Yes, truely, stop acting like this game should be a super-game with all of the best parts of MOO2/3, Empire At War, Civ 4, along with a little hint of Rome: Total War. It's not, it's Galactic Civilizations. They didn't want it to be just like all the games that are out or have been out for years. So stop complaining that it isn't. If you want a popular game that's fun and new, you need to do something DIFFERENT from what's been done before, not make a clone of others, whether they were successful or not.

Ahm yes right galciv2 is something new and different. Tetris was something new and different. Since a long time we didn't see any really new games, it was only some kind of "take this game and make it a bit different" story. The problem you face today is that most games use a stupid plain simple code and put tons of sound and graphic around it. The main game still sucks but hey it has freaking awsome graphics And if you finally find a game where great peoples developed something really new or something which makes fun etc. then some big company comes like EA etc and buys it and next thing you see is that its dead.

Fallout a such great game. Will you ever see a new fallout series? no! why? cause some stupid big firm owns the rights and isn't willing to give it away if you don't pay millions of dollars. Chance for some clever peoples to make a new game based on that story? zero. Ultima, WingCommander. Company went dead cause they had no money, don't know who owns the rights on Ultima or WingCommander but I bet its not lord british. So chance to ever see a new ultima or wing commander game? zero.

Stardock indipendend peoples. Hey thats great and I hope no big company like activision or ea etc. comes and buys most of the stocks of stardock and dictates some rules. But lets face it, as stardock you have to make some really good games or you stand no chance against those multi-million companies.

Maybe I have a different view of games, thats maybe cause I'm playing computer games since over 20 years now. My first "computer" was a atari2600 game console and after that I was a proud owner of a c64. I loved games like m.u.l.e. wastelands, ultima1 and later games like wing commander, most of you don't even know those games I bet.

I'm one of those persons who don't really play much games anymore, except of those online-games. The reason is I got dissapointed so often lately. You go and buy a game in a store and then after a few days you say wtf. and for that game I payed 40 dollar? Take Epics Unreal 2 as an example. Hell yes great graphics, but after 1 day you've finished it lol. Take StarWars Empire at war. Great game yes, but after 3 days I had done both campains and hell only 5 tech levels? Maybe 15 different kinds of ships each side? 30 planets in the galaxy? Uh? and I payed again 40 dollar for a game which I uninstalled after only 3-4 days. Its a waste of money.

Online games, you can download it and install it, you have a 14days trial, you can play and test it and if you like the game then you pay every month 14 dollar. Fine with me, if I like that game. I played Anarchy Online over 3 years. Lets do the math 3years (14 dollar each months) + 3 expansion packs 20 dollar each. Thats 564 dollar. Worth the money! Hell yes! 40 dollar star wars empires of war? worth the money? hell no!. 40 dollars unreal 2 worth the money? hell no!. Galciv2? ... not sure yet. A game like m.u.l.e. on a c64 emu is much more fun as most of those games and its already nearly 20 years old.

I love games like civilization, moo, galciv. I even loved startrek birth of federation and if they ever would make a birth of federation 2 i would buy it. Thats why I'm a bit dissapointed about galciv2 atm. I see that the game has a huge potential and it could be a game like civ4 I would play after months again. But atm with all that starbase grind and a AI which doesn't act smart and imo cheats I'm not sure about it.

The idea behind creating your own units etc. isn't new. Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri worked that way. So whats so different in galciv2 and so new? There are so many other games like galciv and all had their advantages and dissadvantages. If you make a new game as an example then why do you still make the same stupid mistakes? Why don't you look which was great in that game and which was bad in this game and then make a game.

Games like bioforge what a great game. We never saw a bioforge 2 So many great games died. Everyone tries to invent the wheel again instead of learning from other games and trying to improve those ideas.

edit double post...

Well Blueman, I'm afraid to disappoint you..... I have been playing games as long as you - longer from the looks of it.... but I still don't agree with you! I have absolutely no problems with building Starbases. Simply set a rally point, use governers to tell ships to go there, rinse and repeat. I like the above idea though about super constructors building multiple components.

I do agree that the AI building starbases on your doorstep is rude.... but thats what war is for! They have an agenda and it's up to you if you want to go along with it. Most of the time I dont care if they want to build a base near my planets (near being HIGHLY relative given the size of a parsec) but if they drop a military one, I go to war - simple as that!

As for colonising - redesign your Colony ships to take advantage of newer technology.... then make that technology your inital goal at the start of a game. I only play on Intelligent setting as I like the AI to be equal to me and not cheat, but I easily out-colonise them.

If it's not your game... well then, it's not your game. No problems there, but don't expect to get a lot of support on the official forums where people are ecstatically enjoying their experience!

Blueman:

Ahm yes right galciv2 is something new and different. Tetris was something new and different. Since a long time we didn't see any really new games, it was only some kind of "take this game and make it a bit different" story. The problem you face today is that most games use a stupid plain simple code and put tons of sound and graphic around it. The main game still sucks but hey it has freaking awsome graphics And if you finally find a game where great peoples developed something really new or something which makes fun etc. then some big company comes like EA etc and buys it and next thing you see is that its dead. Fallout a such great game. Will you ever see a new fallout series? no! why? cause some stupid big firm owns the rights and isn't willing to give it away if you don't pay millions of dollars. Chance for some clever peoples to make a new game based on that story? zero. Ultima, WingCommander. Company went dead cause they had no money, don't know who owns the rights on Ultima or WingCommander but I bet its not lord british. So chance to ever see a new ultima or wing commander game? zero. Stardock indipendend peoples. Hey thats great and I hope no big company like activision or ea etc. comes and buys most of the stocks of stardock and dictates some rules. But lets face it, as stardock you have to make some really good games or you stand no chance against those multi-million companies. Maybe I have a different view of games, thats maybe cause I'm playing computer games since over 20 years now. My first "computer" was a atari2600 game console and after that I was a proud owner of a c64. I loved games like m.u.l.e. wastelands, ultima1 and later games like wing commander, most of you don't even know those games I bet. I'm one of those persons who don't really play much games anymore, except of those online-games. The reason is I got dissapointed so often lately. You go and buy a game in a store and then after a few days you say wtf. and for that game I payed 40 dollar? Take Epics Unreal 2 as an example. Hell yes great graphics, but after 1 day you've finished it lol. Take StarWars Empire at war. Great game yes, but after 3 days I had done both campains and hell only 5 tech levels? Maybe 15 different kinds of ships each side? 30 planets in the galaxy? Uh? and I payed again 40 dollar for a game which I uninstalled after only 3-4 days. Its a waste of money. Online games, you can download it and install it, you have a 14days trial, you can play and test it and if you like the game then you pay every month 14 dollar. Fine with me, if I like that game. I played Anarchy Online over 3 years. Lets do the math 3years (14 dollar each months) + 3 expansion packs 20 dollar each. Thats 564 dollar. Worth the money! Hell yes! 40 dollar star wars empires of war? worth the money? hell no!. 40 dollars unreal 2 worth the money? hell no!. Galciv2? ... not sure yet. A game like m.u.l.e. on a c64 emu is much more fun as most of those games and its already nearly 20 years old. I love games like civilization, moo, galciv. I even loved startrek birth of federation and if they ever would make a birth of federation 2 i would buy it. Thats why I'm a bit dissapointed about galciv2 atm. I see that the game has a huge potential and it could be a game like civ4 I would play after months again. But atm with all that starbase grind and a AI which doesn't act smart and imo cheats I'm not sure about it. The idea behind creating your own units etc. isn't new. Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri worked that way. So whats so different in galciv2 and so new? There are so many other games like galciv and all had their advantages and dissadvantages. If you make a new game as an example then why do you still make the same stupid mistakes? Why don't you look which was great in that game and which was bad in this game and then make a game. Games like bioforge what a great game. We never saw a bioforge 2 So many great games died. Everyone tries to invent the wheel again instead of learning from other games and trying to improve those ideas.

I see. Well, that was a mouth full, now wasn't it? I'm not just getting after you personally man, it's just really, REALLY annoying to me when a game comes out that takes like, 2 to 3 years to make, and all everyone can do is complain, complain, complain. If you don't like the game, then why the hell don't you just make your own?! It's ridiculous how much whining and complaining can go on in this world today. Nobody MADE you buy the game, and nobody is MAKING you keep it or play it if you don't like it. If you bought it from a store and you don't like it, return the damn thing--don't go on the internet and forums and start putting it down and complaining that one or two things might not be to your liking. That's ALL I'm saying. I'm not out to start an arguement, I don't want that at all. So please, take no offense by this post. I just hate all the haters, and I hate complaining and whining like a sickness. That's all.


Oh, and like Spearthrower said, if it's not your game...then well, it's just not your game, and I'm sorry about that. But complaining about it won't really change anything, I know that for certain. And if it does, that's just sad that somebody felt like they had to complain just to get what they wanted. And sometimes, if they DON'T get what they wanted, they act like little childish idiots and start insulting the game and everyone that plays it and any and all companies that made it or had anything to do with the production of it. And that my friend, is just wrong. That is all my point was/is, and again, please take no offense because this isn't directed at only you. It's directed toward any of those dumb, whining complainers on any and all forums in this world. And I can tell you this, they number in the millions, which is even more disheartening.

Now I'll be quiet and let someone else speak before I screw up the site for overly-long posts.

Nobody MADE you buy the game, and nobody is MAKING you keep it or play it if you don't like it. If you bought it from a store and you don't like it, return the damn thing--don't go on the internet and forums and start putting it down and complaining that one or two things might not be to your liking. That's ALL I'm saying. I'm not out to start an arguement, I don't want that at all. So please, take no offense by this post. I just hate all the haters, and I hate complaining and whining like a sickness. That's all.

Why should I take offense. I'm not. I'm not saying that galciv2 is a bad game, if peoples think that then they are wrong. Just saying that those 2 things are really bad and stardock should fix it. I love the huge techtree, that you can build your own ships and I love those kinds of game at all. But I still think that when I play on a giant map. I speak abou the giant map then the whole giant map shouldn't be already colonized within just 50 rounds. Its a giant map, its the biggest size possible in that game, so it should take days till everything is colonized and not only 2 hours. The problem is not the size, there are enough planets, the distance between the planets are big enough aswell. The problem is that even with those basic colonizers you can reach distant stars with ease. Even more when your range increases by a huge amount, when you have colonized a new planet or built a new starbase. Basicly build 10 starbases and you can fly from one corner of the map to another and thats just plain wrong. Lets look into the manual. Giantic map = 16x16 sectors. If you play a game then its 18x18 so manual is wrong. Ok your inital homeplanet range is 7 sectors!!! Guys I just started a game, I don't even researched anything Diameter of 7 sectors. You can fly 3.5 sectors around your homeplanet in every direction thats how far the basic colony ship can fly. Build a starbase and you can add another 3.5 sectors (7 sectors diameter around the starbase aswell). Lets do math: Giantig map = 18x18 sectors. Starbases, planets all have a 7 sectors range diameter. So every 3.5 sectors you can build a starbase. You only need 6 starbases to fly from one side of the giantic map to the other. Thats insane and if you don't agree with me, then something is wrong. It makes no sense. The range is far to big. I play a giantic map cause it shouldn't be that easy to fly from one side of the galaxy to another. But all you have to do is to colonize 3-4 planets and build another 2 starbases and you have access to at least 50% of the gigantic map. If you still think thats np then something is wrong. Hey thats with the basic colony ship, not speaking about support modules on your ship which would increase your range. 7 sectors diameter thats insane, the map only is 18 sectors long. So with just 1 planet you already have access to about 20-25% of the whole map! With one planet. Cut down the range by at least 2-3 times. Basic ship max 3 sectors diameter around a starbase or planet and not 7.

And yes you can use ralley points but thats only a "workaround" for a bad game design. You should have to build hundreds or thousands of colonizers to buld a few starbases. Maybe its fun for you but it isn't for me. If I play on small map then its np, those 3-4 starbases are not a biggy to build and to upgrade, but on a giant map with 9 enemies, where I want to build at least 20-30 starbases and where I want to have a game which lasts at least 1-2 weeks, 99% of my time I spend with building constructors over and over again. Thats not fun, thats work and nothing else. I play a game to have fun and not to work.

Btw. yes right noone forces me to buy that game, but point is and thats why maybe somany peoples don't buy games anymore. You have to buy the cat in the bag. If it would be possible to test a game before you buy it then it would look different. But often you read those game mags and you read those websides and they give oh 95% or you read "great game" etc. Sometimes I wonder if those peoples play the game longer as 2 hours. If they would have played it a few days or longer then they wouldn't give it 95% or 5 stars or what ever.

If there would be a law where customers could get their money back within 14 days when they don't like the product then you can be sure that 90% of those software companies would be dead by now.

And again I'm not a galciv2 hater, if I would then I wouldn't care at all. I love this game thats why I'm so angry in some points. Its like oh my god that game could be so great but why did they do such stupid things...

Make a patch and allow to change the range and influence range and those things and I will make a mod and never complain again Really if I want to be able to fly from one side of the map to another with only having to build 6 starbases (6 constructors) then I would play a medium map and not a gigantig. So either the gigantic map is factor 10 to small or the range of ships is by factor 10 to big But problem is you cannot mod even one of both things. Its something stardock has to do, either by doing it themself or by allowing us to do it ourself. Or maybe we can do it already, then it would be nice if someone from stardock could tell me what file I have to edit.

I agree with blueman22 that the initial range for homeplanets and subsequent planets and bases makes colonization happen way too quickly. Like blueman22, I too would like to be able to modify ship and colony ranges, but I don't think we can. If Stardock did or could somehow make these things moddable, then I think it would quiet a lot of complaints, as those satisfied with things as they are could leave things be, and those that aren't could tinker with things until they are satisfied.

Just one problem with not having all the upgrades for space stations. In the later game if you are unable to do all those military type upgrades your space stations will be useless vs the ships at that time. If you make less more powerful upgrades to the stations then they are too powerful at the beginning, no way around all the upgrades.

I agree that building and moving all the constructors is a real pain. I like the idea of stations upgrading themselves but there has to be a price. Maybe make it that to upgrade cost you credits, but make it so the station has to build the upgrade, instant upgrade would be bad.

I see. Well, that was a mouth full, now wasn't it? I'm not just getting after you personally man, it's just really, REALLY annoying to me when a game comes out that takes like, 2 to 3 years to make, and all everyone can do is complain, complain, complain. If you don't like the game, then why the hell don't you just make your own?! It's ridiculous how much whining and complaining can go on in this world today. Nobody MADE you buy the game, and nobody is MAKING you keep it or play it if you don't like it. If you bought it from a store and you don't like it, return the damn thing--don't go on the internet and forums and start putting it down and complaining that one or two things might not be to your liking. That's ALL I'm saying. I'm not out to start an arguement, I don't want that at all. So please, take no offense by this post. I just hate all the haters, and I hate complaining and whining like a sickness. That's all. Oh, and like Spearthrower said, if it's not your game...then well, it's just not your game, and I'm sorry about that. But complaining about it won't really change anything, I know that for certain. And if it does, that's just sad that somebody felt like they had to complain just to get what they wanted. And sometimes, if they DON'T get what they wanted, they act like little childish idiots and start insulting the game and everyone that plays it and any and all companies that made it or had anything to do with the production of it. And that my friend, is just wrong. That is all my point was/is, and again, please take no offense because this isn't directed at only you. It's directed toward any of those dumb, whining complainers on any and all forums in this world. And I can tell you this, they number in the millions, which is even more disheartening. Now I'll be quiet and let someone else speak before I screw up the site for overly-long posts.

This is the typical gc2 fundamentalist thread which i really don't like to read (i don't call you fanboy because i'm also a fanboy but simply i don't think that worshipping the game and attacking every man which doesn't like some aspects of the game is right).As a fan of the game i can say you that i really like this game but gc2 has also some bad aspects.U should understand that people which sometimes complain, or criticize the game don't do it just to flame people or trolling on a forum, they simply explain their opinion to improve the game in some aspects which are not well implemented.Telling people "if u don't like it play another game, or you complain so make your own game" is not very democratic, u are simply saying that people can post on this forum only to worship the game without saying a word on things which they don't like.Instead of saying "Stardock i rate your game 100%, u have done the holy grail of computer gaming", i say "Stardock i rate your game 90% try to improve tech trading, colonization rush and your game is nearly perfect" doesn't imply that i'm an idiot or a troll.

This is the typical gc2 fundamentalist thread which i really don't like to read (i don't call you fanboy because i'm also a fanboy but simply i don't think that worshipping the game and attacking every man which doesn't like some aspects of the game is right).As a fan of the game i can say you that i really like this game but gc2 has also some bad aspects.U should understand that people which sometimes complain, or criticize the game don't do it just to flame people or trolling on a forum, they simply explain their opinion to improve the game in some aspects which are not well implemented.Telling people "if u don't like it play another game, or you complain so make your own game" is not very democratic, u are simply saying that people can post on this forum only to worship the game without saying a word on things which they don't like.Instead of saying "Stardock i rate your game 100%, u have done the holy grail of computer gaming", i say "Stardock i rate your game 90% try to improve tech trading, colonization rush and your game is nearly perfect" doesn't imply that i'm an idiot or a troll.

By reading this, I can tell that you took my intentions all wrong. Ok, let me try to clear this up:

1) I do not worship any game, and I didn't even get close to attacking anyone who simply wanted to express their opinion. I DON'T attack people for expressing their opinion, and I had no hostile intentions in any of my posts. If you got the feeling that I don't like people expressing their opinions about games (whether I like them or not), then you are mistaken. That is their right, and I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with HOW they do it. If they want to express their opinions like honest, mature people that take responsibilty for everything they say and they want to HELP by expressing their opinion, then I'm all for it. But, if they 'express' themselves by ranting, raging, trolling, and/or complaining, then they might as well shut up until they can say something useful. You can very, very easily express your own opinion without complaining or being rude or insulting things. It's quite simple actually.

2) Every game has some aspects to it that are messed-up or otherwise just aren't right. I also know this and acknowledge it myself. I just like to say good things about stuff whenever I can, and there shouldn't be a problem with that. And I'm not talking about disguising the truth, so don't even think that. I'm just saying that, if you're going to say something about anything, it might as well be something nice, or useful, or helpful--not punishing, disrespectable, dishonoring, rude, or just plain mean and unhelpful.

3) I didn't notice that we suddenly got transported to the U.N. Huh, that's odd. Maybe I should look outside again. What's with this diplomatic stuff? I AM NOT A DIPLOMAT, NOR AM I A SENATOR, NOR AM I A REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. So I'm NOT going to be all diplomatic about things and try to 'dampen' the reality of whining and complaining or anything else. It's as simple as black and white--whining, complaining, unconstructive-criticizim, none of those things can help out ANYONE. And anyone else that says so is either making up an excuse for themselves and/or others, or just trying to get away from the fact that they are indeed whining, complaining, and that they don't care who it hurts or if it helps anyone.

4) I never, not once on this forum, implied to anyone that, you, or anyone else was trolling or an idiot. I never said any such thing. So please, don't think that I mean that because you missed the point completely if you do. I don't think anyone in this forum is an idiot UNLESS they truely are acting like one. But you, and the person that started this thread, and everyone else that has posted, are not idiots, and I want to make CERTAIN that you know that that is not what I was/am implying by any of this.

And last but most definetly not least, DO NOT put words in my mouth. I NEVER 'simply said' that people can only post on this forum to worship this game. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I said, I hate it when people COMPLIAN, GRIPE, and BRING-DOWN the game and anyone who helped make it simply because they don't like a few things in the game or they just don't like the game, period. And, I NEVER said that people can't post their issues or dislikes about this game. I never said anything even close to that. I have NO PROBLEM with people posting bugs, issues, and/or dislikes with this game--no problem at all. It's just the WAY that they do it that I have a problem with, like I clearly stated earlier in this thread. If you have a problem with the game (or any other game for that matter), you can post your problem or issues with it without complaining, whining, and bringing down the game and devs. It's a little something called "constructive-criticizm", just in case you've never heard of it.

Ok, there. Happy? If my intentions aren't clear by now, then I don't see any way in the world that I can clear it up more than that. And also, I never stated (and I don't think it either) that the people on this thread WERE even complaing or bringing down the game, did I? Nope, never did, not even once. That's because nobody has. I'm just saying that I really do wish people wouldn't resort to complaining, whining, and basically just acting like an ass-hole just because they don't like a game. That's it, simple as that.

Thank you all for your patience and time, and I really do wish that this issue can be cleared up (and put to rest) by this post. You guys are great.

I agree that building and moving all the constructors is a real pain. I like the idea of stations upgrading themselves but there has to be a price. Maybe make it that to upgrade cost you credits, but make it so the station has to build the upgrade, instant upgrade would be bad.

I really like this idea. I also tire of moving contrstuctors around most of the game while building my fleet takes a backseat. Let me use constructors to place the bases and then they can upgrade themselves. That would free up your starports for making fleets. Also an option to install repair modules since they take forever to heal.

I agree that building and moving all the constructors is a real pain. I like the idea of stations upgrading themselves but there has to be a price. Maybe make it that to upgrade cost you credits, but make it so the station has to build the upgrade, instant upgrade would be bad.

I really like this idea. I also tire of moving contrstuctors around most of the game while building my fleet takes a backseat. Let me use constructors to place the bases and then they can upgrade themselves. That would free up your starports for making fleets. Also an option to install repair modules since they take forever to heal.

I really like this idea. I also tire of moving contrstuctors around most of the game while building my fleet takes a backseat. Let me use constructors to place the bases and then they can upgrade themselves. That would free up your starports for making fleets. Also an option to install repair modules since they take forever to heal.

I agree with you on that one too, and the idea is a good one. I always had like, 20 constructors on the map at once in the first game, but my production was so high at that point that it only took like, 3 turns on some planets to build one. Also, I made good use of rally points to cut back majorly on micro-managing every constructor built, so I guess it really wasn't so bad. But still, good idea.

I agree that building and moving all the constructors is a real pain. I like the idea of stations upgrading themselves but there has to be a price. Maybe make it that to upgrade cost you credits, but make it so the station has to build the upgrade, instant upgrade would be bad. I really like this idea. I also tire of moving contrstuctors around most of the game while building my fleet takes a backseat. Let me use constructors to place the bases and then they can upgrade themselves. That would free up your starports for making fleets. Also an option to install repair modules since they take forever to heal.

The problem I see with that is it takes a way a game play/strategy element in hunting/down blocking the other guys' Constructors.

I like the present system. It is easy to direct Constructors with Rally Points. The movement of the Constuctors represents the flow of materials to the site. In a war zone, those materials may not get through.

Tony

The problem I see with that is it takes a way a game play/strategy element in hunting/down blocking the other guys' Constructors. I like the present system. It is easy to direct Constructors with Rally Points. The movement of the Constuctors represents the flow of materials to the site. In a war zone, those materials may not get through. Tony

True, very true. Your philosphy on this does make perfect sense though. For example:

If there was a platoon of troops 5,000 miles away from the nearest place to get supplies, then something, whether it be land, sea, or air based, would have to get those supplies to them. They couldn't just pop up out of nowhere for that platoon, and thereby eliminating the middle man (in this case, whatever was carrying the supplies) because that's just not possible. And, it does just make more sense (and plays strategicly better) to have to use something to get the supplies from point A to point B instead of them just popping into existance.

So, it does seem much better to just leave it the way it is. Also, speaking from past experience with the first game, it wasn't really THAT hard to manage a giant fleet of constructors because all you needed them to do was upgrade starbases, and that's it. They're not like fleets of capital ships or frigates that need constant orders and rerouted flight-paths across the map. Constructors just have essentially one starting point, and one destination. I think that works pretty well, at least for me.

PS: This isn't to say that the idea of starbases upgrading themselves isn't a good idea-- it is interesting, and could maybe be useful in some way. It just seems to work better and be more realistic (don't get after me for that because just because it's a game doesn't mean that it can't be realistic or have realistic elements to it) the way it is, and I don't see a need to change it (at least an imminent change).

The problem I see with that is it takes a way a game play/strategy element in hunting/down blocking the other guys' Constructors. I like the present system. It is easy to direct Constructors with Rally Points. The movement of the Constuctors represents the flow of materials to the site. In a war zone, those materials may not get through. Tony

Hmm I assume you mean that you surround the other civs space station to prevent constructors from docking. I had not thought of that strategy (got used to civ4, opposing units can occupy the same tile) so yes having stations upgrade themselves would ruin that option. As far as hunting construtors, that would mean you are at war, personally as sooon as war is declared the space stations are my first targets so those construtors have nowhere to go

The problem I see with that is it takes a way a game play/strategy element in hunting/down blocking the other guys' Constructors.

Yeah, you have a point there. If you can't destroy the constructors to the base then you have no way of stopping the building of an uber star base. I agree with this... so let's rethink it.

How about if you can select constructor routes? It would take one constructor to build the base and then an automatic route would be set up from the planet that made the constructor to the base. If you didn't like this route then you can remove it just like trade routes and set up a different one simply by moving a new constructor from another planet to the star base. This would set up your new route and as long as constructors are getting to it then you can make upgrades. Upgrades would take a number of turns to complete equal to the number of turns it would take a constructor to move from your planet to your star base in the old system.

These would be like trade routes and you'd see little constructors going along the routes to the bases. By destroying these constructors on the route you'd stop the flow of materials and eliminate the ability for that star base to upgrade. This is the best of both worlds I figure. What do you think?


One thing, among many, this game has done really well is trade. I like the trade paths (though I would like if they were brighter or highlighted to make for easy viewing if you pick a darker race color). I like how you can see your little transports on the routes and as the enemy have a chance to destroy them to stop trade. So why not take this good idea and expand it to constructors too?



I think it would benefit the game to introduce supply routes in addition to trade routes. Supply routes would balance the beginning colonization fest. The reasoning is that in order to maintain the new colony as it's being born is to keep it supplied. If the enemy can invade or attack the supply routes then it would be more difficult to hold on to these colonies in the beginning. This is a good thing, as whoever expands faster would not necessarily have the advantage, he would have to work to hold on to these colonies. In addition, you wouldn't have to worry so much about an enemy getting a huge advantage because he would have to deal with the efforts of the other AI's to stop his flow of goods. This along with the immediate option to invade would help tremendously in balancing the opening game.


So you have two types of routes and the supply routes could be used for both starbases and planets.


If you have two routes you would need better options for attack ships. For example one new option could be patrol enemy trade or supply route. You would set the ship to patrol and it would go along the route along the points you specify looking for kills. If an enemy ship attacked it, it would defend itself, but would only initiate attacks on supply ships along the routes. That way you could set it and concentrate on more important matters, less micromanagement. However, if you like to micromanage it, you can always do it yourself and not set it to patrol.



You might get the impression from the majority of my posts that I don't like the game but I really do love this game for what it is trying to do and what it does well. If I didn't like it I wouldn't bother making these posts to try and make it even better. So great job on this game Star Dock.

this thread is a novel in the making, word count into the thousands!

I agree that having to make 20 or more constructors per starbase is too much.

And I also think everyone flaming him for having an opinion should go outside more, and maybe try to get a girlfriend.

I agree that having to make 20 or more constructors per starbase is too much.

Pass a law that limits them to 2, 4 or 8 modules then

I don't see the problem. Yeah, it's too much, but after about 6-10, for most starbases, I start running out of modules that are worth adding.

Simple solution: Make constructors add 3 or 5 modules at once, but cost 3-5x more.

I agree that having to make 20 or more constructors per starbase is too much. And I also think everyone flaming him for having an opinion should go outside more, and maybe try to get a girlfriend.

Only one person made even a mildly derogatory statement, hardly flaming him for an opinion. In fact, your comment is undoubtedly the rudest on this thread.

I'm assuming it's because no one agreed with your idea in your thread.... actually you got really aggro there too - why not take your own advice?

Well As I was playing the game and thinking about this subject, I discoverd a huge exploit with the way things currently are set up. Instant fully upgraded space stations in one turn. I was going to war with the drengin and they had a couple resourses I wanted, so I thought I will take a constructor with me so when I destroy their station I can build my own right away. Hmm ... why dont I take 10 constructors with me so I can build a station and fully arm it. For that matter why dont I take 10 constructors build a fully armed military station right ontop of there system so I can get all the bonuses for my ships. This IMO is a huge exploit, space station spamming, for this reason alone upgrading space stations with constructors has got to go. As it is single player game you are really only cheating yourself, but if multiplayer ever gets implemented this would kill the game.