mutual destruction seems more sensible to me... I'd like the addition of two additional battle outcomes: mutual destruction if both fleets are destroyed, and stalemate if neither is. The last should also by possible with small fleets and high, matching defenses.
[quote]This way you do maximise income, and you get a high population (which is good for score) however, you do run at a fairly low moral. No problem though, just keep an eye on elections and drop the tax for that week only, voters, true to form, have a short memory. [/quote] That fact has annoyed me for while now: You can run 40% morale and only lower taxes just before election, and the people vote as if you had been doing that the whole time. I'd like it better if morale had a kin
[quote]Against a fleet of mostly defense huge hulls, you want to send a super-high attack fleet, which will then suffer few losses[/quote] I took another look at the exact stats of the end game weapons and defenses. There might be something to the statement above, though I haven't tested it personally. [quote]Simply, end game offense outpaces end game defense.[/quote] That seems to be the case only for Nightmare torpedoes versus Aereon Defense, but at least there it ho
[quote]You forget the Scenario C, that's clearly stated on GalCiv wiki: "When the firepower of the fleet becomes too great for the defenses, the rule of the day becomes all-attack single suicidal ship (firepower several hundred points), that destroys many of the opponent's ships in the first round of the combat, and by the "tie rule" maybe even survives. " Scenario C's way you lose one ship per AIs fleet. [/quote] OK I didn't consider that one. But I seriously doubt that strateg
In some patch a while back (1.6?), defenses got a significant boost. Since then, it is generally worth it to use mixed ships with offense and matched defense, at least as long as your enemy doesn't adapt and switch weapon types. [quote]The answer is simple: if you can match defenses on a single ship with offenses of the whole FLEET of your enemy (at least 75% of defenses), then you use defenses, the rest engine(s) and weapons. On strictly defensive ships even no engines. If you can't match,
4d? I'm keeping my fingers crossed it will be beta 5, with the new victory condition enabled. It would be cool to see the last major feature (apart from AI) make it into this beta. After all, that has been announced for a while now. The beta is taking shape very nicely (thanks SD), but hopefully the release will be made in April. I agree that a new schedule would not be a bad idea.
Actually, I like the reappearing anomalies a lot. The only thing that needs fixing there is the AI who doesn't take advantage of anomalies by building survey ships (other than flagship) I've never noticed resources appearing, are you sure that's what happened? It would be a great idea if resources vanished after being used by a resource base for, say, five years, but also reappeared randomly, just like anomalies. It would make resources less overpowered if their usefulness was finite. A
[quote]We've been wanting to include the editors but have been afraid they might end up on some torrent site. So we'll be releasing one of the editors and as long as we don't find them on torrent sites, we'll keep adding more editors to the beta. [/quote] I Don't think that is a good idea. Anything with a certain popularity will eventually make its way into a torrent, a declaration like this won't make a bit of a difference there. If you do this, you'll basically go down the sa
I regularly manage to save millions of BC in spite of the money cutback. Really the only situation when I'm somewhat annoyed at it is when I'm trying to upgrade a class of ships for, say, 100000 bc, and have to save that money beforehand to avoid total economy freeze due to debt afterwards. If the game gave me an option like "upgrade as many ships of this type as i can afford" I'd be perfectly content with the way things are now
[quote]So, roughly speaking, if the maintenance on my souped up colony ship is more than 5 times the maintenance of a basic colony ship (which would have a speed 9, 1 hyperdrive) then the basic ship is more efficient economically. (in 5 turns the basic colony ship will move farther than the souped up ship moved in 1 turn, is where I get that factor from) Throwing out some imaginary, but possibly realistic numbers. Say a basic ship has a maintenance of 7. It might even be that, the number sticks
I think full maintenance for ALL ships is an excellent idea. Minifreighters are already exempted (unless it's displayed wrongly in the leases/maintenance tab), and it prevents the player from hoarding transports or constructors like there's no tomorrow. Something like half maintenance for ships in planetary orbit that didn't move in the previous turn should be considered, but I really don't see why you should be able to operate a ship a a freebie simply because it has no weapons built on it
I agree about that it should not affect the technology victory line. However, apart from that, I think creativity is great as it is. The only thing that should be done with it is change the race selection point cost to reflect the current power of it, to something like 3-5
I've played a couple of games without megaevents now, but not for the suggested reason that the option is for people who can't deal with the negative events. Instead, it has been my observation that the computer players generally suck at dealing with them. Let's take a couple of examples: Speed limit event: Fine, the game is slower-paced now. No more engines required on my ships, but before those computer players who used engines understand they are useless now, a lot of time can pass<b
I think Starbase fortification is a waste of money. If you want to effectively defend your starbases, you have to do so with fleets. The only way I can think of to make starbase defenses viable is to completely revamp them: Change the modules to give capacity points that are automatically filled with the best available weapons/defenses of one category and apply weapon/defense society boni. If a fully armed starbase was about as heavily packed with weapons and defenses as three huge hulls, I'd sa
Well, the new maintenace rules work for me... it simply requires some change in thinking. Before, all unarmed ships were basically freebies, and you could amass dozens of transports without paying a bc after the construction. Now, once you don't need a ship anymore, get rid of it. I'm actually more concerned that the higher maintenance levels hurts the AI's, since they build tons of "defenders" that get more expensive now, leaving them fewer fleets to attack.
When reading the Drath building thread, I realized that macromanagement on planetary buildings one of the things this fantastic game still misses. In large empires, what I'd actually wish for is a kind of development plan (I know this sounds MOO3, but that's no reason Stardock can't do it better) where I can design a planetary development blueprint. For example Krynn: farm, consulate, order, counter esp, 5 factories, starport, power plant, remaining tiles econ buildings as a shipyard world. Obvi
Quick help, and works again... thanks pndrew. Still, if the devs have some spare time ;-) it might be helpful if the game automatically reset resolution to 800*600 or something like that if startup is unsuccessful
For the last few days, I had the opportunity to run ToTA beta (newest version) on another, larger, monitor capable of supporting 1600*1200 resolution. Now I can't do that anymore, and my own monitor doesn't support 1600*1200, so I started ToTA a while back expecting to be asked to change the resolution. Instead, the game crashed when started, and I can't even get to the point where I have the option to turn the resolution down. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't fix this (I expect ToTA stores
I have been playing as Korath for a while now in 3D. One thing I feel I have to report is that IMHO the Dark Influence building is way overpowered. A 100% bonus would still be enough to make the building worthwhile, but might not give the player quite so overwhelming influence at only one building per planet. (For those who never tried Korath in TA: Dark Influence gives a 200% influence bonus and is a one per planet building)
I'm just posting this in case the developers haven't noticed yet. As of beta 3D, I have never seen a computer player actually build a survey ship. Before respawning anomalies, that was largely irrelevant, but now it gives the player a large advantage, because of the slowly accumulating stat boni. If the AI continued surveying as well, the fun of anoms would remain while not being lopsided
It's not only the Yor, I had the same when playing the Korath. I think it might be a good idea for the devs to move the technologies for upgrading starbases, or create different starbase modules for those races affected
See the thread "game non responsive after..." You can work around this bug by disabling the interface option "full fleet combat only if both sides are fleets"
I had the bug too, and I'm getting pretty annoyed by it. Every time I attack a single ship, the game freezes. However, I noticed that fleet battles seem to be going fine, and thus came up with the following WORKAROUND: Disable the interface option "show full fleet battles only when both sides are fleets". This way, you get fleet battles every time even if you attack a freighter, which does get tiresome, but at least the game doesn't freeze. I still hope they manage to isolate t
Bravo. If IRAN gets a nuke they WILL use it. If al Queda gets a nuke into the US, the WILL use it. If Al'Qaida get their hands on nuclear weapons, they likely will use it, probably in Europa as it would be easier to get it there- However, I have some serious doubts whether Iran would actually use nukes if they had them, because I think the Iranian government and military would be scared of the retaliation. I think it more likely they wo
I pretty much agree with the original list. To those who think Bush and Olmert should not be on the list, I reply: The topic of the post was not "which people are the most evil persons on earth" but "which persons are most dangerous to mankind". Now I don't think either Bush or Olmert mean harm by what they are doing, they probably are even idealistic people. However, the saying goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and George W. Bush seems to be a prime example for tha
