Baqar79

Thanks for your input Frogboy, it's at least clear where you stand on this. Well I'll admit I'm disappointed, I basically read your text to say it's pretty boring to write the in game text so you'll not be doing it; nothing wrong with that I find my current job boring so will be leaving very shortly. It's important to make certain that where one is and what they do makes them happy, more so then any large cash incentive. I am incredibly fussy about my games, which is why I hav

2) The text descriptions are a real weakness. It's one of those things that, in hindsight, I wish we had spent more time on. They are what they are. If someone else wants to put together a better set of descriptions, I'd be happy to insert them into an update, give credit and Stardock schwag to. We just don't have the budget internally to do much with them. Many thanks for your input; it h

Want lots of bells and whistles? Maybe buying a game from a small independent is not something that you should do... Whoa there...who said anything about bells and whistles?, I'm not into meaningless gloss and polish in a game; after all Stars! (if you have played it) was a good game with very little in terms of graphic eye candy, but the depth of game play (and IMO excellent tutorial) helped it become popular. Poorly in-game docu

@OP Yes your not the only one who is awestruck by the suckyness of tech tree descriptions. There has been discussions about the issue before but nothing has been done by SD, oh well. My add to the secrets of the tech tree: New Engine tech = speed +10 .. <-- WTF does that mean, it took me months to realize that the +10 actually adds 1 movement point for every ship no matter what engines they have. Talk about vague descri

Baqar79, have you heard of the 'Galactopedia'? It is a small utility program that allows you more info on anything in the tech tree. I have found it to be quite useful. You can find it here: WWW Link Also, the GalCiv Wiki is a great source of info for much of the math of the game; it is here: WWW Link

Hey, if you haven't researched it yet, how should you be able to know exactly what it does? It makes perfect sense to me. If you play the game enough, you'll remember certain things. But even after playing quite a bit I'm still not sure exactly what each tech will give. That's why it's research. It's going into the future of technology. Scientist: "I propose we research an xeno lab" Benevolent Dictator: "So

Dragonstring: "...(i don't need a detailed description to know that an invention matrix is better than a research academy). Also, i don't see why it's nessisary to know all the under-the-hood mechanics, after all it's not like the game cheats... " How do you know it doesn't cheat if you don't know the under-the-hood mechanics? Well unfortunately I'm all about understanding the u

Well technically I've had the game for a while at least I bought GC2 about a year ago when it first came out based on the rave reviews at gamespot; however I was expecting something like Moo2 and was a little disappointed with the game. I missed the tactical combat, being able to control all aspects of battle (as opposed to the automatic battle sequences on GC2), I enjoyed watching the opponents sub-systems break down as I directly inflicted damage to structural components taking out vital syst