. This is a good thing. I think that Uranium-235's being obnoxiously harsh (obnoxious because of his insistence on using "retarded" as an insult) about how the game didn't meet his expectations. I certainly don't think he was obligated to
Also, I'm not even arguing against expanding the list of techs that can't be traded. I've argued in favor of making stuff like weather control and biosphere modulators untradeable. I do not believe that every single racial tech is so unique that it needs to be untradeable, but I do think that each race has some techs that define it enough that they should not be traded. And I certainly am not arguing against adding further start up options like "no trading of racial techs at all". <
[quote] 1) Thanks for supporting my point. So instead of fixing problems with the tech trees, you'd rather keep this lameo everyone-blends-together-by-midgame crap we have now?[/quote] That's a false dilemma. I've been arguing to fix the tech trees. [quote]2) Altarian tech tree is the Drath tech tree. So... yeah, they're fine.[/quote] No, it's not. It's based on it. [quote]Because having tech trading completely off eliminates a vital part of the game. Wher
[quote] Here's some points: 1) The Altarians have the Drath tech tree. There's absolutely no reason they should have problems. I've yet to have issues with them.[/quote] The Altarians do not have the Drath tree. They have a modified Drath tree. [quote]2) A LOT of people play with tech trading off to curb the massive AI 'cheating' so they're not getting ANYTHING, not even the economic bonuses of selling things, even 'worthless' techs like Universal Translator.[/quot