Wow -- great! Thank you for that insightful reply. I think it is a very good start, and we will have to see how the AI deals with it. I think 300bc per module is still very cheap, but perhaps this is just fine. You are correct too about the tech -- but just one more point: it is monodimensional in nature, as well. That makes it much easier to research per point of bonus.
Note 1: I would not like to turn the option off, because (a) I dislike GC2 as a wargame and a wargame it would then more or less become (tech victory: not my style, thanks; alliance victory: never been able to make one!), and (b) I really LIKE games in which I win via culture, it was my only love in CivIII Note 2a: I am unsure BoogieBac's suggestion would solve the problem, although it would be a nifty short-term bandage on a weakness. I thi
Or do most people feel influence is still too difficult?? That would surprise me, but I am keen on your feedback.
That seems to indicate to me that something may be broken regarding starbases, either the cost-effeciency for decent defense or their HP level. I think the problem here is both one regarding AI and one regarding starbase effectiveness. Additionally, one could consider changing the way military starbase bonuses affect ships: I would prefer beam-enhancers helping only ships with beams, armor enhancers only ships with armor, etc. (instea
I think Influence victories are too easy. I play on "Intelligent" AI and I almost always end up with massive influence. I dont want to uncheck the "influence" victory condition, because I dont think GC2 is a good wargame and I like this "culture" option. HOwever, it seems the AI doesnt compete with culture as well as it could. Now, however, under 1.1, pushing culture gets even easier! This seems odd to me. Why is it being implemented?
Unfortunately, even the "intelligent" AI screws up many of its games against me in the following situation: Early on, one can easily access tech allowing all starbases to be equipped with good defenses and decent attacks. I often try to get my mining bases at least (and others as well) equipped with +10 attack (battle stations, devastation beam) and +15 defense (the 3 +5s), which requires 5 constructors. The more aggressive AIs (Drengi, Yor) like
Although I agree with much of what Brad said, he does mistake equating "accessability" with "dumbed down". Make no mistake: I am happy that GC2 is complex. (It certainly is nowhere near as deep and complex as other games I enjoy, such as Dominions2.) However, to enjoy a complex game, a player needs to be able to make informed decisions; yet the UI of GC2 inhibits this in many areas, e.g.: I may consider researching TechX or TechY
How.... sad.
Cultural or influence victories are too easy, even on tough. I keep winning those without wanting to. Grrr.
I can't believe it -- anyone???
GalCiv2 Forums
I would like a checkbox option to hide "unneeded" Techs from both the tech tree and the diplomacy trading screen. That is, techs which have been "skipped over" due to trading for a higher one should be able to be hidden, both so that the offers of other races do not clog the screen and we do not inadvertently bid for a tech we do not need!
GalCiv2 Forums
In the Shipyard, it is astounding that clicking on a ship will NOT give you exact information as to which items are installed; one can see, for example, that a ship might have a missile attack rating of 4, but NOT what component or components yield this effect. This is exceptionally annoying when one wants to upgrade a ship. Perhaps you can include a small screen which allows us to see the components AND their respective space (e.g. Railgun MkIII
GalCiv2 Forums
In the Shipyard, it is astounding that clicking on a ship will NOT give you exact information as to which items are installed; one can see, for example, that a ship might have a missile attack rating of 4, but NOT what component or components yield this effect. This is exceptionally annoying when one wants to upgrade a ship. Perhaps you can include a small screen which allows us to see the components AND their respective space (e.g. Railgun MkIII
GalCiv2 Forums
Planet Approval ratings below 35 should be asympotically related to negative Loyalty; that is, a planet with an Approval of 0 should have, say, a -60 Loyalty penalty, a planet with an Approval rating of 20 should have a -20 Loyalty penalty, while a planet with an Approval rating of 35 should have a -1 Loyalty penalty. Thank you for listening!
Does this mean that no-one cares or that no-one knows?
Actually, one could probably program Morale to have a relationship with Loyalty fairly easily.
I would like to see Approval / Morale play a slightly larger role; currently, it is almost counter-intuitive that it does NOT play a role in determining cultural defections, insubordinations, or rebellions. I think it would be both cool and exciting for fun game-play if there were some kind of algorithm which increased the rate at which foreign IP affected planets which dropped below a certain Approval rating, asymptotically increasing as Morale approa
What you say makes sense. However.... I just did a tiny bit of testing. 9 opponents, all set to "fool" AI. All I have to do is change ONE of these 9 opponents AI up one notch to boost the global diificulty setting up one notch. All 8 other AIs were left to "fool", and I was able to crank up the difficulty to "masochistic" by having simply one AI set to "incredible". EDIT: by changing other individual AI settings I do not change the global difficulty; that is, the difficulty
Thank you, Cherry. I would really, really like to hear a word from someone who has reason to believe that s/he knows what is going on. I don't get it. "Overriding" is the key word here, I think. Thank you.
Please, anyone?
I am a little bit confused, sorry: In the manual, page 14, one can read: "These settings will override the individual settings for each opponent’s Intelligence." By "these settings", the manual means the difficulty setting at the bottom of the screen. Now I wanted to play against 5 AIs. Three I set to "normal" intelligence, one to "bright", and one to "intelligent". I noticed that when I set the first to "br
Ahh, how you've missed out. Master of Magic, X-COM, Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Total Annihilation, Kohan... it makes me cry. Welcome to the real world, Neo! Darn this forum for not having Private Messages -- I bet you are the Saber Cherry of Dom2 fame -- funny you didnt menti
And finally, elections are twice a year, so you can easily adjust the tax rate the turn before the election and you get a nice result... no need to keep approval up. True, but very, very sad. This is more of a bug than a feature.
Sorry for my n00bness, but it seems to me that putting lots of warp engines on a freighter will get the freighter to a trade world faster, but that once it arrives, the amount of trade money I am making is the same as with a slow out-of-the-box freighter. This seems exceptionally counter-intuitive to me. Shouldn't trade income be based on the amount of turns a freighter requires to make the round trip as well? (Or is it, and I am just too stupid
I agree with much of what has been said here. I posted here: Link about influence victories being too easy, but nobody seemed to agree with me then. EDIT: I think Brad's second comment, however, that he is doing his best and will try to improve things must be commended. That is all anyone can ask for. Should be noted that all this is, or should be read as, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.
