What wicked flea says. So is this random? How do civs get to be that way? Is it some flavor element attributed to certain civs (randomly?) to make diplomacy more challenging, or is their some incentive to be militaristic?
Thanks for answering! But some of the questions, Alien Duck, which you posed were discussed in the thread I linked to above. Surely "-militaristic" cannot involve military strength, since this is a separate predicate, e.g. "++our military strength". We need to know to whom this predicate applies (e.g. is "-militaristic" applied to them, to us, or to both only under certain (which?) circumstances), and why (that is, how can you gain this pred
In this ongoing thread here, Link , there seems to be no-one who can actually say what this predicate is. The context is the "reports" tab of the foreign relations screen, where a nation's relations to others is determined. Please, if possible, take a look at the arguments and data listed in that thread and tell me what in the world the "-militaristic" predicate means.
No, I think that is incorrect. As I stated in my original post: EITHER influence starbases have a range of effect (8 squares, currently), OR they do not and hence act globally. Only under the last condition could what you mean, Chorminium, make sense, but that is currently not how these starbases work.
Got the subspace rebounder stolen when conquering a Good planet, but it will not show up in my shipyard.
Advanced farming (Xeno farming III) yields exactly as much food as Intensive Farming (Xeno Farming II).
Well this is sort of like a monolog, but perhaps one can calculate influence based on population affected instead of raw abstract numbers?
Very helpful would be a "Wonder Screen" (to use a CivIII terminus) on which we can see what Achievements and Trade Goods we have already built, and also which ones other civilizations have already built. (It is VERY hard to remember who already built what with those tiny messages that pop up.) I find it hard to keep track of what Galactic Achievement is where and doing what. Thank you!
It seems odd that influence starbases produce influence where there are no people, such when their influence radius includes only empty space or uninhabitable planets. Sure, we are producing lots of music, propaganda, and neat clothes -- but there is simply no one there to consume it. Either influence starbases act globally (and hence there is no reason for them having an 8-hex radius) or they are really odd. (In addition to being way too po
Would it be easy to have more galaxy size choices? E.g. medium-large for 7x7, largish for 8x8, and so forth?
The information I get regarding building time for both ships and projects is often different in the f2 screen and on the planet view. Which of these two displays tends to be more accurate? Also, the time it takes to research a tech seems to vary at times from that displayed in the bottom-left corner of the galactic view screen. (And sometimes hitting "turn" will not progress it for 2 turns, then suddenly it will jump ahead.) Is there a more
Just want to clarify my previous post here: In other words, I think that the AI has a fairly decent strategic AI, but a very suboptimal tactical one at the moment. After updating the strategic algorithm S I tried to mention above, the tactical AI would need to be updated slightly too to reflect the situations it would still need to integrate to implement suicide runs, too, but I think that it needs a general overhaul in any case.
Sorry, yes, you are right, I misread Brad to have indicated attack assist helping that type only, not attack and defense. Sorry. All good stuff here. Still, I am afraid an "evaluation algorithm" for determining what fights are tactically winnable is in order (call it: Algorithm T), and a strategic algorithm upon which the tactical one superviens (call it: Algorithm S), that is: Sometimes, some fights which, from a tactical perspective (algor
That's an interesting suggestion and I'd like to hear what other thigns: Attack and defense Assist only do the assisting if you have that particular type of weapon. I.e. Iit won't add missiles to a sihp that doesn't have missile. It won't add shields to a ship that doesn't have shields. <br/
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???
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!
