amanasleep

I agree that the problem with tech trading is that the AI does not value techs properly or enough. It especially doesn't value keeping tech out of the hands of the other players! For instance, trading Diplomacy techs ensures that the player you traded it too now has an advantage in the next trade, but the AI doesn't consider this. I think that the bar should be set very high for initiating a successful tech trade, something like: <br/

The "soul" that is missing amounts to unique racial abilities and the opportunity have game changing techs that the other players lack. "Soul" in these games comes from unique functions. Since all races have identical abilities (some are better at this or that ability) as opposed to exclusive abilities, then all the backstory and flavor text and differentiated AI subroutines in the world will not create "soul" for these races. OTOH I under

Sounds to me like you aren't colonizing any worlds or building any starbases. You need to expand quickly in the early game (the "land grab" phase) to claim valuable resources and to deny them to your enemies and rivals. You must also explore and colonize planets for the same reason. Turtling up on just two worlds is definitely not an option.

Add my voice to Pode 697's call for transparent output. I don't know what group that put's me in. Ultimately, people who want an intuitive system can get what they want simply by ignoring the dev's explanations of how the system works. But if the dev's decline to explain how the system works, then only the intuitives get what they want, while players who want the game mechanics don't. Providing the info disadvantages nobody, while providi

I think it's yet another bug. I have gotten zero benefit from this "wonder".

But while that would be doable in a 1.x type scenario, it wouldn't be a 1.1 version. I twould be more like a 1.5 issue since it would require consideable AI reworking to do it along with significant documentation, play balancing, etc. The current system is largely undocumented, which is my whole problem with it. However you design the system i

Nano ripper is actually only slightly more expensive per damage than other mass driver techs at the same tech level.

Honestly, the wated social production doesn't bother me. The problems are: 1. The "focus" buttons are too inexact a tool. Should be sliders. 2. The econ sliders themselves are counterintuitive. Research should have it's own independant slider. Social and military should have their own sliders, but they can still draw from the same production capacity. 3. Each planet should have its own production and research sliders. That way your best planet is not penalized by the

How does one go about adding modules to the starbases? I have tried everything that I could think of to add modules. I double-click on the starbase, and it opens, basically telling me that it lacks modules. If I just click it, the mini window only gives me the option of destorying it. It is a little frustrating. You must send another con

One thing I noticed (and do not like) is that it is no longer possible to make changes to an existing design; you have to make the new design from bare components. The line editor (used for such thing as entering a ship class name) still needs to be redone, as the existing one is EXTREMELT awkward to use. The special abilities of each races are STILL

(GC2 AI + graphics) + (MOO2 everything else) = best 4X game possible.

Perhaps in GalCiv III we'll simply eliminate the dual-military/social thing and have it like Civ IV since so many people find this system too confusing. That is precisely the reason to do it. No matter what your justifications are for the system, if 90% of your players (my guess is this number is actually even higher - I would be surprised if

When I play, I crank these up. So I guess it depends on how you define a penalty. A good player will usually have trouble keeping the industry producing as fast as their economy. Moreover, social, research, and military production abilities are not charged for. You get that production for free. Frogboy: Will there ever

Your assuming they are Earth weeks/years. And you're assuming they aren't. The whole point is that the game makes no assertion either way, and provides no justification. As it is the decision seems entirely arbitrary, and detracts from the immersion factor of the game while providing no artistic or gameplay benefit whatsoever. Why?

I vote for a purely cosmetic change to months instead of weeks. Space travel should realistically take a long time. A full game that takes 40-50 years makes more sense than one that takes 10-12 years. Population growth is totally unrealistic (regardless of the dev's coy comments that it only represents new taxpayers, which actually means that the population growth is actually even larger lol) even with monthly turns, but 4 times as ridiculous with weekly turns. And finally research, which ty

The whole thing is overcomplicated. Here's how economy works, near as I can figure: 1. BC's fuel the economy from first to last, they are the only resource there is. 2. The three ways to get BC's are: A) anomolies B) trade C) taxes 3. Your BC's can then be spent on: A) research B) starships C) planetary improvements Simple, right? Wrong. Because of the asinine way the economy sliders are set up, the

The best part is we know full well that the devs read all these posts, because they will respond to the most inconsequential or random posts sometimes. Their unwilling ness to comment on reasonabl requests for clarification of important core gameplay issues is mystifying. Only thing I can think of is they don't know what their response is going to be on this stuff yet, so there is an internal nix on responses to this stuff until they have a unified answer. Very frustrating, nonethel

Wow. This table proves a few things: 1. Impulse Drives I-III are game breaking. Getting to these as quickly as possible is a key to the early game. 2. Lasers suck - unless you're Evil, in which case they are totally game breaking. 3. Missiles are good, but inflexible in the early game. Ideal weapons for good or neutral aligned races looks like MD's till nano rippers, then switch to missiles if your opponents adapt. 4. It should be possible to mount approximately

You already have to pay more to get techs from races that are not similarly aligned. That's not an effective limit, as you can broker trades with every race to offset the higher prices for lack of diplomacy or non-matching alignments. And it in no way limits the AI trading with itself, which is the real problem. The AI is willing t

The problem is not that defense is worthless, but that the reward for using it diminishes sharply as tech levels go up. There are (at least) several reasons for this: 1. The statistical model used in engine to "roll" attack and defense values is random, encompassing values from (1-n) for both quantities. It can be easily seen that defense that always allows an attack > 1 the possibility to score a hit (in many cases a substantial one) will always tend to reward higher attack values

When I click through the info on races in the Diplomatic options screen, after I click on each category of imformation once, it disappears!

If zero is not possible, then 1 attack vs. 1 defense always rolls 1 vs. 1 = no damage every roll. The square root of 1 is exactly 1. In any event, the point is that if the minimum roll for any type of defense is 1, then one of each type means that damage rolls for attacks of 3 or less do no damage. edit: citizen fraz beat me to it

I do not understand it, and the manual is confusing, to say the least. My question: The manual states that the computer rolls values for attack and defence between 1 and the max value, but here: https://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=92779 it says that it rolls from 0 to the max value. This is a very improtant distinction! If all rolls have a minimum value of 1, then defence 1 always trumps attack 1. Otherwise attack always has a chance to do damage. Which is it?