If I See Another Post Asking for MP, Tactical Combat, or Carriers, I WILL SCREAM!!!

ummmm.... Looks like you screamed to me.

i say go ahead and scream couse someone will post it

I would love to be able to use carriers in a online tactical combat mode.

Try not to wake your neighbors!

What a silly thing to do.

And what a silly thread this is.


I wonder in what silly direction it will meander.

Even Julius Caesar knew how to cave to the rancid masses.

Carriers... I'm with you.

Tactical... I'm with you.

MP... We're close to the absence of this feature being inexcusable.

Perhaps the real problem is that the only thing you can do is build ships to conquer planets and the whole thing is overly abstract with not much else in between.

Stardock says the starbases aren't meant to be fortresses but we're not allowed to garrison a fleet to defend them and the offensive/defensive additions to bases are woefully inadequate.

If there are really Pirates in the game, let them try to steal some ships. Let players try to steal ships as well.

The game needs to be marinated a little more.

Carriers... I'm with you.

Before we even think about adding carriers, we need to rebalance fighters vs. capital ships. I prefer the system in SE where the odds of hitting a fighter are less than hitting a dreadnought but the dreadnought can target multiple fighters. Also, in SE the value of attack/defense is fixed, whether the target is hit is the random element. This system is more like real-life fighter vs. naval ship battles.

Tactical... I'm with you.

In most games the AI is poor at tactical combat. If the AI is poor at TC then the human player gets an advantage by taking control; if the AI is as good as a human (unlikely) then what is the point of taking control, just click AUTO. By leaving TC out of the game it makes things more balanced between the human and AI player and eliminates a source of micro-management!

Stardock says the starbases aren't meant to be fortresses but we're not allowed to garrison a fleet to defend them and the offensive/defensive additions to bases are woefully inadequate.

While I agree that in the later game starbases are no match for fleets with advanced weapons there is nothing stopping you from parking a fleet by each one to protect them. Of course this ties up a lot of ships but by late game I have hundreds of them!

p.s. Has bug #12180, Starbases Don't Receive Attack Bonus (reported by me in v1.2) fixed in v1.4X?
My starbases benefit from my defense and hit points bonuses but not my
attack bonus.
For example,
My shield/armor defenses increases from 16 to 44 and my hit points
increase from 30 to 45 but my weapons remain 1,31,1 (Battle Stations
All +1 and 30 missile attack).

This thread is usless, there hasn't been a carrier, mp, or tactical combat thread in a while.

Also though I think that this game DESPRATLEY needs at least tactical combat, I used to love this game, unfortunatly its gameplay is boring as a lecture.

i want my carriers!!! lol I had fun with cariers and missile fleets in moo3. Wish GC2 had a blend of moo3 space/ground combat with GC2s sweet ship creation. The gc2 ground combat is just too cheesy.

all of my ships in moo3 are carriers and missile ships


also i am going to start a new feed about fighters in gc2 although i know it won't fly with the dems but it should be fun

look for it called fighters

There just ideas they can't hurt you since democrocy came in.

Tacial combat, needed. Carriers, whould be interesting and Mp, hell no too comlicated.

Bring on the tac combat!

In most games the AI is poor at tactical combat

In your opinion. Many on this forum would disagree.

Besides, why would you limit your expectations of Stardocks implementation of tactical AI to what you have possibly experienced in the past? Can you truely name any other 4X space strategy games that surpass GalCiv2 in all around gameplay?

If and/or when Stardock chooses to include tac combat [GalCiv3?] I'm confident that it will challenge the vast majority of its players. Unfortunately, a few will probably remain unsatisfied. I guess they'll have to take up brain surgery or rocket science to fill their leisure time.  

Hi!

Has bug #12180, Starbases Don't Receive Attack Bonus (reported by me in v1.2) fixed in v1.4X?

This is by design, not bug.

BR, Iztok

i'd love to see carriers tho i aggree, balancing fighter vs capital is more important

Bring on the tac combat! In most games the AI is poor at tactical combat In your opinion. Many on this forum would disagree.

Which games out there have good tactical combat AI? I've never seen one!

Tactics, carriers... tactics, carriers... TACTICS, CARRIERS... now go scream  

Which games out there have good tactical combat AI? I've never seen one!

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident

Carriers would be cool, but tactical combat would only be cool for so long. I'd end up pressing the Auto button quite alot.

P.S. Carriers don't have weapons, they use all available space for life support (toilets and water purification in our case), supplies, lodging, and everything they could possibly need for the aircraft on-board.

P.S.S Whats MP?

P.S.S Whats MP?

Multiplayer.

P.S. Carriers don't have weapons,

????? I must have missed that one because I could've sworn that our modern day carriers carried some minor weapons for defensive capabilities and I am certain that I have seen "space fighter carriers" in the movies which had at least a few weapons mounted on them for safety reasons. But I could be wrong  

ok most space fighter carriers are hybreds part carrier part battleship

secound carriers have always had some sort of weapon on them for defence

and tell the pilot that just attacked a us carrier that the gat. that just shot him down is minor

i would use the name of the system but i don't remember it

Uhhh, not really pertinent at this time but... did he scream? I don't think I heard it.  

"Has bug #12180, Starbases Don't Receive Attack Bonus (reported by me in v1.2) fixed in v1.4X?" This is by design, not bug.

Iztok Bitenc, what is the source of your information? Why would the starbase receive the Defense and HP bonuses but not the Attack bonus?

Under the new combat rules in v1.2 (when first strike advantage was removed), if the last ship in both fleets are destroyed, the last attacker should survive with 1HP. In my only v1.2 game, I noticed that the last attacker survived with full HP! I would have heavily damaged solo ships attack solo planetary defenders with high attack; in the attack they destroyed each other but my attacker survive with full FP (in fact many times more than full FP because of bonuses from the gain in XP)! Has anyone else seen this and is it fixed in v1.4?

The game needs to be marinated a little more.

Ah, but the rub's what should they use for the marinade?

Seriously, though, we are supposed to carry on about carriers and MP in the official cage-thread(s?) for that natter. From what I can see elsewhere, Brad's very open to a tactical system of some sort for GCIII, whenever that happens, and the chance of DA getting multiple-ship targeting seems a fine compromise for the time being.

I like the idea of making the huge hulls larger with more HP and adding multi-targeting. Right now fleets of small ships with high attack can easily take down a dreadnought. I would also like the cost of defenses reduced. The increase in the cost of a huge hull is negligible compared to the cost of filling the extra space with expensive defenses!

Ah, but the rub's what should they use for the marinade?

Something to cover the long stretches of nothingness. Space pirates that can and will attempt to board frigates, missions to hunt down criminals, contract pirates to force opponents to expend their military, capturing/losing bases (instead of just destruction), more spice basically.

Space pirates that can and will attempt to board frigates, missions to hunt down criminals, contract pirates to force opponents to expend their military, capturing/losing bases (instead of just destruction), more spice basically.

I like the idea of expanding the role of the pirates.