Orion Adrian

The reason I compare GalCiv to checkers is that while the rules are complex the pieces are interchangable. Loosing a knight, queen or even a specific pawn changes the dynamic of the game. Loosing Scout #9 doesn't really do anything and while I understand that you have to have a certain amount of redudancy the ability to abstract specific ships as one in a class means its loss will never have the same meaning as a specific chess piece. There's a certain sentimentality that players of chess make f

I understand. I'm looking for more something not quite so up and down. Right now some have commented on how defenses are too expensive and I'm sure there's a reason you guys went to this system. The point of what I outlined above it to balance the two, but thinking about it I think there's an even better approach and that's to treat each weapon differently to simulate the difference and the reason behind big guns and little guns on these boats. Right now it seems more like we're just mi

Checkers is a fun game, but it doesn't tweak my strategy brain cells the way chess does. There's something about the fact that the chess pieces have personality and function that really does something for me. Lack of flavor in this game has always been a major concern for me and what keeps this game from being great. I know it's got a lot of fans, but I want it to be more. Heck I'd even spend time working on it for free if they'd let me. But the game feels an awful lot like che

An ablative system we used to RPG system we ran back in the day worked something like this: A new off-the-line ship should have its stock resistance. If you get hit with a beam weapon (10 atk) and you have defenses (5 def) then your defenses should protect you (5 damage gets through), but they should also "wear down" over time down to a certain minimum. So let's say we have two 10/5/100 ships duking it out (damage/armor/HP) where 10 percent of all damage that exceeds defense ge

I've been reading from a lot of different posts that some people here seem to care that the AI doesn't cheat. While I understand this is important from a academic perspective, it doesn't seem like it should matter from a gameplay perspective. As long as the game can produce a challenge, why should one care how it gets there? If I was playing with a small child, I would often handicap myself or raise them up somehow in order to produce a chal

The point of my plan was to accomplish all the basic requirements of the current game while totally removing micromanagement. The slider idea didn't instantly jack up a base, it was a percentage of monies dedicated to production at starbases like military, social, research. Shrinking the constructors -- constructors that are slowly upgrading the base by applying "Starbase production" -- would remove them from tracking like freighe

Can we please make it so I don't have to keep sending constructors to starbases to upgrade them. I'd rather them just have a build queue that I can use. The most annoying concept for me with starbases is that I have to keep sending these ships out there and answer the same question followed by the selection of a module. This makes for building and upgrading a starbase very annoying. I understand now that they use military production so you c

Skip the "Do you want to upgrade this starbase?" screen and simply add a cancel button to the module selection process. Second, since we're skipping the "Do you want to upgrade this starbase?" we won't get the annoying Yes, followed by "Sorry, no more module available".

Fleet A will beat Fleet C: Much of Fleet C's firepower is wasted in overkill, while little of Fleet A's firepower is wasted, and it isn't blunted by defences. Actually as was posted elsewhere, this is unlikely given the relative values of logistics, though this could change with 1.1 and the new logist

I've actually played for probably closer to 48 hours, but regardless I have yet to see pirates in the game or a precursor ship. It would be really nice if I could figure out what the problem is because frankly I've been finding the game pretty dull at points and I've love a little more complexity. So perhaps I'm just missing certain things happening; anyways how do I get these things to show up?

The most annoying interface element in this game for me has to be "Do you want to upgrade this starbase?". A better approach would be to bring up the screen and then add a cancel button (yes, I know this could end up being a lot of work). The one idea that would halve the number of clicks I have to do for starbases. Oh and don't ask me if I want to upgrade a starbase and then tell me I can't.

Personally I'm offended by the way that Stardock have excluded Pluto from the game. Taking such an obvious stance on the "is it or isn't it a planet" debate by deliberately erxcluding it, and brainwashing all of their customers is just disgusting. Actually notice how almost all the outer planets are m

While I would love this, I doubt it will happen. I've also asked for these sorts of things, though I hadn't thought of super novas. Though you could do slow star death at well which would just slowly lower the quality of your planets over time. Super Novas would make for a great strategic element too if you could set them off late game. Kind of like nukes. Star Killers you could call them. Would make for a good UP issue. Yes I know it's just

In most of the games I've been playing, it is far better to have good engine speed and good sensors (which can be offloaded onto a sensor boat) than defense. Since ships with a high attack power and the ability to attack first rip up the AI's ships, I can literally just sit outside their range, fly in kill a bunch of ships without taking damage and fly back out of their range. Since speed and sensors are things you want anyways, it seems tha

I agree with most of what the OP is saying. There are several people who have commented in various threads on the issue. The primary concerns tend to be around the tech tree, blah combat, too much automation/abstraction, etc. I've also commented on a lack of flavor; e.g. military resource and not say, Tabana Gas (Military Resource). The game has some flavor in the tech tree, but not much (e.g. Tri-Strontium Armor). The resources have none (something I'

I'm asking the developers to add subtypes for resource on the map (i.e. military, economic, influence, research). I'm asking so as a modder I can add additional flavor to the game; e.g. on a Star Wars mod a military resource might be tabana gas, or in this game tri-strontium (I'm assuming it's a metal). Also additional graphics something like an asteroid field with the current icon at the center with a label like: Tristrontrium<br

I'm asking the developers to add subtypes for resource on the map (i.e. military, economic, influence, research). I'm asking so as a modder I can add additional flavor to the game; e.g. on a Star Wars mod a military resource might be tabana gas, or in this game tri-strontium (I'm assuming it's a metal). Also additional graphics something like an asteroid field with the current icon at the center with a label like: Tristrontrium<br

There's a difference between breaking the laws of physics as we know it (like FTL travel) and something that is just flat out nonsensical. Space is big. Really big. In order to have something like an asteroid field, you'd need an impossibliy large amount of rocks, or it would be so tiny it could be driven around. </TABLE

Woah woah woah. By adding in miniaturization here (as well as editing the abilitybonus.xml) Miniaturization actually shows up on the list when customizing! The best part is it works too! Can you elaborate here to link to another post where you?

asteroid fields are rather tiny things on a galactic scale, even if they made up the entire orbit of a star they are still pretty tiny considering the galaxy sizes. Gas nebulas and such are really the only things large enough to really fit on the map in a meaningful way. GC2 doesn't really represent

Where did you find this? C:\Program Files\Stardock\TotalGaming\GalCiv2\Data\English\English.str

Cloak is coming and I for one am glad to see it. I've also found some other abilities listed in the strings area. Here's to more abilities. Oh, yeah this is what I found: [ShipAbilityColonize] Colonize [ShipAbilityTrade] Trade [ShipAbilityTroops] Transport Troops [ShipAbilityStealth] Stealth [ShipAbilityDetStealth] Detect Stealth [ShipAbilitySurvey] Survey [ShipAbilityConstructStarbase] Construct Starbases

The success of chess, as stated, is after about half a dozen moves, you constantly have to re-evaluate your position. Each game by definition is dynamic every turn. I can go by for 15 to 20 minutes or more not adjusting my strategy or reacting to stimuli in GalCiv2. No matter what game you're playing you shouldn't be able to just sit there doing the same thing repeatedly. Now, there are two different things being discussed with re

Chess is a beautiful game because of asymetry and by about turn 7 it's a game you've never played before. It requries you to adapt and adapt quickly. Every move requires a re-evaluation of the situation you're in. And no, I'm not saying this should be just like chess, but that aspect of the game I would like to see. Personnaly I'm trying to put in my vote on what I like and don't like. I've already bought the game and notifying the developer

Rate the game on what it is...not what its promoted and promised to be. If you were to rate something on hype...then Duke Nukem Forever is the bestest gaming experience evar! Actually I only read a single review and looked at the screenshots. That plus a deep desire for a better Pax Imperia: Eminent D