spheresus spheresus

What abilities you can't do with out

▼

What abilities you can't do with out

from GalCiv2 Forums
When I play an open sand box game I use a custom race I created, I simply call Android. At first I gave them the Super Trader ability and it was a blessing. Early and mid games and most often till end games in smaller map sizes my trade income was the largest income. The Super Trader really helps with giving you lots of money very early in the game. I would find that most of my game if it wasn't for the income coming from trade I would be in the red.

Then I read in these forums on how trading is less and less important in later stages of a game. So I learned to play with out it and doing quite well. I beef up my economy and learn to specialize economy planets to generate cash for me. With that now I use the Super Diplomat skill. It is so helpful negotiating especially when it comes to trading and purchasing technologies. I like to play on the harder difficulties like masochist and obscene and I think it's impossible to match my AI opponents technology gains so I need to use my large cash reserves to buy technologies. Minor races play an important role here as they usually are the best partners to trade tech with. I think I can safely say I am hooked with the Super Diplomat skill.

For my other races bonuses I use the Speed +2, Manufacturing bonus of +50 with some other little bonuses here and there. I can't seem to do with out those two important bonuses. The Speed +2 I find to be so crucial as first it gives you and advantage for the initial colony and resources rush, even on the higher difficulty levels I manage to grab more planets then my opponents thanks to Speed +2. I also see Speed +2 as default engines on my ships, but engines that don't take up space or cost money to include. Not only can I build warships that are innately faster then my opponents I will have more room for weapons and armor and save on building costs, so it's win win all around. Only gripe I have is that Speed +2 is 8 points which takes a little over half my bonus points.. I guess with such a powerful bonus any thing less and it would be broken.

The Manufacturing bonus is a new bonus I can't live with out. This bonus helps with the initial rush for colony and construction ships but that's not all. In mid and late game this bonus helps so much. I can pump out Warships faster then ever and I can't say how nice it is to be pumping out Construction ships like they where candy. I find it easy to use construction ships to build bases and improve existing bases, they flow like water. Speed +2 and Manufacturing +50 are bonuses I don't see myself giving up any time soon.

What about the rest of you, what are your skills and bonuses you come to love and rely on? I would like to especially hear about people who don't used the Speed +2 or Manufacturing +50 but can still beat this game on masochist and beyond.
22,172 views 42 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I can ignore the Iconians as a threat in almost every game, because they suck.


I tend to ignore the Iconians just so they can colonize all the extreme worlds, and then I can invade them.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Heheh. Which is as cheesy as it gets - because the game allows it, not because you're using it, mind you.

It is child's play to win with the Korath.


Because they're not balanced. Not the stats, not the SA.

The difficulty setting does effect me with the weaker races.


So the Korath need to be toned down, which is not news. But it hasn't been news since release really.

But this is still variety, which is arguably fun.


A weak AI? The bad kind of variety, sure.

But starting locations add variety as well.


That's where variety should be, not in unbalances.

If the races were all perfectly balanced, the one with the most worlds would always win.


Depends. If the race has more planets because it played better, then it's perfectly logical. If it just got lucky with the initial setup but it sucks, then eventually the other races (there are other races) will get smart and go for its throat. It's then a matter of *strategy*. If you're a better strategist you can actually win even with less planets. I don't see why you would need unbalanced races for that. They can have more planet, but can they hold them?
Each race has its own approach to the game, so you can play with each and have variety in gameplay experience. But if they are not balanced, that variety is non-sense. It's the first time I hear this argument, that unbalanced races increase variety...
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
One could always make the argument that a 'balanced' game could be tested by making a perfectly symmetric map that has a spot for every AI faction, every minor AI, a buffer of uncolonized worlds between them, and no points to spend on racial customization between them. Don't get a player involved, just have the AI automate and play against itself to see what happens.

Of course, this would be a boring thing to observe, but it would be helpful not only in determining overall race balance but also how the AI routines approach each race and their abilities. If it fails to take advantage of trade routes effectively, for instance, it would be losing the point of the Korx. If it doesn't negotiate with its neighbors to stab its enemies in the back with other empires' fleets, it wouldn't be a good Drath.

It's in this way that one could feasibly take a look at the circumstances of the game, by reviewing these automated 'world logs' one by one and get the total reports of just what happens in all cases to make a judgement on whether everyone is balanced or not.

Given that this is a thematic scenario, however, where some races are obviously supposed to overwhelm and overbear their opponents given the storyline, this is probably not going to be 'balanced' -- the 'advantage' of the smaller civilizations would be the more ready willingness to put aside their differences and ally against the rapidly growing menace of the Korath. This is, after all, how the story perceives the main action to be.

If worse comes to worse, no one's twisting your arm behind your back forcing you to play using the Iconians in your game at all. Take the same portrait, the same flag, and just specify them as a custom race that you feel fits their appearance.

When's all said and done, however, I do have to agree that some of the point costs are a little...strange. Luck seems too cheap, for instance; if it still works like the Wiki reads, it should cost a little bit more, especially if you take that and the Universalists to have your weapon rolls always land between 50% and 100% of maximum damage...
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If worse comes to worse, no one's twisting your arm behind your back forcing you to play using the Iconians


Oh, exactly. I play with them to increase the difficulty. I almost never play with them though, because I'm not good enough to win at that higher difficulty. Feel free to play or not with them. But when you do, you are basically playing a harder game.

There are obviously differing opinions about whether the different races being balanced is a good or a bad thing. Bottom line, they are the weakest race in the game currently.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Personally, I find the default set of Races to be fine.

I like the fact that some aI are weaker than others. It gives the feel of playing against different human opponents. In a multiplayer situation, you do play against opponents of differing skill levels - the default race setup is a fair simulation of this.

If one wants to try and play against more balanced opponents, the ability to make your own custom races to play against or to modify the default race abilities is in DA. Hence the subject of the OP.

The only ability I find I hate to play without on the higher levels is the Speed bonus. I also tend to pick the extra points for ablities that you can't generally raise in the game itself, or through the choice of Political Party.

I almost never pick any of the production bonuses, lately I've been experimenting with the Creativity Bonus, and have found that I often get techs a few turns early.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
BTW, I'm not sure if all the sector vs parsec issue is being dealt with correctly in the game. 1 sct = 15 pc, not 10.


Checked, and Range is NOT working correctly.
The Life Support modules in the ShipYard have their Range displayed as 0.4/0.5/0.7/0.8/0.9 pc. First, it's not pc, it's sct (QA issue really, but one that leads to confusion). Second, it SHOULD be pc, and the corresponding values converted to such - to avoid even more confusion, and so that the values are more correctly displayed (some of those values are rounded, they don't need to be if shown as pc).
The Range of ships is being calculated incorrectly: seems the hull's base Range (0.4 sct, not 0.4 pc) is being added to the Life Support modules' Range bonus, in pc. For example, the colony ship, 3x Basic Support = Range +18 (pc), but each is rated as 0.4 (sct) for a total of 1.2 sct. Now, adding 1.2 to the hull's base 0.4, it's clearly not the ship's 2.2 sct that is displayed. But if the pc to sct conversion is being made as 10pc to a sct, then Range +18 converts to 1.8 sct, whcih added to the base 0.4 equals 2.2. It's wrong, should be checked. The Range circle in the minimap and starmap is also not displayed correctly, not only because Ranges are being incorrectly calculated, but because they're also not centered in planets and bases as they should. It's easy to check this too.

There's a lot of pc vs sct QA related issues in the whole game. In the Customize Civilization screen, in the Civilization Manager screen, in the Ship Details screen, in the ShipYard (base hull Range is displayed as 0.2 always, should be 0.4 without mini). Someone should take a look at that.
Also, in the Ship Intelligence Report, the Range calculation is wrong. Somehow, the value is affected by a 0.9 factor, don't really know where it comes from.
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dear ToS Iceman

Checked, and Range is NOT working correctly.

I agree, but to be honest, they probably haven't got a round TUIT. Besides there are more serious problems they need to deal with first.
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Dear Oldstatesman,

Personally, I find the default set of Races to be fine.

I am certainly glad that you feel this way. Many players are upset about the DA problems with trade and SBs that negate the supertrader ability and the trade tech tree in general. You probably don't focus on that aspect very much I'd guess.
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hi!
Checked, and Range is NOT working correctly.

Did you include the galaxy size modifier into your checking? There's a huge difference between same-design ship ranges in tiny and gigantic galaxy... And don't foreget the 7 sectors range cap...

There's a lot of pc vs sct QA related issues in the whole game

Not only for pc vs sct, also for many other things. But developers correct them with the time, if we point on them enough times saying "This is too confusing." Unfortunately a rather slow process with so small team...

BR, Iztok
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree, but to be honest, they probably haven't got a round TUIT. Besides there are more serious problems they need to deal with first.


At this rate, they'll never fix anything... they can't fix the serious problems, and the "not so serious" get postponed indefinitely.

I am certainly glad that you feel this way.


Well, it's because of opinions like his that this game will never be fixed.

Did you include the galaxy size modifier into your checking? There's a huge difference between same-design ship ranges in tiny and gigantic galaxy


It was a medium galaxy, if you need to know, but I'm not comparing galaxy sizes. The thing is, the Range calculation (as per the values given above) and the displayed Range value don't match. Period. I'm assuming that the galaxy size mod kicks in when you start the game, so that all the values I'm seeing are relative to the current galaxy size. Granted, the way this game works, maybe I'm assuming too much, but if that's the case, then all the data being displayed is pretty much worthless... and displaying wrong data a very bad thing.
Also, the actual range displayed in the minimap being wrong, that's not related to size. It more or less matches the Range value, but it just doesn't originate from where it should. Simple test, start a new game, click on the flagship, and with the parsec grid on see if the range line matches the range value for the ship, FROM the parsec your homeworld is IN.

And don't foreget the 7 sectors range cap...


If you read my post, you must have noticed that I didn't even get to those values.

Not only for pc vs sct, also for many other things.


Yep, QA is horrible. I wonder if there is QA at all. For example, howcome the descriptions for The Basic Factory, Basic Lab and Xeno Lab still have the old values?!

Unfortunately a rather slow process with so small team...


Well, there's a bunch of stuff that's pretty easy to fix, some of it is just editing xml files. One person, a few minutes. Some of this stuff is so obvious that you can't miss it. They have testers, don't they? Credits say they do. Or is that a "family and friends" list? I'd like to think they love their game enough to make it as clean as possible.
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ToS Iceman

"Well, it's because of opinions like his that this game will never be fixed."

Have you ever had trouble installing or running your GalCiv game? Does your game lock up or crash on you unexpectedly? I suspect from your posts that the answer would be no. They have a small team that focuses on these problems first. How do I know this? Not because I am involved in their business I assure you, but rather because I too have had such problems and I must say their speedy and prompt response certainly is appreciated by me. If other people like the game the way it is, why complain about that? They don't decide how Stardock is run. I was once such a person. Now I've come to realize many aspects of the game are simply being neglected. If new players are discouraged from playing or purchasing the game the result may very well be the death of GalCiv and its cadre of supporters.

The morale of the story is be careful what you wish for ... you just might get it (in the worst way possible)!
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
They have a small team that focuses on these problems first.


The theory is nice. But like I said above, concentrating *only* on these problems postpones other problems, and since fixes more often than not either don't fix or create other problems... that's a problem. Like I also said, all it takes is one person, and little time.

If other people like the game the way it is, why complain about that?


Because some other people don't? Because arguments like these (not yours)

If one wants to try and play against more balanced opponents, the ability to make your own custom races to play against or to modify the default race abilities is in DA. Hence the subject of the OP.


are as shallow as arguments can be? The exact opposite can be said, you can mod races to be unbalanced, duh! And the subject of the OP indicates precisely that abilities aren't balanced, and some are more useful than others.

Now I've come to realize many aspects of the game are simply being neglected.


Oh, I understand that very well. But that doesn't mean I can't criticize everything that I find to be clearly unbalanced. That it is a lot of stuff, well, whose fault is that? And again, if simple fixes continue to get postponed forever, it doesn't help. And it creates a credibility problem.
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
when possible throw the luck ability in as well.


Ok, a suggestion. Get rid of Luck. What it does in combat (increase min roll), have Attack and Defense do it. Makes more sense. Some changes will probably be needed of course, like capping them at 100% (or not, from that point on hye can increase attack/defense as normal by increasing max value correspondingly). Attack and defense values will be lowered, but average rolls will be higher. Starbases will be affected, but they need a change in the way they implement weapons anyway. The other suposed effect of Luck (bad events), well...

And a question. If you lose an election, you get the party's bonuses as negatives. What happens with Espionage and Luck for example? Doesn't make sense having those as negative. Not really sure of the impact on other abilities, like Influence, Pop Growth, Sensors, etc.

And another thought on SAs and ability points. Why not link them, as part of the balancing act? Say Super Annihilator is tied to 5 pts, and Super Spy to 10 pts, or something. This would help some with keeping custom races in balance - or maybe in this case each SA having a number of pts that are subtracted from the initial pts.
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Too many points to really address but I have made the strongest sets of custom races I can think of and on a gig map on painful I set it to random opponents. I try to make a new custom race every game and end up playing against the races I dominated with the games before. It has been very interesting and challenging to do. I agree about the Ico's they are the weakest link but with 9 opponents they can still be a challenge when declaring war when you are fighting two other civs. I also agree about the korath but then I know that if they are on my map I need them to die first. Between these two extremes on a gig map with 9 opponents they balance each other very nicely. I have one I can let grow and one I must stifle or destroy as soon as I can. Playing as either of those races is not really fun for me but playing custom against as many as I can at the same time is definantly strategic. As far as bug fixes vs "balance" issues go if this was multiplayer I might care about balance but since its not and because of my playstyle I would rather see bug fixes all over and MORE MORE MORE of anything else at all. Leave the races alone and let me play with 10 instead of 9 gimme more to choose from more super abilities more racials even if they seem stupid and DELETE THE WIKI!!!! The less I really know about the abilities I can choose the more I have to actually play and discover them.
Reply #40 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
There are a few abilities I really really like.

I think my favorites are economy, population growth, diplomacy and morale, in that order.







Reply #41 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I usually take

Economy +30% and Federalists for Economy +50% overall
Defenses + 30%
Weapons + 20%
Morale + 15%
HP + 30%
Research + 10% (Although I'm thinking of investing these two points elsewhere)

And the Super Isolationist ability to keep the AI out of my territory or at least slow them down during a war/colony rush, but then again I base where I spend my points on the personality of the race I'm playing, not what I think is always the most effective.

Those weapons and defense bonuses really get insane on endgame ships too, especially with military resources.
Reply #42 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I can ignore the Iconians as a threat in almost every game, because they suck.


I tend to ignore the Iconians just so they can colonize all the extreme worlds, and then I can invade them.



i consider myself quite apt at playing strategy games, i have played most of them so when i play a new one it generally doesnt take me much time to figure out what to do and how to proceed

In my first game, the iconians grew more, produced more, had more population, ships etc than the rest of the galaxy combined. They had about 60% of all categories and they had expanded so fast that the other 8 races (except me) all had under 10 planets, (biggest size galaxy, abundant useable planets, lots of stars etc)
I just gave up trying to finish the game in the end because they had such obscene amounts of population that even though my military crushed them without losses i simply couldnt conquer all their planets. (well i COULD, but it would have taken ~15 years)