I disagree. There are players good enough. Maybe not me, but in other games I have played, I have found players much better than I am, and I am beating suicidal a good 50% to 60% of the time on purposefully more difficult map settings and with some self imposed restrictions. (eg: No military starbases, no neutrality learning centers, fewer opponents to make them tougher to
mikeswi (swi= spywareinfo?) , fancy seeing you here lol... Nice list, but for 'Good' you missed out the saving on maintance of the initial colony for first 5 colonies. That saves you 5*`12= 60 bc a week.
(!), inabilty to tactically calculate ship movement (what players do when "counting squares") Partly compensated with the removal of first strike. once a ship year designing
Gotta respect you for being able to beat a computer 2 levels above tough. The truth is, you're probably the only one out of 1 million to find that painful level so easy. Maybe you're one of those super prodigy guy with an IQ of 200+, I don't know, Hmm 2 levels above tough is crippling isn't it? I guess after my last game victory, I'm one
It's a matter of luck, sometimes they end up screwed by a poor starting position. For my part, i would say that the Drengin seems to be a minor race in the easy and normal difficulty level, but when you get to painfull and higher, they kick your butt big time! The Yor are even worse! The arceans don't seem to be doing anything but sitting around with huge flee
I agree with this, if the AI started really using its planets to near capacity, then suicidal level may become impossible. If Ai started to use its planet to capacity any level above tough may become impossible. With 1.2 they will close off th
The difference between MP and tactical combat is that for the former unlike the latter, Stardock doesn't seem to be philisophically opposed to having it, the reason they left it out was due to priority reasons hence the poll on a MP expansion. I also suspect if a poll was made about expansion adding tactical combat, it would fare way better than MP. Tactical combat ala Moo and Master of magic would be a lot of fun, but the AI would be even more disadvantaged. The prob
>>They claimed that the AI without cheating at 'tough' would be unwinnable for all but the top 5 percentile of gamers >This was merely conjecture and this has not changed. Just because a statement is made by someone we respect, does not make it a fact. Let's get real here. It's was not just a statement made by merely "someone we respect" .It was a claim made by one of the developers with the intent of getting people to buy their product and/or to defend the need against
Never seen them the Fundamentalists. I never seem to get any random events. After 20+ games at least, I have never even gotten a precusor ship, not even once. I saw the Ai get one or two back in 1.0x though.
It's winnable.
Very true, you could even say usless. But this is obvious because, whats the point of having a really good defence if your attack is non existent. Well sure, i did add to my ship one particle beam I or II . Otherwise 0 attack = autoloss lol. But apparantly there is a very good point in haveing a really good attack, if your defense
This thread is full of fanboys.
Same with certain armors. You'll see the difference in size on larger hulls, where the newer tech is somewhat smaller. Actually Driods sentry II and III have the exact same stats (base 4 + 2% of hull size) , size of hull or miniturization bonus doesn't change this. Ditto for Tr isnotium armor I and II. But yes there are
About Ai doing ship design once a year. A design flaw that should be fixed, clearly. However, it isn't fair to say anyone is exploiting it. Surely no one expects people to hold off upgrading laser II to plasma III until after the next UP meeting? It's not exactly a design flaw, it was done on purpose if i understand correctly. <
OMG, the improvement to the colony management rocks! The more info they can cramp in there the better! I also read somewhere that they are fixing it, so that you can upgrade fleets , without having to disband, split them up one by one before upgrading!
Pankotus have you tried using no defenses, but purely using speed and overwhelming first strike to fight battles? If you pick your battles correctly, and attack only when you have overwhelming force (easy to do with superior speed and all weapon ships) , it's as good if not better than adding defense.
Just choose netural or evil options and then pay for good! Heck I typically choose evil toptions then pay for netural! Good has that empathy center so races are twice as likely to surrender to you (not sure if it works properly) and another one that gives all your ships 20% defensive bonus. Try the Drath Legion they have an inherent 50% defense bonus, then pick good, research defensive techs and use one of their specialised defense, you can quickly get
I agree with Tiger8 about the AI doing things which seem to make no sense. It's my only complaint about the game (which I love!). It just doesn't make sense to have, for example, multiple anomolies still around enemy homeworlds after a couple game years have passed...or planets without a fac I have the impression the developers won't care if th
Netural also gets a 10% approval.morale bonus the last time I checked. Good gets a loyalty bonus which is far less useful. And instead of free tile upgrades you get a saving of 12*5=60 bc per turn assuming you have 5 or more colonies (excluding homeworld) You also get the Temple of Neutrality, which gives you a portion of all the other races tour
Tiger 8 has some good advise. Run out of cash? Do any of the following, roughly in order of decreasing effectiveness 1) Mine an economic resource a few times 2) Upgrade to more advanced government 3) Research economic tech that gives +10% bonus 4) Any tech that increases morale globally, or mine morale resources. This doesn't increase cash flow directly, but allows you a higher tax rate. These first 4 are global effects so they can help immens
Another thing about the system is that while it's perfectly viable strategy to focus almost 100% on weapons and ignoring defenses, doing the opposite, with minor research on weapons and mostly on defenses is clearly inferior. In my latest game that is still on going , I play the Drath with defense bonuses, i delibrately, played Good, to gain access to even mroe superior defensive technology, and I restricted myself to researching only the first few laser tech and focused primarily on
I can tell you suicide can be beaten if you use your diplomcay, or finance options properly. However, it is not EASY. That's about the same as any other game really. At the highest difficulty level, the AI gets so much bonuses that even for the best players winning is touch and go. So I wouldn't say the game is easy, not easier or harder for t
I'll bet that if you looked at the actual numbers, I'm thinking that 5% is pretty accurate. Probably only 5% of the people that have purchased this game actually visit these forums. How many units of GalCiv2 have sold? How many of those players can beat the AI on tough on a regular basis? I'm quite sure much less than 10%. You make it sound lik
you could set the relations in the beginning to hostile, that should make a war much more likely, but I haven't tried this yet. I dod this in a lot of my recent games accidently. i was play testing something that required everyone to gang up on me, so i set relations for all races to be at war with me. I forget to change it back and this settin
Yes, alot of people r coming out with this, 'comment', u then find they r only playing on tough level or whatever level it is that the AI is not cheating a To be fair, Well the problem is one of Stardock's own making. They claimed that the AI without cheating at 'tough' would be unwinnable for all but the top 5 percentile of gamers! That is a c
