Maybe make hull sizes only mount weapons and defenses in an equivalent "tier" - tinies mount only the basic beams, smalls can mount up to lasers, etc (same for other weapons and defenses). This probably would need the techtree to be slightly restructured though. I don't know if "slightly" is the word your are looking for...
So why does the PQ-based cap not scale up as workable tiles increase? (Side question would be why doesn't the PQ rating reflect number of workable tiles - it does reflect this initially, but after terraforming it doesn't). Terraforming is supposed to increase planet quality, so planet quality matches the number of tiles. The fact that it isn't do this in some cases is a bug.
I'm ok with the corvettes being mostly cannon-fodder, but there's a point where you are just giving your opponent free experience. More importantly, the AI has no idea what to do with them and it can be seriously unfun for the player to encounter such astronomical numbers of them.
In my most recent game, the Drengin were one of the last races I conquered. On entering their territory, I noticed a stack of about a dozen fleets of 9 super-dominator corvettes each. One of my huge ships chewed through them in about a week and a half, and it was good. Then, near the Drengin homeworld, I noticed 3 *more* stacks of SD corvettes, each with about a dozen fleets of 9 corvettes each. "Oh, what a PITA" I thought. These ships are totally irrelevent, but at least it won't take
Well, I just played a game as the Kryn and did very well with defensively-oriented ships. Of course, I also started with an innate 80% defence bonus... I'm not convinced that defences don't have a role to play on ships below huge. If the big ships aren't in play yet, it's probably also true that the big *fleets* aren't in play. So even if you are using small ships, the fraction of your fleet that is hit but gets to recharge defence can be significant (due to fleet size limits and low-te
Why is that? i forget about the old series but in the new series you only get tiny tiny flashes of combat inbetween charracter shots. I think there were a few times in the first season of the new series where they showed extended shots of Galactica firing 'forward and up' at a Base Star. Both ships are exchanging this huge, steady torrent of firepower and the Viper pilots are advised to 'stay clear of Galactica's firing so
You know, I think the suggestions someone else wrote about increasing hitpoints would be another factor that would help defences. I wouldn't want battles to take *too* long, but we could probably safely double ship hitpoints. I like the look of prolonged fleet battles, especially when you have two huge ships hammering at each other. One of those fights reminded me of Galactica facing off against a base star. Oh, and please increase the flight speed of some of those weapons. The ratio o
Alternatively, it's also possible to code other changes to the game. For example, you could modify the game such that military ships can only penetrate so far into enemy influenced-space. Limiting the range of military strikes makes battlefronts more influential and makes it a lot more difficult to take over multiple systems in one turn. I don't know about using influence borders for that. However, life support *should* p
It would be a simple solution, but it wouldn't cover enough cases or be a strong enough deterent. For example, the situation where the AI DOES attack in self defense (and they will do it, if you hang out transports in orbit long enough), having a diplomatic penalty is not ideal. Also, I'm not convinced it'd be enough... after all, the player is usually much, much more powerful after a successful war of conquest. Besides, thats not terribly believable, either.
Overall, I think making defense cheaper to reflect that it is less valuable throughout the majority of game environment combinations is the right move. One possible fix to the flip point between defense being worthless to priceless is to greatly increase the tech cost to research defense. This way, the defense you do have researched is cheaper to throw on ships, but it will take a significant investment to make invincible ships, and then they are only invin
Yes, In noticed this in my game today, as I had a large number of PQ 3 or 4 planets with over 10 tiles each. Pretty annoying, really, as it seriously cramped my economic potential.
when they're being fired against an mis-matched defense, is it the base defense that goes down, or the square-rooted value that decreases? You calculate your total defence for a type, so if your base defences were 25/0/4, you'd have 27/7/9 effective defence. These effective defences are then worn down individually. So a 5-point shot against the 9 defence would reduce it to 4.
Maybe you are right to say defenses are overpriced, yet it is not true that defenses = hp, because, as says Kyro in a post (https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=421&aid=139395), "the maximum defense rolls reset after each round", wich is not the case for hp. However, the defences don't reset if the ship is dead. Given the larger logistics allowance, people can field pretty large fleets, so, depending on hull
I ran into a fairly similar situation in my last game. Remember that a fleet 11 max-weapon medium ships isn't all *that* cheap compared to a fleet of large ship, even ships with defences. If he's losing 11 mediums to your 1 or 2 large ships, I think you are coming out ahead dollar for dollar. Also, the research time invested to get to large ships from medium ships isn't very much compared to the time to research to the end of a weapons line. Still, if the enemy is going to deploy all we
I think his problem would be solved by simply playign on a more challenging difficulty where he wouldnt be able to run this far ahead on tech(unitl the games already over), and the situation would never be an issue....you'd even be glad for the rule. Still, as I said, some sort of "critical damage" rule, forcing ships that won a squeaker to limp back to port and repair themselves before they were functional again would still keep the slight st
The attacker is understood to have a "slight" (nothing compared to the way it wa in 1.0 Gc2 where everyone had first strike) advantage in surviveability. Take that away, you remove an entire aspect of strategic decision making from the game....i.e., if youre evenly matched, you better manuver to attack first. Better instead, to deal with whatever let the player make a 650 Missle attack ship in the game... Actually, the Yor h
Id be open to a rule , though, that reduced the attack/defense score (if any) of any ship that won a victory in this manner to zero until it was fully repaired, to simulate critical damage. Well, something like that could work. I'm mostly against a ship that should be dead going on a rampage due to it's 1-hitpoint-rule armor. Believe me, it can happen. I lost 14 tiny fighters trying and failing to take out a battleship that
Most of the strategies I've read for the highest difficulty levels involve people using high diplomacy modifiers to counter-act the AI's high economy modifiers. Actually, not even counter-act, they harness the super-productive AIs for their own purposes, leashing them for diplomacy. Perhaps it would be appropriate to lower the AI economic bonus a tad at higher difficulty levels, but give them a scaling diplomacy bonus? Right now it seems as thought the AIs at higher levels are su
Actually, the rule is not "the stronger fleet win with 1hp", but "the attacking fleet win with 1hp". Well, that can't be it, because I lost several combats attacking single-hitpoint battleships. It's why I decided to adopt the 1-hitpoint huge tactic myself. I disagree...I find it more realistic than the alternative. It's more realistic if a 1-hitp
There's a rule in the game where if two fleet annihilate each other, the fleet that's deemed stronger in terms of total attack and defence will instead survive with one hitpoint. I think this rule is unrealistic and unneccessary. It undermines the value of defence and creates some really cheesy situations. What's wrong with letting them both die? That seems like a very possible sci-fi outcome. If two egg-shells wielding sledgehammers meet, the result should be two broken eggshells.
I like this event. It affects everyone, changes the game balance, and can leave people in the lurch when it ends. It's not a 300% boost, but it can turn you from losing money to making money. Remember that the surplus or deficit is only the difference between your overall expenses and overall income, which are usually much larger. It's easy to move from -20 BC/turn to +300 BC/turn by changing your spending.
One fleet it should be able to have a really good idea of the outcome (perhaps via simulation). Even a chain of two or three fleets attacking you could expect it to play out. If it takes 10 of their fleets to take out one of your small fleets, that's quite far to look ahead. It starts to hinge on the much more nebulous question of how much it is worth to him to take you out versus other opportunities.
Or better, simulate a battle a hundred times during the game's development, and distill the results down to a polynomial equation as a function of weapons, defense, and hit points. Starbases tend to win early on because of their hit points. That's probably what it does now. Cook up a formula to try to approximate the outcome. Given what I see in terms of AI ship design though, it can be a long way from acc
In my battles against the Yor last night, I was facing Frigates with ~150 missile attack and zero defence. My small's could post about 30 attack. If I sent a fleet of 5 smalls against a lone frigate, it will destroy the frigate with one or two smalls remaining. If I send the small ships one at a time, the first small would bring the frigate down to about 7 hitpoints. After the next attack, the frigate would not only survive but be back up to full hitpoints! I understand there m
I dunno if the AI is very good at reviewing battle outcomes? But that would be considerably difficult to code in. Well, it would be pretty easy to size up it's odds for each combat. Simply simulate the battle a hundred times and look at the average result. Heck, if it is considering follow-up attacks on the same turn, simulate the 2 (or 3 or 4) chain sequence of attacks a hundred times and see how it turns out. I also think the AI sh
