thehandofzarquon

[quote]Some techs should be marked as untradeable - stuff like Unconventional Warfare, for example, which only exists to open up tech options for the Drengin and don't have any bonuses, modules, or improvements associated with them.[/quote] Unconventional Warfare gives +5 Weapons, it isn't worthless. [quote]If you can list specific techs that should be made untradeable, it'd make it easier for the devs to take care of it.[/quote] Can do! Here's a list separated by cate

Yep, unfortunetly, there is NO way to specify a limit on how many of a certain ship component you can put on a ship. I really wish there was. Oh well, maybe push for the feature for the 2.0 Patch, eh?

[quote]The Thalan should have a "Hive Colony" building that gives them +Food and +Morale. Tadah.[/quote] I was thinking the same thing. A once per planet building that gives something like 2-3 food with a fair morale bonus (25-35%), but it has a higher than normal maintenance cost.

[quote]They are without a doubt potentially the best soldiers without tech trading because of C of V build as many as you like +2% bonus for each one of course fixing the +33% planet defense would make them even more powerful.[/quote] +33% planet defense, +2 Soldiering would probably be a nice once-per-planet building... As for the Arcean speed, I'm kinda on the fence about the issue. On hand... I would like to think of their Navigational instead of better Propulsion as being a

[quote]The solution that I like best (someone else suggested it) is that you maintain the current maintainence while a ship is moving around, yet bring it back to previous levels when that ship is in planetary orbit. This is easily justified as simulating the cost of the supply lines (and, heck, you could also scale maintainence with distance from the nearest friendly planet or starbase if you wanted to go nuts with it). This adds another strategic element to your war planning... having your ent

Given that said economic issues are the result of changes made in the [i]current[/i] beta, I'd have to "yes". :)

[quote] They have one good morale building, and it's an achievement (one per empire). Their other building is mediocre at best - 25% morale boost. The old tree had the virtual reality station for a 40% boost.[/quote] Well... it may only be 25% morale, but it is a [i]helluva[/i] lot cheaper than the closest normal morale buildings. 25bc to build and 1bc maintenance compared to 250bc to build and 5bc maintenance for Extreme Stadiums (which only have 20% morale) or 300bc to build and 6

[quote]Um werid guys, is this in the new "cough" features of TA. In DA I am always running between 50k and 100k BC in my treasury about the time in get Disruptors[/quote] No, the 20k cap has been around since the beginning I believe. It's not a cap, per say, but your income is [i]greatly[/i] reduced if you have 20,000bc or more in your treasury. It is even possible to [i]lose[/i] money by having a treasury that high. It's mainly a problem because, late game, you start running out of thi

[quote]A while later, I researched the advanced aquatic tech, and the planet went yellow. I colonized it and played out the rest of the game with a 50% penalty on the planet. When looking at the tech tree viewer, I noticed that the first aquatic tech was missing any icon on the bottom, in the place that would usually be showing the +50% bonus. So by trading for the tech, I actually crippled my ability to colonize aquatic worlds! That's a bit of a bug there, so consider it reported.[/quote] <

[quote]Which one is that, can you be more specific? If you mean the one in the civ manager, it only shows civ-wide bonuses not planet specific ones. There was no change in the planet's production stats after the UP resolution; the prison has since been switched to another planet after another UP vote, also with no change in my production.[/quote] It's one of the two buttons at the bottom of the Planetary Improvements screen. Next to the button that brings up the screen you have screensh

[quote]You really should go evil and build a mind control center somewhere wealthy.[/quote] Why? The bonus is global, build it somewhere else and stick an extra stock exchange or whatever on that Economic Capital.

[quote]By the way, here's something interesting - I got the 5X Tourism mega-event and found the economy rather well-balanced at that rate. It felt a bit TOO easy, perhaps giving tourism a 3.75X multiplier by default would do it, but it certainly alleviated my economic woes.[/quote] Heh, that would probably bring it up to what it was in the earlier beta... (beta 2 was it?) Still, Tourism Income in the larger galaxies is a joke, so this wouldn't help as much there. [quot

[quote]no multiplayer - no buy seriously people... no multiplayer??? i will buy this game only when it supports decent multiplayer - hot seat wont do i want LAN no really .. do you even plan on adding multiplayer?[/quote] You say that as if no multiplayer is a [i]bad[/i] thing. GalCiv 2 has been designed from the ground up as a Single Player game. What exactly would the Diplomacy ability do in a multiplayer game of GalCiv 2? GalCiv 3 [i]may[/i] ha

[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.[/quote] 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 thing. :) As for screen clutter, they

[quote]No, its not equal to 2 stock exchanges. If you researched all governments and some of the economy techs, you would get the same bonuses. The government techs give you a better form of government (which in its most advanced form is +30% economy), and the economy techs gives you a +15% economy (+10% from "Xeno Economics" and +5% from "Xeno Bank Construction"). The bonuses you get from the efficiency techs is equal to the bonuses you lost. Its one of the issues I have with the Yor,

With Terror Stars being able to be put in Fleets, I really wish that the other Starbases would be able to Fleeted too. Even if it wouldn't make Starbase Weapons/Defenses useful, it would still make it easier to defend them (since Guard/Sentry modes can only do so much...) This, along side increasing the HP (slighty or significantly, doesn't matter to me...) of Starbases might make those modules worth it, though.

This isn't my idea, but I just had to post it here before it got buried amongst the posts in the thread it was in: [quote] I've heard a really interesting idea suggested about ship maintainence. Basically, ships that are in orbit don't cost as much in maintainence, perhaps only costing as much as the previous value or less. This is rationalized by the fact that it's cheap to maintain ships in orbit, no supply lines need to be set up or protected. However, once you launch the ship, you s

I've experienced something like this before, when I sent a Colony Ship into unexplored territory and it happened to stop on an Asteroid Field. I eventually just decommissioned the ship, since it was eating something like 8bc each turn to just sit there :p I'll have to see if I can't duplicate this again...

Ultimately, ff it were up to me, I would have had three different levels of "tradeability" for techs: 1. Can't be traded at all - Used very sparingly 2. Can be traded if both Civs involved in the trade have the tech in their tree - Used the most often. This would be very useful with the way the Yor Tech Tree currently is... if there are two races in game that use the Yor tech tree, they couldn't trade their unique techs back and forth, even though they logically shoul

I noticed (before the recent patch, haven't gotten to play since) that the icons for the ability bonuses on the tech research screen wouldn't show up when I traded for techs. However, I'm pretty sure the bonuses were still listed in the right click window and the icons reappeared when I loaded a save after I traded for the techs, but I never did bother to check whether or not I was actually getting the ability bonuses. Maybe try seeing if the ability bonuses show up on a save a

[quote]Anyways: I've heard a really interesting idea suggested about ship maintainence. Basically, ships that are in orbit don't cost as much in maintainence, perhaps only costing as much as the previous value or less. This is rationalized by the fact that it's cheap to maintain ships in orbit, no supply lines need to be set up or protected. However, once you launch the ship, you start paying the full maintainence! Aside from making it manageable again, it also creates a neat element in warfare,

[quote]Since there is now an improvement that boosts planetary economies by 50%[/quote] The Iconians actually researched that tech in your game? Lucky you. The buggers never seem to want to research that tech before being wiped off the face of the universe in my games (not by me, of course ;) )... Still, the Thalans are in a pretty unique position to get Stock Exchanges really, really fast, given the strength of their Hyperion Matrix. Take Creative, pop that sucker on a 300% re

[quote]Can it at least be moded by the devs to not affect races new tech that doesn't use drives as their main source of movement, like the Arceans?[/quote] Granted, though, it is entirely plausible to say that even Navigational methods of increasing speed threaten to damage the very fabric of space... However, perhaps the event could be changed to not allow a given ship to gain more than 5 (or less, maybe) movement from engine components alone? Other bonuses wouldn't be affect

[quote]I've discovered that the new troop transport modules don't work, when I try to launch the ship it comes up with the thing that lets you select how many troops but it says that there are no available troops.[/quote] Well, crap. I'll try to see if there is something wrong with it, but it might just be something that's hard coded to the Advanced Troop Module. Probably is, given that I copied the advanced troop module's properties and then changed the capacity.... also, I'm getting a

[quote]I've been thinking the same thing, economics for efficiency as its probably the closest you get.[/quote] Just some notes on this that suddenly occurred to me: The Maintenance costs of buildings could also be a way to represent efficiency. Civs with low efficiency could have buildings with higher maintenance than others, and vice versa. If we could only have multiple tech requirements for buildings, you would be able to more accurately represent this without having to cre