[quote]An inconsistency: Terran ship module 'Stellar Avenger' (Attack +20%) only works in own sphere of influence while 'Stellar Defender' (Defense +25%) works everywhere (and its description is confusing). I guess 'Stellar Defender' was meant to work only in the own sphere of influence as well. [/quote] Hah, found the cause of this bug. The Stellar Avenger is noted as providing the following: 20< /AtlasAttackInZOCStren
There's a tech in the Drath tree, I believe, that also introduces a 'ship module' that is also non-existent.
When you research 'Mass Driver Theory', you get the crappy Space Cannon. When you research 'Missile Weapon Theory' you get the crappy Sparrow. But when you research 'Beam Weapon Theory', you get nothing, because the crappy Particle Beam is given when you research 'Space Weapons'. This really, seriously looks like a bug, and it's been around forever. Why would you get an energy weapon anyway? I mean, Space Cannon, maybe - it's a stupid, simple technology. But an energy weapon? That's a l
[quote] When it is patched up to 4B, can you still play games from 4A? I have been playing an immense galaxy all weeend and would hate to loose that. [/quote] Yes, always. Stardock wuvs joo.
[quote] And the way I see it, if flavor text weren't important, why would they have written a backstory about the game, as well as written such long descriptions about Artificial Gravity and Hyperfusion like they did? Obviously someone is interested in it. Backstory as flavor for a setting is one thing. Tripping over a wikipedia entry's worth of backstory because you researched "Laser III" is something different entirely.
What the hell happened to Earth?
[quote] I've been pestering the Stardock devs (Kryo and Frogboy) to let me submit my new technology descriptions for review. I've basically made the descriptions much more serious, far more plausible, and even slightly more useful. They're a lot longer and verbose to be sure, but after seeing the new technology descriptions for Hyperfusion / Artificial Gravity, etc. I thought they could all use a redo. Some of them are goo
Pretty easy - between games, the favorite parts are lost.
Well in the game I'm playing at Challenging right now, it's still rather early, the Krynn have about 8K in the bank and control about 20+ planets, I have about 12 and barely float above the red. I also noticed this: I have an economic planet built already with 8 billion people on it. It has two multimedia centers, a farm, and five or six adv. market centers. Income is listed at 49bc, but 'spending' and 'maintenance' together total 48bc. There is nothing being built on this planet, so [B
[quote] One slider, no. But there have been requests for habitable planet sliders, extreme environment sliders, economy sliders, maintenance sliders, asteroid sliders, anomaly sliders, anomaly respawn rate sliders, etc. Basically anything and everything you can think of has had someone advocating a slider for it. To be honest, I wish there was a slider for all these things... more choices when setting up a sandbox game is never a bad
FYI: You can right-click on stuff in the trade screen to get more information about what they do - including the treaties :)
[quote] I don't see why they don't add an option when starting a game to change the ship maintenance. I personnally would like to see ship maintenance pretty low so that wars would be really epic, but thats just me [/quote] Because frankly that'd be like playing HL2 and having sliders for how much dama
I also rarely see them invest in economics - almost never any economic buildings anywhere, but somehow they can afford to keep up and even surpass me... it's odd.
Personally I think it's something to do with the AI finishing its execution but not completing all the way to your turn again, as it always happens at the END of the AI's turn, and I've had it happen more often with "use full CPU" turned on.
PLEASE give us an option for the following behavior. Whenever a survey ship hits an anomaly, a small message appears in the corner describing the anomaly found, and that's it. No pop-up box, no auto-centering. Seriously, this auto-centering is pissing me off a LOT, but turning off the survey pop-up messages is a little extreme, as I have no idea what was found.
[quote] Yes it does. All the upgraded core ships have more space than they should. Makes making a new design from scratch a bit pointless. Bear in mind that the actual functionality of the core ships is not actually linked with their appearance. So they may graphically have more colony modules, constructors, weapons, etc, than they actually do. You can rest assured that there's no actual space advantage (they're all defined using the
[quote] Reading this thread it sounds like way too much focus is on 'surviving' the economy by having to rush for high-end economy buildings. While they help a lot and are a valid tactic, the point of the game is that I'm not railroaded into a single method of playing the game. For the same reason I don't like the Thalans, being forced to do certain things a certain way just makes it feel like a clunky, boring RTS game
I still like my military starbase = static defense idea. Fast ships can blast right through before it is your turn to have the starbase attack, but woe be unto he who falls short :)
Reading this thread it sounds like way too much focus is on 'surviving' the economy by having to rush for high-end economy buildings. While they help a lot and are a valid tactic, the point of the game is that I'm not railroaded into a single method of playing the game. For the same reason I don't like the Thalans, being forced to do certain things a certain way just makes it feel like a clunky, boring RTS game with build orders.
[quote]Thank you for explicitly stating my objection for me, then. If starbases were armed and armored on anything like the scale your new analogy would suggest, they would be completely indestructable once built. No possible fleet, even of ultimate weapon huge hulls, would be able to destroy such a starbase. Exactly how many tank shells would be needed to sink the Bismark?[/quote] Except this Bismark doesn't do a damn thing except slap you when you go up and kick it in the ass first. S
[quote] Starbases are about 200x larger than a Huge Hull ship. Given that they have no guidance or propulsion systems, and given how ENORMOUS they are, they should not only be able to take withering amounts of firepower, but they should certainly and realistically be able to sport more weapons, more POWERFUL weapons, and much, MUCH stronger defenses. We're seriously comparing a city to a tank. Couple points here: Yes, ships
Since I don't care about the metaverse, let me say that that's both ridiculous, stupid, and absurd, at the same time.
[quote]IMO its the AIs mistake to even be attacking the things. I haven't lost a starbase in, I'd say somewhere between my last 30 to 50 games. You should never be in a position where they get attacked. Conversely, if a starbase has even more than about a +40 to its attack I just go around them. You can't put enough in a sector to even block an attack to one planet, forget about stopping a dedicated fleet. It would be the Maginot Line all over again... Look at my +100/+100/+100 starbase yo
[quote]As I imagine, huge hulled ships are at least the same size as starbases. [/quote] [img]http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/2314/60595737ht0.jpg[/img] WRONG. Starbases are about 200x larger than a Huge Hull ship. Given that they have no guidance or propulsion systems, and given how ENORMOUS they are, they should not only be able to take withering amounts of firepower, but they should certainly and realistically be able to sport more weapons, mo
And moons.
