My apologies for the length of this post.

Minimally quoting relevant portions because multiquoting is still FUBAR'd and I can't be bothered to go through and make it look pretty when my edit button doesn't work.  (Goes back to last post in thread even within 30 seconds, let alone 10 minutes.)  *sigh*

Anyway.

I've said this once or twice before on these forums, and I'll say it again-I personally actually thought the spy system in DA was an improvement from DL.  I won't say it couldn't have been done better, but I will say that I actually like it.  That said, I know lots of people have complained about it and if you've managed to find a way to make them happy, you've probably managed to find a way to make me happy as well.

I take it the random events galaxy setting is for normal, not mega?  Fine either way, as far as I'm concerned-just checking.

From a mechanics perspective, the espionage upgrade is mostly the only thing, so far, of significance here-which is not a bad thing-so I could live with that being the only thing that got backported to DA, although the planetary governors would make things late game much less time consuming.

I know TA is the "latest and greatest", and I like it, but I'm not in love with it like I am with DA.  I made a post on this subject a few days ago, and didn't really get much of a response-mostly people telling me to "play the races as the developers intended them to be played".

Admittedly, I felt roughly the same way when going from DL to DA, but the super abilities finally sold me on it-and, oddly enough, spies were a factor as well.  Initially I hated them, but it became one of the reasons I played DA over DL.

But my primary issue with TA is that there does not seem to be a sufficient benefit to choosing a tech tree OTHER than the Terran (if you're going custom-if not, then you find the closest mix of tech tree and SA that suits you).  In other words, it's too good.  To put it yet another way: It looks like essentially a copy and paste job from DA, except for the layout.  I can understand why it was done that way, both for flavor reasons and to help people adjust to TA, but it still feels to me that TA is substantially less balanced than DA is/was.

Of course, I could go mod the files, and since I have yet to even play an MV game, that appears to be a valid solution-but then I'm not playing the same game as everyone else; and I'd be tempted to "fix" some things while I was there-such as the omega research center (which leads one to believe it is civ-wide, yet it is planet only) and hyper computers (which is at the end of the missile defense tree, well beyond what any rational person would "pay" for 20% more research), for instance.

-

In closing, I know your time on GC2 is devoted almost entirely to TA, and I understand the how and why of giving TA new things that DL and DA don't get, but it saddens me nevertheless.

Incidentally, could someone check to see that the fix for the social and military rounding bug that was in TA (I don't remember exactly when-I could look it up but you guys would probably find it first) makes it into DL and DA?  Because having 39 industry when you should have 40 is annoying (not actual values, just an example)-waiting an extra turn for a ship because you're 1 military shy when the math says you're on the money is painful.  I believe this was intended to be backported for 2.0, but I'm not 100% positive.

And because I'll probably be playing DA until GC3 launches.

ah, got you, and point taken about keys vs. buttons. i do notice how the mouse wheel isn't very well implemented across the game's various lists. and for that matter it doesn't even work consistently on the lists for which it does work. the list of available planet improvements, for example: sometimes the mouse wheel works fine, other times the program doesn't realize you're trying to scroll down the list despite the cursor hovering over that list.

I would love to see starbases being included in fleets. They should also be able to support fleet modules - it's a starbase, size really isn't a problem, right?

I'd veto the improved defenses, though - especially if we can fleet ships with them. Starbases should be able to protect themselves to a degree, but shouldn't be totally invincible. Case in point, in my last game I had a mining base in Terran space that had more kills than the rest of my fleet, because the ENTIRE TERRAN NAVY killed themselves on it. Thalan hyperion bases are pretty sweet, and are nearly unbeatable at low to mid level tech.

awesome...

One thing, is there a "do not build" option for specific starbase modules? It is better to have constructors sitting idle (and usueable for other projects) then building defense modules on a base deep in your empire. Or building the absolutely worthless sensor upgrades (speaking of which, those should really be improved...)

I agree setting the miniaturization value is key to determining when in a game (or if ever) a given ship module will become available.  Currently, when I design a ship in the game it always uses the current value.  If my miniaturization value is high then it prevents me from designing a simple ship that can be used early in a future game.  Being able to set the miniaturization value lower in the in game ship designer would be hopefull as well.

Way back I reported as a bug that starbases benefit from your hitpoint bonus but not your attack and defense bonuses.  The reply back from Stardock was this was by design; otherwise, starbases would become too powerfull.  I total disagree!  I agree with DivineWrath that currently by mid-game the only way to defend starbases is with ships.

Surely someone's already answered this argument with, "Well, make the computer players smart enough not to pour fleets down a hole like that."

Does this mean beta 1 of 2.0 is delayed until Friday, or after Friday?

       Anyway, the 1.99 autmatic starbase upgrader is a welcome addition to a great game.   Tanking with a starbase or resource base is a great option when faced with a multiple front war, but it's not perfect.  Be prepared with some spare constructors or even a spare fleet.

We already have carrier concept.  Fleet modules, particularly the Terran Warp Bubble concept carries the carrier concept into space.  Like what the devs have done there.

Starbase Manager is extremely welcome!  That said, I think it would be a lot more functional if, instead of a macro, you could provide it with several build lists on default, then allow the user to specify and name build lists as he chooses.  Priority listing is good for when you have limited technology and have a small number of choices (like when you only have 2 choices of starbase defense modules to choose from), but ultimately, early game starbase management isn't the issue anyway.

In any case, better than nothing, certainly!  Much better. 

I agree with fleeting with Starbases.  If you fleet your fleet with starbases, there's no need to code a Fortify unit function - just fleet your fleet with the starbase and it'll never move!  Of course, there is the little problem that allowing a Starbase to fleet early game could cause problems with AI fleet decision making.  It'd be serious cheese to plop down an Economic Starbase for attacking purposes early game!

I agree!

The priority lists for starbases don't save (or don't load as the case may be) with saved games.  I've submitted this as a bug report because on particularly large maps it can take so long to get through a turn that the usefulness of priority lists diminishes because the next time you load your game you have to go around all the starbases and fix their lists again.