Cikomyr

bump

Military Doctrines A empire-wide leader hasn't the capacity to take charge of every single battle fought under his command. There are usually just too many things to run, too many battles to be fought for a single man. Many people thinks the Leader should only be able to run strategic and logistic movements. However, there is a way a leader could have ways of inputting battle orders, showing his own tactical genius on both the Micro AND the Macro-Aspect of War: Milita

Not implying anything, but I know that since X year (I think it's 2002, or maybe 1998), the re-election rate for congressmen and/or senator (this is pure memory stats, so I may be off) is about 95%, because the said-elected people uses their power to influence political maps/campaign financement/public adresses. And if I remember well, at the beggining of the Iraqi Invasion, pro-War factions within the U.S. were almost the sole speakers, anti-War peoples were silenced (except maybe Mi

Finally, this talk of Bush, the middle east, and terrorism is way off topic and needs a thread of it's own. Over 3/4 of this thread is devoted to off topic converation as it is and I'm not sure how far it needs to go before the mods lock a topic. Why I strongly advocate we keep our cold. I don't think there is anything wrong with having the to

This statement says it all. Flayed_one: OMG are you KIDDING ME? "Normal people" is that what THEY told YOU? Normal people DON'T go to terrorist training camps and learn how to make bombs, hijack airliners, use poison gas, etc. THESE ARE PSYCHOPATHS, brainwashed by "the religion of peace". They were/are SAVAGES, who saw through peoples' necks, skin faces, rape as

I cannot name any american who had his privacy intruded, because of a quite clever circular argument saying that "the names of the person concerned must not be release for national security reason". Off course you never heard of someone being spyed on, because no one must know! And your governement think it has the right to spy on its allies without their consentement. And off course, it consider the paper who released the news as a traitor, because "no one is supposed to know because

CAN YOU NAME ONE LIBERTY TAKEN? (liberty to have a privacy. That your privacy may not be intruded by any governement agency except with the express autorisation of a courthouse. And the President isn't a courthouse. Liberty to have a trial, and be judged by your peers, to know why you are incarcerated. Liberty to keep silence.) (And

(I just wonder how this topic started in a GAL CIV 2 FORUM?) Anyway. I liked some people's interventions more than some others. (usually 50/50 between those with similar political views and those with opposed). True, America is.. wait a second. Why calling the U.S.A. "america", as if ONE country was defining the whole goddamn continent?! I don't call the french "the europeans", and I sure don't think any of their neighbour would approve if they monopolized the name, took it

I would like to know what, exactly, was improved (notplayed 1.2 yet..) So far, we have heard: - Better Planetary management - Transports have evasive tactics (finally!)

these are called "political pressure".. hell that would work

When you think of it, Planetary Invasion IS the uber-weapon. You simple and purely annihilate an entire population to take its place (and money!$$$)

I don't know about ICBM... Planet-to-Planet missile would never be approved by Frogboy. I was more thinking something more like sol-air missile (ground-air?) and air-air missiles... I would imput it that way: 2 Kinds of missile. Anti-Personnal (kinda) ones, can only damage a single ship. Too high velocity for any counter-measure to work, except the classic ECM-Chaff-Whatever. Anti-Fleet ship. Larger one, slower, but one that do collateral damage on al

I was thinking much in those term. But you could also have defensive missile-pack (for when a fleet is blockading a planet, destroying ships 1 by 1), it would be possible to build about 2-3 missiles each turn, weakening any blockading planet.. And would be a great defence against Transport-Rushers...

A more complex politic system is, indeed, needed. I hate the idea that empires are monolisthic entities! Come on, is America a whole block? is France? Canada? (Canadians will agree with me on THAT )

I remember GalCiv 1's missiles. They were like ships who died right after the first strike... Why not doing the same kind of thing for GalCiv2? the "missile" arrays would be able to launch from 2 to 4 missiles before reloading (either every turns, or in the vicinity or a planet). These "missiles" would be like mini-ships, and who would "live" only 1 turn (the same one it had been launched), and be allowed only 1 free attack, with no retaliation possible (except maybe other missiles...) It

Great Idea. I support it all the way. However, kinda utopian for both GC2 and GC3. Maybe GC4?

I am FOR more tactical elements in the game (that is, Gal Civ 3), HOWEVER, we need to think one aspect about tactical combats spreading at the 4 corners of a thousands light-years wide galaxy: -How could a leader sitting in his office, managing the economy, social and military productions, can single-handely tacticely run every freakish battle? even G.A. Thrawn wasn't *that* good. He used subordonnates.. What a leader can choose, however, is which ships go for which battles

I voted for Advanced Diplomacy, but was damn tempted to go for More Politic! Tactical Battle is a good #3 choice, but I guess it would be just damn to hard to impliment if we wish to keep a true game balance between AI and Computers... What I would like to see, is automated combat (no direct control, except maybe general orders), and something tactical along this idea: https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=162&AID=117615&cmd=myposts And if the developper

it would be a huge comeback option to loosing evil civs

I would love to have opportunities, like in BotF, to undermine the good relations between 2 other races... Oh, that would be so eeeeeveeeeel!

The main idea behind a "carrier" vessel is to be able to make some lightning-strikes here and there in a vicinity. Or bombing runs, or etc.. So, at first, we could simply say that a "carrier" would be a cargo module, and when tiny/small ships are put in the same fleet, the small/tiny ships don't use any movement points. Until, off course, you disband the said-fleet and launch an attack. Or even cooler: You first launch an attack, get your fighters back into the cargo hull,

Lol, there should be an option "I surrender to the UP", and there would be a motion voted about dividing the spoils of war...

a homeworld-like battle-engine would be a great + to GC2. Even if we do not control our ships, it would include ship's manoeuvrability, blank points, etc...

Kinda hard to impliment in a balanced way. However, I would love to be able to add the "StarFighter Base" to a military starbase. You could station tiny hulls there, and the ships would automaticly assist fleets in the vicinity... which would allow to exceed the logistic max of a fleet... (you got a fleet who has 16/17 logistic point used. You send it in battle who is nearby a starbase with 2 Assistance Fighters. You got +4 logistic points to your fleet for THAT battle...)

may I lead you to this thread? you may be interested... https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=162&AID=109724&cmd=myposts#877992