CrazyHarlequin

I'd enjoy seeing abilities that give both a positive and negative (they'd only have one option, on/off, rather then numerous levels of it, for the sake of sanity and convenience). I just always love those 'trade-off' options. For example Population planning: The race understands the need for good planning of it's cities and populations, which keeps everyone a bit happier. +5 to Morale, -5% population growth. Tinkerers: The race in question loves to play around with technolog

Something I didn't really mention before, is my affinity for individually naming the destroyer class and up. For me, it goes: Tiny = Fight Small = Heavy (two-man) Fighter or Corvette Medium = Frigate Large = Destroyer Huge = Heavy Cruiser Every Large class or Huge class ship I build, I have to give a custom name to. Often I name the Huge ships design "Flagship MK '#'", so I don't really have to think of a name there. I usually go for a name dependent on my ali

One of the most enjoyable games I've EVER played.

Every time I stick the Drath in the galaxy under computer control, they always seem to be the first ones knocked out of the game. Not sure why.

Csddab, I'm not sure if you're arguing against or for cheats, but I think you're against them. If people want to cheat and ruin their own games, that they're decision. No one has the right to tell them they're ruining it all, if that's how they want to play, and enjoy playing, the game. What if you want to play out certain scenarios? For example, giving yourself a race hopeless at diplomacy (no diplomatic race advantage and forcing yourself to avoid the diplomacy tech tree), but

"Air Superiority". Since your craft control the skies, you have a severe tactical advantage in the form of air strikes and being able to rapidly move your soldiers to where they need to be. The advantage of the defenders is in their numbers, since it's not often that the attackers outnumbers the defenders (though it does happen occasionally).

I often see the miniturisation complaints, but I never see the bad side to it all. At most things increase one to four (and four is an upward guess, I can't think of anything that goes up that much) space points, yet you gain a fairly large amount of size bonus. I can get tiny sized hulls with three Arnorian battle armour slots and two phasors once I've got supreme miniaturisation, and still plenty of room for engines and life support systems. And the Black Hole eruptor may not be tha

More detailed invasion defense. Like the invaders have numerous options available to them, I'd like to see something similar happen to the defenders. Stuff such as: Guerrilla warfare (200BC): You know the area like the back of your hand, and try to use that to your advantage. This denies you the use of your heavier weaponry, but hopefully your knowledge of the planet will make up for it. Lowers the advantage factor of the defender by between 30% and 50%, and the attackers by between 4

I could say the same for you ST.net. What point does this whole thread serve (aside from presumably getting your site noticed)? You're asking people to go through and remove something simply because you think it's bad, when it's an option, not a necessity. No one is twisting your arm to use cheats, and there are no giant billboards hanging in public places saying "People are using cheats in Galciv II". Your arguement seems to be the repetition of the singular point "Cheats ruin the ga

I do quite like this idea. And if done well it wouldn't affect the balance too much. It just looks strange to me to see the small fighter zipping around, only to be hit every single time by the ponderous craft.

The Dantonian Empire. A highly insular empire that maintains a strong millitary presence as a deterrant more then anything else. They refuse to spread out from their own space (which usually occupies a whole corner of the map) until drawn into combat, when they strike without hesitation. They're a neutral race with technological emphasis who never start trade routes until the race near them has been stable and at war with no one for at least a year. Two years if they're still stable t

It's probably because I go incredibly diplomatic and research races, but I never seem to be behind the curve or even attacked until I'm prepared with large hulled ships capable of defeating entire fleets of what the enemy has. I usually research the final defensive techs and have them implemented before I ever have war declared on me. And I also go for two weapon researches. The reason? Simple, I think beam weapons look best, so they're always researched, and Missiles look cool firing simultaneo

I usually try to keep a theme going with my ship's names. Sometimes it depends on the race (at the moment I'm playing 'The Asgardians' after Norse mythology, and so I'm naming the ships things like Mjolnir and Thor. Before I was playing a crusading 'good' race, so ships were named stuff like "The Hammer of Light" or "The Dagger of Dawn".) But to make the names look cool I have two naming systems. 1. The MK system. I create a decent looking design, and simply upgrade it. For exam

None taken. I just feel the government possibility isn't really being used properly. So far all it does is mean there's a vote occasionally which you should have NO trouble dominating, and means you get a bit more money. Woohoo. And it would mean there's a good reason for doing a Star-wars and going from Republic to a dictatorship. Senate gets annoying? Simply strip them of their power (though I'd expect consequences, such as as a morale penalty for a few weeks).

Thats a pretty little contradiction you got there sjlunchbox. Not at all, R:TW and GalcivII are entirely different games. I enjoy R:TW because of the cinematic appeal of it all, the AI is enough to make me feel like a big man when I rip it apart, but nothing special. I just think Tactical combat would drag everything down. Instead of being

1. More ship designs, chassis, and hull parts. 2. The option to 'mine' stars. Sounds a bit strange, but hear me out. Each star could give a random bonus to whatever race that places a constructor on it (to represent a station set up to make use of it in some way. Either as a solar energy collecting station or some sort of radiation catcher that limits damaging radiation, and improves the PQ of all habitable planets within the system). As we all know, there are certain types of stars t

First off, don't get me wrong, I love the game. I would have it's babies if digital wombs were possible, but there's one thing that I just wish was changed. In the combat viewer it looks really weird when tiny 'fighter' craft are moving the same speed as huge 'heavy cruiser's. I understand the physics behind how they would most likely move the same speed in the vacuum of space, I just think it looks weird. My own idea of what may improve it is just a simple thing. In the ba

I love the fact you can't control the combat on the micro level. It makes every decision in ship design so much more important. A well designed craft is so much more important now. Really, what could tactical combat add? It wouldn't make the game more fun, it would make it really really poor. An AI really can't compare with a human on the microcombat level like that. Just play Rome: Total War for proof. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy R:TW, but the AI has to COMPLETELY outnumber you and o

Something hardly anyone ever mentions when talking about defenses Vs weaponry, is how easy it is to get maxed out defenses. In the time it takes you to research Aeron missile defenses, the enemy is only up to Photon torpedos, most likely.

I'd prefer to see changing governments give more of a bonus, but also more of a penalty. The higher the form of government, the more irritating they can be. For example, federations (the highest form, if memory serves) could have half-yearly votes about various aspects of your team, where they may demand things. For example, after a vote, the Senate could make the demand that you construct more millitary ships for the protection of the empire. This then sets you a goal, where you need to reach a

Maybe it's just because I've only recently had the whole game, but I see the opposite of what people are saying. For me, Good is overpowered. You become good, EVERYONE seems to like you. Even the evil races seem more at ease with you on their boarder. You become evil, and everyone turns on you. Even the other evil races jump on the bandwagon and attack. The only neutral bonuses that really seem to affect are the trade routes, PQ, and neutral research centres. While these are pretty go

I go for the strong mix of craft. The larger it's hull, the more emphasis on it's defenses. While this means they don't have as much destructive potential as they might, tough defensive large ships, mixed with smaller, expendable, destructive ships is a good combination. Though I place more emphasis on the appearance, naming and description then the fighting capability. I always try to have ships look appropriate next to one another in a fleet. Then they have to have an appropriate na