I've found I am actually starting to win by using free cards (so-called "common" cards for which you do NOT have to pay). Rare cards are fun too, but seem to be for special purposes; you don't need those. Uncommon cards are not free, but tend to have a value of about 10 cents ($0.10). The "best decks" in most situations are FREE, because most situations will be "Common Ground" matches.
Hi Yskonyn, it was great to see you over at SC, glad you took the time to have a little look. As you can see, you never heard of it because it's a real niche game: Not too many people are interested in spending time learning a game that complex and varied. Glad to see you are. There really is soooo much to learn. Good thing is, the learning part of it is pretty fun itself. (Also, as you can see, you can't PBEM, but the games go so quickly that there is no need. A normal game will probably not
Exactly! Thank you random name. I'm definately not trying to hype SC over GalCiv2, since GC2 is single-only, and SC is basically MP only. I just can't believe that SC is THAT good and no-one has ever heard of it! Look forward to seeing you in the SC community.
Of course I take my hat off to Stardock for being such a great company, and for giving us GC2 and its expansions. It is certainly one of the very best TBS in SP out there, possibly the best in its genre/setting ever, and its AI cannot be beat. I think they may have done the right thing in keeping it to its SP niche. Of course I would like MP -- but I think GC is best in its specialty. And now I have found something to satisfy the MP blues. I will never ask Brad for MP again. <
Well, the AI is totally crappy, but Dominions3 has a lot of good challenge while being an aesthetic zero. It was designed for MP play, and it is good at that, if you can stand the 20-year-old graphics and sound. I thought that JaggedAlliance2 was a pretty good combination. Civilization (e.g. III or IV) seems to have all the things that GC2 lacks, but has other problems, such as monotony of city building. I really liked the aesthetics of WarcraftIII, but just dislike
Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree that games should be played to have fun (and not, say, primarily to beat). The question is: What is "fun"? Is it a direct correlation with "challenge"? Aesthetic enjoyment? Hope? This is probably different for different people. Personally, I was having problems because I wasnt having as much fun as I had had elsewhere, or wanted to have; I tried to outline why. Basically, in just a few words, it was because (1) I kept on doing the same thing, turn
I see, thanks for the help.
Hello there, all. It's been somewhat over a year since I was last here. I was a great fan of GC2 and continue to be a staunch supporter of Stardock and all of its excellent, highly motivated, and friendly team members. What a company! I quit GC2 some time ago after liking it quite a lot for a number of reasons, a one-sentence-summary of which I believe I posted here: https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=135081 If you check out some of my longer posts, e.g. ht
2 year game time in the demo? That can't be. I wasnt even able to finish the tutorial. My demo expired after about 25 "days" of time, during which I traded some medical equipment for cash. Not nice!
I dont get it. Can anyone help? I DLed the demo. It is HUGE at 1 gig. And I couldnt even finish the TUTORIAL, the game said my demo expired, it must have been after only 5 or 6 turns. I am furious. What the hell? What is this demo supposed to demonstrate? To those who have DLed the demo -- how did you manage to see anything? A 5 turn demo? I won't be supporting that company, that's for sure...
Just wanted to say goodbye to this fine community and to the wonderful developers of GC2. I was so enthusiastic about GC2 when it first came out, I wrote a number of extremely positive reviews (that themselves were hailed highly), yet I am afraid I just cannot remained interested in the game any longer. Despite the good AI, I find the games simply too similar, the setting too stark, and too little options as to what to do. Additionally, I find the game too easy: Even with Alliance, Tec
I think it would be wonderful to have some feedback from Stardock staff on this issue, and whether or not this may or may not be addressed -- and if how, in what form (a patch?).
While I have whined about the status of "ally" elsewhere, I would like to draw attention to one aspect of the current diplomacy and relations algorithmic processes which seems to me to be broken. I would like to illustrate it by means of an example. In a recent game, Arcea (genius AI) is far ahead, since its lucky starting position gave it a dozen planets and the most resources (and, as I found out later, a Precursor bonus to research). For whichever reasons, Arcea is friendly to me, as
I thought I understood this, but a recent game made me wary: 1. I used to pay great attention to when a social project only had one week left to go, and then purchase it. It seemed otherwise I was "wasting" social energy on a project which, say, only needed few credits to complete; my entire turn's social capacity would be spent on that project, with the overflow being wasted. Now not so sure: Is the overflow then kept in the form of extra cash? That is, if my social project X needs
On this forum, I have posted some ideas here WWW Link about GC2 shortcomings on a larger, analytical level. My question here pertains to mere instrumental logic. I no longer understand the point of larger ship hull sizes. When I got the game first and played on difficulties under crippling, I found them neat, like most things in GC2, while they were new and shiny. Now, I no longer see the point, because of this:<br/
I like the new patch, but it really seems to be much less stable than previous incarnations. I dont think I ever had a CTD since 1.0 until I DLed the new patch -- and it doesnt happen a lot, but I have had 4 CTDs in the last 3 days. I play on my laptop, a Pentium M 1.86 gHz, 1 gig RAM, a 124 Radeon Mobility 700x (I think) graphics card. Never had a problem until 1.3. And unfortunatly, I cannot really say when it happens -- everything goes along normally, and I move one ship somewh
Great! and I'm second to congratulate! Am downloading now too.... Thank you
Foolishly I see that I have eliminated a further point from my list that should have been included, and since I am unable to edit my post now, I shall include it here, although it fits very well to point 1, above: 4. Rehauling "Diplomatic Victory" - Currently, it is too easy to cement alliances, and it would be nice if, in order to win a diplomatic victory, one had to form alliances with all existing nations and these nations had to elect you, in a vote, to be "Chairentity" (or some
This is a very small wishlist of ideas I find easily implementable, being extracted from a larger list of things I am sure I will (alas!) never see. 1. Rehauling Alliances and AI Relationships - Currently, once you have an alliance with a foreign nation X, I have found no way to weaken my relations with that ally X aside from failing to declare war on a nation which declares war on X. This, I feel, is greatly suboptimal. In fact, it is THE only reason I have to turn "Diplomatic Vict
I see. I suppose that purchasers of DA will not feel bad about that, but it certainly might estrange those who are just thinking about purchasing it.
These are just two small ideas I have extracted from a longer archive of ideas, the rest of which I realize will never be able to be implemented. 1. For military bases: - Upgrades could be made much more interesting by adding new types of modules which yield bonuses to attack and/or defense ROLLS, e.g. instead of adding 5 points to beam attack power, there could be a module which adds a +2 to the beam ROLL (thus if a ship had an attack value of 12, it would normally roll a number b
I don't want even more advantages. Currenty, I have to turn so many options off because of lack of challenge, I would like the option to start with, say, 1000 bc.
Do I see correctly that as of 1.3, one will start no longer with 5000bc but rather 7500 bc? This I would find to be most displeasing. If anything, I wish we started with less. (I had wished for an option in 1.2 to allow users to customize the starting amounts of money for the human and the AI players. I would really like to be able to start with less, while giving the AI more. Is there any chance of this happening? Is it really very hard?)
I second lintman's succinct summary. Illwinter's team consists of 3 people, and I think all of them are full-time schoolteachers. The Dominions series is, I believe, made and published in their spare time. That's amazing. But of course, it also means that they do not have the resources to make a game with QC that Stardock has. One of their faults is most certainly AI. It is not good. I loved Dom2 for a very long time, but it is only really playable against fellow humans. Their other fau
Perhaps this is worth noting? During a war, the AI (I play at around "crippling") will almost always fight out all battles till the end by constantly producing military units until the war is resolved. Since the AI rarely has constructors in stock, and since the AI (particularly the more aggressive ones) does not make many to begin with, this means that the AI has no constructors and makes no constructors until wars are completed. I have found that this makes "leeching" far too
