shiva7663

I like to run ships that are empty except for engines and life support. Then, when they come to an area of the map where I need to make a decision, I can upgrade that ship for whatever purpose is appropriate to that hull type (freighter, constructor, surveyor for cargo hulls, and "Just In Time" offense and defense mixes for the combat hulls). Yes, there's the "baloon payment" at the end when the ship takes its final form, but I'm willing to pay that price for the extreme flexibility it

The most likely implementation of carriers in any version of GalCiv II would probably be to allow a number of "boarded" fighters to travel farther without life support, and maybe engines; a logistics bonus would likely prove too advantageous, since the advantage fighters have lies in their sheer numbers. What's tricky about that, though, is the fact that you risk re

I've only destroyed one civ, but it says I'm at 90 percent towards conquest victory. Also there's a typo: "acheive" should be "achieve". Debug Message: Version v1.3 beta 3X last updated on: Wed Aug 30 19:23:43 2006

Another thing a wealthy, influential non-military culture can do when they need to wage a war is use trade goods and cash to buy entire fleets (including invasion transports) from the other AI's. I try to purchase any special ships (like Rangers) that other AI's find, too. If you've at least researched the appropriate technologies (not with the intent of creating your own fleets, of course, but as a "fleet simulations intellectual exercize") you can then pay to upgrade those fleets to y

What I've started to do is have a Class name followed by a summary of the ship's capabilities, for example: Cargo 500p 7s 5r is a people-mover that has a 7 speed and a 5 range. I tried "5.4r" but it won't let me put punctuation in the ship name. It's kind of souless, but I was having so many slightly different rebuilds (as miniaturization improved, for example) that MK 4 or MK 23 just didn't give enough info in the name.

Ah, thanks. That wasn't apparent from the .err file.

Does anyone have suggestions for a good naming convention for custom designed ships?

Debug Message: Version v1.3 beta 3X last updated on: Wed Aug 30 19:23:43 2006 (a pertinent excerpt from the debug.err file): Debug Message: Deleting previous save game. Debug Message: About to auto save. Debug Message: Save Game: About to save Deleting a previous autosave before creating a new autosave file leaves a coverage gap. Better would be to create the new autosave as a temporary file, rename the current autosave to .old, rename the new autosave to m

I've stopped invasions by purchasing all of a civ's transports before. If you have a lot of cash or trade goods, you can really tip the scales of a "Let's You and Him Fight" situation by purchasing the fleets of one side, so that they can't rebuild their fleets in time to stop civ #2 from whacking them. Lots of fun, that was.

Also, play at a higher difficulty. It will make it more fun when you have to fend off troop transports. My confession is that I'm addicted to the "Cakewalk" difficulty setting. heh.

A couple of factors that affect the invasion result which haven't been mentioned yet are the Courage feature and the total tech level number.

Defense Ship - 1 engine, triple defense system(means three of each if agaisnt colorful enemies, if not, focus), lots of guns, does not deviate from it's designated planet's orbit If it's a system defense platform, why use up any space for engines at all? Oh, unless you have to move them from a factory planet to their destination. nvm. heh.

Version v1.3 beta 2a last updated on: Tue Aug 8 16:18:51 2006 In the debug.err file, I get messages like this a lot: Debug Message: Destroying ship Scout Ship M0-1 21. Orbiting: 1 Debug Message: Was Orbiting: Akilians II Debug Message: Destroying ship Scout Ship M0-1 27. Orbiting: 1 Debug Message: Was Orbiting: Akilians II Debug Message: Destroying ship Scout Ship M0-1 35. Orbiting: 1 Debug Message: Was Orbiting: Akilians II Debug Message: Destro

I never understood why the AI puts a Starport on every planet. I don't know about the AI's but there are a couple of reasons why I do it: 1. I like having the flexibility to rush-build a ship from any planet in my empire. 2. With lots and lots of starports, I can use the Governor feature combined with rally points to launch a full-sc

I see that no one at all mentioned the worthless Galactic Guide Book. By the time I would be able to afford to build this anomalies are loooong gone. Anyboby know a more worthless wonder? The Galactic Guide Book would be so much better if it gave you zero space Survey Modules instead of zero cost Survey Modules.

I've noticed a bit of odd AI behavior: an AI planet will produce a scout, not launch it, then the scout disappears (presumably recycled) shortly thereafter. Is the AI just using the scout to take a quick sensor peek around the planet? That seems like a cash-wasting way to do that, if that's really what is happening.

Please get a clue what you're talk about. This was NOT a bug, but a perfomance issue. Low end machines couldn't handle the increased sensor range, like I said. As such, there is no way to fix it. The cap will probably stay. When performance issues cause the game to actually crash, that most certainly is a bug. The game should instead gracefully clos

...

unless 15 PC was found to be optimal for reducing the bugs caused by larger sensor ranges Bugs are bugs and as such, should be fixed. The game configured to crank up the maximum sensor range should not crash the game: all such crashes should be coded to be prevented. If greater than 15 PC blows away a min spec 800 mhz P3 computer, then perh

Unfortunately, the sensor range and ship range caps are both necessary--apparently, the game starts to do some weird things once either value reaches a certain point. If the devs have decided not to fix that bug, or have reduced the priority of fixing that bug to the point where it will never happen, then that's a decision of theirs with which I stron

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9484,00.html

I just built a "picket" sensor platform with all the MK 4 sensors a cargo hold could fit, and with miniaturization, I get a theoretical sensor range of 29 parsecs, which is capped in-game to 15 parsecs. I'm using the v1.3 Beta. Is there a plan to remove the cap at some point?

I'd like to do espionage against the minor races. There are places in-game where it tells you that you won't know certain info about those minor races without espionage, but there's no way currently to do it at all.

Or a short Starbase Tech tree leading to improved starbases which can launch an increasing number of hulls per turn...? I could live with that. heh.

Combat? Space bombardment? GC2 is turn-based, so of course, a planet full of startports could be conquered and used just like any other planet. Not sure I understand in detail how your objection applies to my proposals. Anyway, another application of the alternative principle from my previous post would be allowing a player to rush build multiple tiles on a planet in a turn if they have enough social production capacity to allow it. Another implication of multiple starports per