onomastikon

I love 1.1, and I think there is so much room for improvement in this great game. Let's get started: - PLEASE a checkbox in the diplomacy/trade screen for "hide skipped techs". (When you did a lot of bargaining, skipping over, say, everything from MiniBallsII to HD Spike, it is really hard to sort through all those techs you probably dont want. Perhaps you want to display them sometimes, hence the checkbox.) - Shipyard should have a small field in which the parts in-ship di

Thank you very much. Just to add: 5 & 7. I played with 6 AI on "painful" and found them lacking in tactical cleverness and totally, totally incapable of dealing with my influence, even when I wasnt really trying. Any feedback on any of the other questions is greatly appreciated -- thank you!

Anyone?

First, thanks for a great patch! Truly astounding! There are some things I do not yet understand, can you help me please? Thanks much! 1. + hotkeys which are they? 2. + Saved game makes use of new weapon and defense focus features. which are these? 3. + Factories and labs produce slightly less base production (because the new bonus system provides more bonus production). ?? I dont understand what is meant by this (in pa

I wrote at more length in response to your "Poll Results" post, but to make it brief here: What you say makes sense. I wouldnt compromise your vision of a high-priority SP in an attempt to please all the people. You have bound these customers now to you, and it goes against post-sales relations sense to (potentially) anger satisfied customers with something secondary that takes your resources away from optimizing what they consider primary. It ap

I do not miss multiplayer and hence would certainly not purchase a $20 multiplayer expansion. However, I would be worried as to the development of such an expansion (call it GCM), since I couldnt imagine how you would implement relevant changes to GC2 without thinking about GCM, and vice versa. Would further expansions and patches be for both GC2 and GCM? Also, would the price of $20 include all of the endless support you will need to h

My MP experience is similar to Brad's. I will often not purchase a game made for MP. Even very good games, great for MP (such as AoW), are unusable for me; I want to have a quiet, mindless time of my own in front of my machine; I dont want to have to connect to the net and wait for people to submit turns. I would MUCH rather spend my money on good AI than on MP. Thank you, Stardock!

Stardock's post makes great sense to me. The only thing I lament about this sensible post is that the crew at Stardock cannot implement these great features AND make the AI work wonders with them! Tant pis, but I sure hope they will try...

Argh I'm an idiot sorry.

1. The easy fix would simply entail fixing intensive and advanced farming. 2. The hard one is optimizing *tactical* AI *and/or* changing starbase foritifications. The AI is doing a much better job, but it still fails at taking out starbases. When the AI can still only build a few dinky fighters, anyone (including the AI, but it often doesnt) can research two or three cheap techs and arm any starbase with 13/6/6 attack and 5/5/5 defense (with

I have only gotten another type of victory once. Other than that, all of my wins have been influence victories. I think it is much, much too easy. I only built 2, as well. This was on "painful" difficulty. Just stick around and let your population grow, you are bound to get an influence victory soon. Build two or three I-starbases, and a victory is ensured.

So does that mean that no one agrees or that no one cares?

Do people such as Brad read posts such as these, do you suppose, or is it deemed to be mere chattering?

I can understand the original poster, even if we share differing opinions. Whoever says that games from different companies may not be compared is greatly misled; you cannot compare identical entities (remember Leibniz' Law anyone?), it is the difference which makes things interesting. Even apples and oranges may be compared -- lumped together and quantified as one type of entity, however, that is what the saying abhors. I agree wholehearted

Yes, but even if it were a MAJOR balance issue, then Advanced Farming should be REMOVED. (Not that I think it would be a major issue, but hey.) I think this really ought to be addressed, especially since it cannot be a terribly difficult bug to squash. EDIT: and I think, btw., that Intensive Farming is also unintentionally cheap. 72bc is just silly. Perhaps they meant 720 bc??

Neutrality Learning Centers are far too good; once you research this relatively cheap tech, there is no point in ever having to invest anything in any of the "research" techs ever, since this beats all of them hands down. Shouldn't this yield good, even quite decent research facilities, but not the very best?

There is no way to tell this without actually building the improvements, so that is kind of a pain in-game. Could Advanced Farming either be made more profitable (say, 9 or 10mt food?) or removed from the tech tree?

I know: When it's done. But just curious -- will that be more like 2 weeks or 2 days?

The only thing I "dislike" is the way the ships sort of float around like they are in a bathtub. Otherwise, I think it is well done. I would like to see the little fighters go on swooping tracks; the cruisers could still do their bathtub schtick for all I care. My suggestions would include: - further diversification of weapons, such as adding "to-hit" chances: beams would do less damage but be most accurate, yet hard to defend against; missil

Just a small update here -- all nice. I still notice, however, that the tactical AI still is often at fault when it comes to starbases -- I still see the AI sending fleet after inadequate fleet to suicide itself on my starbases. Starbase defense is simply too cheap, and the AI cannot take mine out, it seems, no matter what it does.

Ah ok thanks, weird. I thought I could get at least 5b people, didnt know that pq caps pop size. Too bad, no use for morale now!

My population is capped on Mars (my second human planet I control since the start of the game) at 2600, despite producing 5 mt/wk. My approval has been at 83% for some time, is now at 100% for the past few turns, and the population still will not grow. What could be the reason for this? thank you

This all looks exceptionally promising. Well written, well done -- thank you! From an idiot's point of view (someone who knows nothing about programming), it seems like the main burden of work will be to correctly distribute enough subtly different flags at the appropriate time (such as: X has declared on Y, X has conquered Y, X is building up to finish Y off) and to get these flags to be interpreted so that subtly different scripts may be enacted

I think the OP's point is one that almost all of us have noticed: When invading a planet, using even traditional warfare methods will CONSISTENTLY give me huge advantages I shouldnt be having, playing with races that have no "luck" bonus. I CONSISTENTLY notice that despite inferior soldiering skills, my "advantage" factor in the actual battle is many times higher than those of my opponents, no matter which race these may be. This doesnt seem to be a fl

Just so you know -- I took part in this poll and must have greatly MISunderstood it. I voted for "other", but I did not see until later that "stardock" was somehow involved with that. If others, like myself, were somehow confused or mislead, your readings may be askew. Sorry to have to say this, but I'm afraid it may be the case.