Here's one I haven't seen before. 1.2 Beta 1, using the mod A Drengin fleet picked off a lone ship, and one ship of the Drengin fleet suffered minor damage. It looks like some ships in the fleet then decided to upgrade. When it was my turn, the damaged Drengin ship had negative hitpoints. (It was, incidentally, a r
Yeah, I forget the exact numbers, but it takes something like 60000-80000 research points to max a weapon branch (beam is much less than the other two), but only around 15000-20000 to max a defense branch.
To the best of my knowledge, there's no way a starbase can survive the first round against a typical fleet once you get to the midgame. It would require a fix to the game mechanics (like being able to form fleets that include ships and a starbase) or maybe a huge increase in starbase hitpoints to make fortifying starbases worthwhile. I don't think 1.2 is going to change much, although now you kill one ship in the attacking fleet, I guess. The solution is to (1) don't harden you
What would be a better system? If both fleets are destroyed, both feets are destroyed. The current system keeps one of the ships alive (based on maximum hitpoints, which seems a little arbitrary?) as if a tie is something that has to be avoided.
There were three sectors of empty space between me and any AI, which is what let me survive as long as I did. First strike with small attack ships... I lost that game in 2231 or so when I tried to hold on to some resource starbases, became overextended, and suffered enough casaulties that I couldn't rebuild a full fleet before the 14-speed Torian ships came in and took out my core econ starbases. Because I only had 3 planets and no trade routes, I couldn't afford to support much more than one fu
Yeah... but here we're talking about the last ship only. It's not going to effectively produce a "first-strike advantage." A system where the first round was fought with pre-1.2 sequential firing, and all rounds after the first were fought with 1.2 simultaneous firing, that would yield something like a first strike advantage. This system looks to me like it's just going to promote weird cheese... Imagine a 7 hitpoint, 24 attack tiny fighter in a 1 on 1 battle with a 6 hitpoints, 24 attack tiny f
I'm getting something similar... maybe it's supposed to be this way, I don't know, but I'm trying the mod and Caria Prime has the Earth texture, and my home system secondary planet is Mars. I'll try deleting raceconfigs and such... Edit: Deleted files, same behavior. Not a big deal, just thought maybe something isn't working right--I thought from the changelog that the new race in the mod has a home planet texture of the Stardock logo?
A lot of good stuff in the changelog, nice work.
What's the reasoning behind this design choice? Just curious. From 1.2 beta 1 changelog: + New Combat System: 1 on 1 Ship Battles: If both sides kill each other in the same round, the ship with the most max hp will escape as the winner with 1 hp. If they have the same max hp, the attacker wins. + New Combat System: Fleet Battles:
Re: Iztok, #33 Cool, I'll check that out.
Re: #73, #74 I've played most of the time on small and medium maps, but my current game is on a Huge map, and I can definitely see what Iztok is talking about with the engines. In fact, in all my simulations, the number of engines has always been held constant. It's likely that on larger maps, when you need ships that can cover greater distances, the optimum number of engines per ship goes up; since this takes up a greater percentage of the space available on small ships, needing more
Iztok Bitenc wrote: Just in case you didn't know: last turn excess social production is no more wasted Jonathan Moriarity wrote: Actually, excess social production is converted into military production. </T
That mock screenshot really helps. I never really understood how a starbase governor could work, but yeah, I see what the starbase governor advocates are talking about now. It'd be cool if you could (1) see on one screen the modules each starbase has, so a table with a row for each starbase and a column for each category of modules, and then something like 3 in a cell if Starbase X has 3 mining modules (and use a different color, blue or grey or something, if this is as many modules
Sweet zombie Jesus, 1584 comments? Nice...
It sounds good in theory, DamnedChoir, but the numbers indicate that building armor heavy ships just isn't a strong strategy. A ship with few weapons and tons of armor would benefit by exchanging shields for weapons: It would take less damage on average since it would finish the enemy fleet faster. The right balance depends on many factors, but in the tests I've done I've never seen a ship with more defense than weapons be preferable to a similar, balanced ship. Putting it another way, I'
Don't forget, AI players should be able to win tech and political victories. And I think the micromanagement of planets is pretty bad right now, but would be fixed if (1) waste is eliminated and (2) players can see/set focus from the Colonies management tab. Also, there are reasons right now for building "pyramid" fleets, but they're pretty subtle... Marcathonas (#2) wrote: <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 class="mb-Body-Quote-Ta
Brenner2 wrote: I don't think defenses are too expensive, it just depends on the situation. Yeah, and Brenner2 goes on to describe exactly the kind of situaton where they're best: On large, high-tech ships fighting small, low-tech ships. In situations like these, defenses sure are worth it. Like comment #65 points out, shielded ships are nigh
Iztok wrote: My current slowest-tech no-trading game on masochistic has put me in a nasty position. Most AIs have large tech lead in offensive techs (weapons, miniaturization, propulsion, logistic, hulls). However I had the best point defense (PD combo - 3 points in defense, size 4 on medium hull), and my intended targets (Korx first, Drengin in distant future) are us
As for how to handle research, there is a lot of room for compromise. Our goal is to find a game mechanic that doesn't require micromanagement and that is also easy to use. We have some options: 1. Current system. Pros: Multiple techs (in same branch) can be researched in one turn, very easy to use. Cons: Spending at the end of a tech tree branch is wasted, users can not research techs from different branches in a single turn. 2. Proposal in OP. Pros: Each unit
DeltaGorno (#24) wrote: So declaring the AI 'weak' when you've sat down specifically to find out where it is weak and exploit this, seems a little ridiculous. Well, I agree more or less with your reply up until this. It seems to me like this is exactly how one goes about declaring an AI weak. You sit down specifically to find its weaknesses, pro
Vanir wrote: If the AI doesn't try to win, it's probably because the game won't allow it to win. The AI can't win a tech or alliance victory even if it fulfills the requirements. So the AI gets discouraged. You'd think fixing this would be a priority...
Yeah. I'm disappointed that the developers have put such a low priority on getting the AI better. Mr. Wardell has said he's only working on this "a few hours a week" plus whatever time he feels like on weekends. He's said that the AI seems good enough to him, that it's finished, etc. We're given every sign that we shouldn't expect anything major and should be grateful for anything more we get. And yet... Well, there are plenty of lists of things that aren't right, there's another good one here i
I wrote my own simulator, which I talk about in some other threads: one , two . Although it's been improved a bit since the earlier posts. Now, I can type something like ship.1 = buildShip("Medium", c("Warp Engin
To me "fanboy" can also have a connotation of irrational loyalty. For example, being very quick to defend any flaw in this game, or to take offense at any comments critical of Stardock, would be behavior typical of a GC2 fanboy.
My sentiments exactly.
