Yep. You can't edit reply #1.

But you can edit the 2nd response. Very strange.

So you can *always* edit the OP, can *never* edit reply #1 and have a limited window to edit any other reply.

Of course this assumes your in a forum that allows the editing of replies, there are definitely some that don't.

Then as was outlined in post one, you lost 30% of your economy and 15% of your moral. Its a Strategy game not a shoot-em-up, it will nail you each time you fail to do the basics. Its a well balanced game, so the likely hood is you will still "win", but it will take you a hell of a lot longer, and be stuck at a lower difficulty level.

Your population bonus from approval comes in two steps, first at 75% (25 % population growth increase), and the second at 100% approval (100% population growth increase). If you keep it at 90% approval, you kill any benefits, keep the approval just above 75% to get the population growth, or at 100%. By mid game you should be hitting 100% approval without effort, if your not, you havent got the morale/happiness side of the equation nailed, the population is less happy, you get less productivity and cash. By reducing from 90% to 76% you'll get the same growth bonus, but you'll also get extra tax revenue.

They may be under your control, thats the easy part of the game, that will be achieved by most at some point, its just time. As in real life, if a gun is pointed at your head, you'll work less diligently and flexibly, than if you are happy bunny. The extra funds generated will enable you to survive at higher game levels. Use the same tactics as you do now on a suicidal game and see the result.


Change mindset if you want to move up the game levels, its not a shoot-em-up.

Regards
Zy

Yup. Try looking at it this way - you cant do anything unless you pay for it, rather like the classic parental nagging re having the dosh to pay for it first. This game lets you have "stuff" if you have the dosh to pay for it. At present your getting there in the end during the game, and the bad guys wither away. That is always going to happen eventually, they wouldnt sell many games if the player always "lost".

The Political / Morale side of life will generate additional funds and / or better diplo relations. The latter means they are more "friendly" and attack you personally less - that gives you more space to build up and do your thing, end result you win quicker.

Now move up a level, the AI is "richer" as they are limited by the economics they can use, they get access to more cash as you go up the levels. If you dont perfect the morale/political side of the equation, they will outspend you, or at the very least spend more than the past, and it takes you longer to overcome them. By the time you hit the top two levels, you'll flat out get slaughtered if you dont generate the extra dosh so you can buy extra "stuff" over the same time frame. You will not generate the extra dosh unless you nail the "yellow" techs etc.


If you have folowed the Civ series from CivI right through to CivIV, you will have noted an ever increasing political & religious aspect. CivI was almost all "fps" like, albeit with a Strategy angle - as the series progressed more and more was built in to give Strategic choice, you could still win ignoring the new "stuff", but not at the top levels. In Civ IV, you can still "win" without those up to (say) Emperor level, but its a real drama trying to win at Immortal or Deity level without having founded at least one religion, preferably two, because you dont get the additional cash for each state religious building. Use the same mindset with GalCiv, except the "soft" bits are the yellow Techs, not Religious holdings.


Definitely, and its initially a hard mindset change if an individual has been FPS orientated - as such - in past game titles. Once you go through the "oppps" learning curve and the AI has run you over a couple of times, its just the same as FPS, you get used to what helps you and what doesnt. But without that change, the top two levels in GalCiv will be a nightmare, if not impossible.

At the end of the day your only playing against yourself (as such) so it doesnt really matter, just depends if you want to move onto the higher levels and still enjoy it - the latter will not happen without the yellow techs.

Regards
Zy

I'll add to it - dont ask questions then totally change the original post like you just did adding:

""

Its not "necessary" at the level your playing if your only objective is domination. That will happen at every level except the top two without the yellow techs, its only a question of time. If you want to dominate the top two levels, you will need the yellow techs to do it. If you dont want to move to those levels, and not everybody does, then its a non issue, stay as you are.

Regards
Zy

Well put, a good summary - I agree totally

Regards
Zy

Anyway though, next time I won't answer when it's 6 am and I haven;'t had coffee   

After reading over the posts again, I stand by my original words.

I asked about political changes. Not knowing how I actually play, some idiot comes and tells me I have an fps mindset. Not being helpful in the least with my real question, just judging the way I play.

Oh but I agree. I have an fps mindset. Here's a glaring example of it:



Oh yeah, with all my strategy, sim, rpg, and rts games, that 'fps mindset really gets used alot (With what, alpha prime and Unreal???), doesn't it?





This was insulting. Whoever thought he answered well needs to figure out how to answer themselves.

This was a random judgement, and it wasn't even what I was asking.

Well whatever, but if you ask me, considering your randomly judging people, maybe you have the fps mindset?

Honestly, screw you and your fps mindset. I want a multiplayer galciv2 game now. We can play together, with the rest of the loud-mouthed people who answered the topic.

Just think I have a fps mindset, and I can use that a poker face while I win with technology victory.

And one last thing. Pick your words carfully when you respond next. You said I was trying to dominate and kill off the galaxy, and I showed a close at hand tech victory.

No problem. Certainly I believe that everyone should play the way that gives them the most enjoyment. No one has a right to say the way you play is wrong and the way they play is right, but I am suggesting that gradually expanding your methods of play will in the long run make the game both more fun for you and result in you becoming a better player.

When I started out I always turned off tech trading because I wasn't very good at it and I felt that the AI was taking advantage of me in both the trades made with me as well as the trades they made between themselves behind my back. I had to force myself to play with tech trading enabled and gradually got the knack of doing it and found that some basic research in the diplomacy techs payed very high dividends.

Now I can play very effectively with tech trading on or off and this makes me a better player. No matter how effective your strategy is you will sooner or later encounter situations where it won't work. If you have multiple ways to play and win you have many other options you can try when for some reason or other your favorite doesn't happen to work. This can only help you find even more ways to play and enjoy the game since you can allow the game itself to dictate the style you play and so you play a different game each times greatly extending the playability of the game.

If you simply play the same style over and over you're obviously going to become bored with the game far sooner.

Absolutely. GW

Maybe change communism to monarchy in my other post. Or just make it anarchy.

This is partially true but by no means totally true.

By a "better player" I mean one that can win under a wider variety of conditions and against a wider range of misfortunes that can radomly occur to you within any particular game.

If score is how you measure yourself then fine, if not then still fine. I really look towards what we do in the metaverse league (MVL) as what tends to develop a "better player".

Basically in the MVL we play a monthly game where the galaxy size and all the planet and anomaly abundancies are randomly selected. Also any other settings such as tech trading, etc along with the specific victory condition to be achieved are randomly specified as well. You'd be very surprised at how a strategy that works quite well for one victory condition under one set of settings can work very poorly under a different set of conditions.

We all tend to get into a groove of playing a style and game that we're comfortable with and based on that begin to think that we're pretty good at this game. However try that same thing with someone else's game settings and you may find your strategy du jour will fail miserably.

That's what I mean by a better player. Bum Phillips once said that a good football coach is one that can take his players and beat your players and then take your player and beat his players. Once you can beat everyone at their own game, only then can you claim to be a good player.

So something like a star federation can add 10/20/30% economy?

Thank you. Someone finally answered my question.

I'll change to a star federation next game.

Lol, sorry, I answered that post early in the morning and skimmed over what you said, then I spent the rest of the topic fighting over fps mindsets.

I screwed this up as good as pyro trying to take down 5 sentries in Team Fortress 2.

There ya go. FPS mindset   

You answered me. You did it first. I'm sorry I missed it

Also, I kinda said thank you as a way to end the topic. I kinda want this topic to end.

I could never imagine why................................