Mismatched

Sorry, seems pretty cheesy to me. I think I will stick to building my own.

Nice interview and nice expansion coming it looks like. Thanks.

Hmmmm, I concentrate on getting Colony ships and never build scouts until the rush is over. Heck, I build Constructors before I build scouts. My starting survey ship will go to a couple of star systems but picks up any anomolies on the way and then is put on auto-survey. Am I missing out here?

P4 2.8ghz 1 gig ram 9700pro 250 gig hd logitech dinovo keyboard/mouse dell 20" wide screen lcd upgrading as soon as I see what Intel Conroe looks like.

Ok, so this is a little off topic, but how much do you worry about needing to turn the production slider down for a while at the end of the colony rush while waiting for your planets to develop a little? I usually have to do it for a few months and I see the AIs with huge negatives at that time so I am assuming they do to. Do you usually grow slowly enough to avoid this or just deal with the slow progress for a while?

But I think an AI that is a little schitzofrenic is a good thing. I don't want it to be predictable. I want to need to walk quietly around it to avoid aggravating it. I want it to go off on me if it sees a threat. 1.2 is the first quality release for the AI in this game (as far as making war - well, and developing planets) and I am happy to see it.

Because they can't... Vista is an attempt by M$ to write an OS without all the flaws that make XP unfixable. Fat chance!

I am impressed too. I lost my first game of GC last night. The Altarians came at me with huge fleets with superior weapons and kicked my butt. I think the Yor were even stronger! I might have to step back down to Painful for a while until I get a handle on how to handle the new AI. Great job Stardock!!!!!

I would love to be on the losing end of a gang pile on just once. Be grateful for a quality challenge instead of whining.

When I start getting asked for tribute I trade for the best weapon anyone has. Then I build the best offensive small ships I can with no engines and put them in orbit. Then I wait until I have medium hulls researched and start working on weapons and defenses appropriate for what everyone else is building. Then I go to war. I never build a spin center as I consider that cheesy. I try not to start a war until the other civ has at least some weapons on their defenders because I hate taki

Good analysis Delwack. And yes, it is probably why we all play 4X games. Without a challenge, what's the point. To see the perfect example of that sort of failure, look at Rome:Total War.

Civ4 was my first 4X game and GalCiv2 was my next one. I am playing GC2 and not Civ4 so that says something. But, I honestly think that the AI in Civ4 is vastly superior. Civ4 actually knows how to make war. It knows how to prepare for war. I knows how to settle in an aggressive way that makes sense and then builds it's terrain well. About the only thing Civ4 doesn't do is to let you build your own weapons systems. While I appreciate the additions to the AI competency in the new patches for GC2

I think all resources should be evenly distributed to all Civs. Also, all civs should have exactly the same attributes, just different portraits and names. Troll?!

It is much less of a numbers game than most strategy games, like Civ4. It certainly helps to gain an understanding of what to build and when, but other than that it is pretty straight forward and actually requires less micro than most games. There are actually periods of time where you just keep hitting end turn while things build and those periods can go very quickly. Other times when you are at war the game can go much slower. I usually play in 1-3 hour increments.

I guess I am more pragmatic and tend to want quick info because I name them for what the are: small-6m 3a 7spd sr ---- small hull, 6 missle, 3 armor, 7 speed, short range.

It works if you set the individual difficulty to less than or equal the base difficulty. You can't set them higher is all. This is useful for cheese eaters to start with a dumb, weak civ to pick on first.

I like the fact that they often surrender to another party. Now if they were choosier about who they surrendered to and maybe only chose the 2nd largest/strongest civ then it would enhance the game for me. I think the AI should form alliances more often too so that you have to think twice before attacking another civ because you are gonna get a two for one at least when you start a war.

Hmmmm, I actually rarely finish a game. Once I have taken over another civ or two and am the dominant civ I just start a new game. Some of the early game can be just clicking end-turn but that is usually just while I am waiting for my economy to come online after the colony rush. After that I am busy with war.

I think that the size galaxy you are playing on contributes somewhat to whether you buy or build colony ships. I usually play medium or large and on medium if I don't buy as many colony ships as I can afford (usually down to about 1000bc) then I end up with too few colonies. I will often build them on my home planet and buy them on my secondary planet and then ship them empty to my home planet to put citizens on them. At the same time I buy at least one factory on the first couple of planets, bu

I only have other civs build lots of starbases in my territory if I let them get away with it. If you kill the first starbase built in your territory then they are less apt to build more. Of course you better be willing to go to war.

The only time the AI needs to design new ships is if it just finished researching a new tech that affects ship design. That's when I do it and that' probably when the AI should do it. It only makes sense.

Absolutely! I go entire wars without losing ships because of defense. It is way cheaper in the long run.

I usually play on Painful or Masochistic on large galaxies. While I understand the game mechanics more than most people might, I don't take special pains to take advantage of special circumstances and I don't worry about falling into the disadvantages of certain techs either. I still win virtually every game! I still take over planets in the late game that only have 4 tiles built, or planets with a manufacturing capitol but only one factory, etc, etc, etc.... I see all the problems outlined so w

See, I would pay money to get a better AI. I know that I already paid for that, and what I got isn't too bad, but to get a smart AI that develops planets and ships in an intelligent and reactionary way while managing an effective assault or defense would be worth paying for. What I seek in a game is challenge, so I will pay to get a better challenge. In addition, I would like to see more races, the races more individualized, and better diplomacy. The rest is fluff. I never play campai

100% morale gives a 100% boost to population growth. There is also a bonus at 75% but I am not sure what it is. I find it almost impossible to be at 100%, and it certainly seems impractical except on your first planet, so I generally just strive for the 75% bonus. Here's the question though, is this 75% overall or is each planet's pop growth determined by it's own morale %?