I was going to make this suggestion as well - since it can take hours to design a good ship, I believe that one should have the ability reuse good design in future games. If you don't have the tech for the design just yet, then that particular design should remain grayed out until you have the tech to build it.
Gosh, how do we know if we've gotten one of the first run of boxes? And we're talking about the ones in retail stores? Is there a certain serial # sequence or anything we should be looking for? By the way, that link doesn't really have more inforamtion - it just prompts you for your serial number. Thanks for the information - I'm going to try to find me a copy today.
Do all versions of the game have access to the collector's edition "jewelry", or just people who actually purchase the Collector's Edition? The reason I ask it it's sounding as though not many stores are getting many copies of the game, not to mention the Collector's Edition. Also, I thought I saw a comment stating that all printed copies of the game can download and use the Collector's Edition downloads. If you need to purchase the Collector's Edition to get the extra "jewelry", do
...plus most of the people who were polled by stardock would rather have a game with customizable ships than a multiplayer... I need to point out that the surveys that were conducted, as I understand it, went something like this: Pick the one thing that is most important to you: (1) Ship Design, (2) multiplayer, (3) blah blah
by Frogboy [Stardock] Stardock's other PC games -- Stellar Frontier, The Political Machine, The Corporate Machine, Trials of Battle, were all multiplayer too. But even when the games are designed with multiplayer in mind, it's a pretty small # that actually play it that way. Please don't take this as an insult, as I view your company as top-n
I truly hope that the name mini-balls simply fades into the beta sunset, because if Stardock is trying to get new people into this game, if they start off in ship design having to use silly weapons called "mini-balls, then they may just get turned off right there. Because one obvious evolution of mini-balls would take it down the eventual path to "mega-balls". And so the race will be to see who has the biggest balls o fthem all <img src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/smiles/Wink.gif" border=0
So long as we can rename the planets at a later point, even if we previously accepted the default name, then that's all that matters. For instance, if I have a planet that has become developed to the point of being very critical to me, then I might rename it to something special to reflect its important, while I leave all the rest of the run-of-the-mill planets with their default names.
I'm just saying, "mini-balls" sounds about as sci-fi as having weapons called "Mega Wompers". I know this is only a game, and the devs like to use humor, which is cool. But seroiusly, if ship design is one of the new major features in the game, can't we have names for the ship components that sounds plausibly sci-fi? I mean, sure... Lasers, Phasors, Plasma Projectors, Mass Drivers ... they might all sound cliche, but I'd rather have that than cheesy names like "mini-balls". Humor i
This is sort of off-topic, but the name "mini-balls" sound really stupid, in my opinion. The last thing I want on my newly commissioned state-of-the-art dreadnought, is to power up the mini-balls. Gah, that just sounds ridiculous.
Wow, sometimes less is more people Anyway, the brilliant suggestion that fightercraft provide a carrier with an extended attack function reaching 1 to 2 squares away would make fightercraft unique and formidable. Personally, I would like to see more discussion on how we can come up with a good design to justify fightercraft in the game, rather than debate-to-
It's probably the same - it was just fun in MOO2 to have all the upgrade options for a particular weapon available during ship design. I found it both a very effeicient and fun user interface to use while designing my ships.
Idea for differentiating a fighter from a normal weapon: RANGE A fighter could be just like any other weapon, except that it has an extra square of range! You could send your squadron to attack without having to be adjacent to the target. That's a very interesting idea, AngleWyrm . That brings to mind
Hi all, I hate to keep bringing up cool things from other games that I liked, but this one was very cool, and I haven't noticed it being discussed previously. When designing ships in Master of Orion II , as one's technology-level increased, so did one's ability to customize weapons during ship design. For example, one might have the ability to modify the "Phasors" weapon as "Heavy Phasors", "Point-defense Phasors", "Auto-firing Phasors", or missile
Star Pilot , to address the available-space issue you raise, I would suggest that fighters not be allowed to have FTL drives. Considering how to make fighters distinct from any other weapon, such as a missile, let's try take 2: Fighters: Can attack other fighters (or missiles) with the correct armament Can attack capital-ships with correct the armament Can attack multiple times, while each missile can attack only once Must be at
Here's one area where I think that fighters would be distinctly different from just another gun - fighters can only be defended against with point-defense weapons, not your typical capital-scale weapons. So, let's say a single battleship meets up with a single carrier. If the battleship has no point-defense weapons mounted, then it is defenseless against the onslaught of the carrier's attack fighters. Here's another difference - interceptors can on
Of course, if fighter bays were a module that could be added to a capital ship chasis, the next logical question is whether or not we can design the fighters themselves. For example, one might design attack fighters and intercepters. If one put 1 module of intercepters and 3 modules of attack fighters on a carrier, then a carrier could dish out a lot of damage, but be lightly defended by its intercepters, which would be reflected in its attack and defense rating.
Well, I never really noticed this in GC1, but I too would like this option for GC2. If I had to guess though, it probably won't be in the game, unfortunately. Seems that the game focuses mainly on capital ships, rather than fighters I wish this wasn't so, though.
I would really like tradiing to be abstracted, as in the Master of Orion games, instead of actually having to build freighters and route them to their destinations. Oh my gosh, that's more involvement than I care to have in establishing trade. So to the point of this thread, I too would like trading to be simplified in the form of a Trade Treaty. Another wish of mine is to create military alliances, similar to NATO. The threshold for such an allia
From a theatrical standpoint this may seem interesting, but it smells like micromanagement could be involved, which would be bad, bad, bad.
So what should we use to limit ship numbers? Money. Plain and simple economics. Each ship has some cost to maintain, and the game's economics will limit the total number of ships any empire might support. I have already been flexible in accepting and promting this idea. We both agree that economics should be the factor that limits ship numbers.
...According to your earliest statements, the game should limit the number of ships to 25... Star Pilot , I challenge you to find a single instance of me saying that the game should be limited to only 25 ships. You won't, because I've never said that - never suggested that. I feel like I'm talking to a wall here, but I'll repeat m
...You will hit choose "Upgrade ship" for an individual ship (in your influence)... Whether the ship is located inside space under your influence or not is beside the point. The point being that unless the ship physically travels to a facility capable of performing the refit, then the only other logical explanation i
When returning to a space dock could take months or years and the lives of your crew are at stake, you have to be able to do more massive upgrades than todays ships need. This also means, in many cases, they would have to fabricate the materials where they are. 1. What difference does it make whether you send your sin
Isn't this whole nano-bot discussion a bit off topic? No offense, but I'd like to keep the discussion focused on ship numbers in GC2
It just seems like if you consistently did not subject your own people to evil, while doing it to others, it would do a couple of things: 1. It would boost the loyalty and happiness of your people since you've shown that you treat them well. 2. It would give you the bonuses that acrue from doing evil to others. 3. It would gain you the dislike of foreign civilizations. I thought that would be an itneresting aspect to the game politics.
