RichardTheIII

Can't agree more with wyndstar. If i can contribute, i think that the auto-resolve feature is only a good marketing idea to sell RTS to a bizarre minority of TB fans, which i'm obviously a part of. A classical example is Rome: Total War. Maybe this is a good RTS, but if you play it only as a turn based game (with the auto-resolve feature), you'll be very disapponteid by the basic gameplay and naive strategy model. I started to understand i was part of a bizarre minority when ev

there really isn't much to change in my gameplay always the same way of opening, same tricks to be used, same AIs to be "eaten" Set different goals for yourself. Design a "role" for yourself and play as that role. I used to play chess against myself and white would play very aggressively and black very carefully. I was often surprised how the

Very nice idea! But i think you could imagine the same concept in a single galaxy, having each quadrant of it developing for itself along the first years until the discovery of hyperwarp or similar technologies. You could have, like in star trek universe, very different races, resources, behaviours etc... I think, actually, galciv2 misses a bit of epic, it's more a rush for colonization, technologies, wars than a slow march toward knowledge, invention and conquest. Anyway more depth in the devol

I would like have back some of my constructors when i dismantle a starbase. Something like the 50% of constructors i used to build it. In this way you can, so tosay, move your starbase from a position in the space to another. Also it would be nice if the dismantled starbase should remain as a wreck in the space. I agree with the idea to have only 1 kind of starbase with different modules. In this case there should be a limit to modules you can built depending, for example, on your logis

One logical option would be the ability to set up a sensor base on these planets. It would do nothing but keep an eye out for any ships in the area. And about sensors... I don't really like that, when i have the knowledge of sensor IV and maybe i have even built the eye of the universe, my planet does still have a sensor's range narrower than ships or starbases. It make sense (to me at least) that, in partic

I believe one of the major lacks in GC is a solid scenario editor. GC is a truly epic game and, though is always a pleasure to play it, you always play the same story. Sometimes i really feel i would like not only different major/minor events (and i am not talking about ethical choices) but also the possibility to control them and create my own story or reproduce an existing one. Personally i don't like modding the basic mechanisms of the game, there are a lot of people doing this very

My experience is rather different. In late game I usually make so much money that I don't know how to spend it... Same here. Though i think economy is very well balanced. Even at medium levels you need a high rate of attention in the beginning to make your economy work. Probably economy is the best aspect of GC. You can make money in so many ways that you can adapt your economy to almost every strategy. The

...Just look at today's computer's. They've evolved from clunky boxes with very little processing into power into what we have today. And they didn't just arrive that way, things have been learned along the way that have allowed for better processors etc. These lessons could not have been learned without taking the steps inbetween. One discovery/breakthrough leads to another and another. But anyone could und

i almost ignore the benefits/maluses of ethical choices. When i start a game i have already decided which side i'm on (mostly neutral so i can balance actual advantages from evil choices with losing money from good choices). i don't want to discuss the irrationality of many of the choices. I think the problem is that evil choices should be more powerful and alluring. And for one evil choice you should need not one but two or three good choices to redeem yourself. Then, when you act

Someone mentioned earlier that you shouldn't be allowed to trade/conquer/steal techs that you don't have the previous techs for. I totally agree with that. This is the way it's done in Civilization and it works well. I think this alone would go a long way to fixing the tech trading issue. You'd only have so many techs you could trade for at any one time, so you couldn't jump ahead of your current knowledge base.

everything's possible (though i'm very protected), so why it would affect only DA saved games and not the rest of files or the actual date? richard

Hello, this is really annoying. I was playing since three days a game in DA patched and this morning, when i opened the load/save menu i was ready for a long saturday session... But... All the saved game from the last month disappeared!!! I mean every single saved game (personal and autosaved games) after the 9th of february!!! So what happened? My first saved game in the new list was an endgamesave that was actually the beginning of an old match and it was the most recent (4th of march) but all

1) a slider to set difficulty level of tech trading in the setup screen 2) when you destroy a starbase you have some constructors back (very useful at higher level when every constructor is worth its weight in gold) 3) implement military starbases so the effect on the starbattles in their area of influence is worth the cost you need to build them. Add modules to give bonuses to soldiers during ground combats 4) implement the concept of homeland. Now the

Ok, if you would have 3 wishes, one for starbases OR anomalies, one for minor races and one for tech trading, what would you ask? My suggestions (they're not "rules", only general lines) to keep this post quick and light are: 1) Express the wishes in few lines and very precisely (although the genius of the lamp could misunderstand them). Things like "i desire a more balanced tech trading" are too generic and equivocal. Ask for one and that particular thing. 2) If you d

I play higher levels and never use them in any kind of map, but in small and medium maps it could happen i use attack/defense modules on mining starbases. Actually the cost of a well developed military starbase is so high that i prefer to build starships. I think, talking about tactic, military starbases represent the general idea of giving a terrain advantage in a game that present a homogeneous territory and they should certainly be more powerful and more developed. The weakness of a

Even if the AI has no worlds that need the 3 Adv Colonization techs I'm offering (which wasn't the case) it would still be foolish to turn down such a deal because that AI could then trade those tech to other races that need them for a hefty profit itself. Not only. If i'm not wrong, when you conquer inhabitable planets from other races you need anyway these techs to make them work at 100%, so advanced col techs are always worth the case. The p

I find the ethical choices in RL much more interesting. Say, this one: "You're in the middle of a game and your girlfriend calls asking what you want to do over the weekend. What do you tell her?" Good: Tell her it's a surprise. Get flowers, book reservations at a nice restaurant, go to the state fair on Saturday. Neutral: Go to dinner and a movie on Friday, but you would like a block of time on Saturday to yo

IF they adapt the game to player strategies it's ok until they limit the changes to the maximum levels. The effect on medium and low levels is not to make them harder (because they are not harder at all), only to make them flat. I just played some turns at tough and i noted that you can still trade at this level. The problem is that i didn't have any necessity to do it because before the end of the 2nd year i was already the most advanced race (a custom one with no technology bonuses).

Stuie_acs, no one was complaining here. I think it's a question of balance and, also, options. When i started playing GCII i played a lot at medium levels enjoying very much every minute. The advantages of the AI were all well proportioned so you could use some of this and that, like some of war, some diplomacy, some influence etc. to gain your victory. I think painful and crippling were very good levels for a rich, maybe not too relaxing and role playing match. Still a strong AI but not en

I had to reduce my ambitions because after the patch i wasn't able to win any game at suicidal or obscene. So i made my long way back to painful to play just a couple of years (or less) for every difficulty level and renew my learning curve. I didn't play painful since ages but it was almost impossible to trade techs, the AI refused even the most outrageously profitable deal. It was painful level, so i took my time and i allowed myself to search for 2 extreme colonization tech

thanks estafazero. Also, if you read one of my replies here you'll find other ideas, some pretty similar to the ones i expressed in this topic, some regarding the other big missing thing during the battles in the game: territory. Some improvements in this direction would give the possibility to bring few tactic also during the combats. It's not necessary to give control of the ship to the player but if there would be bonu

zonk i follow almost the same strategy step by step and i never give up sensor too. i don't ctrl+N but it's true that a bad start with this kind of strategy most of the time it's a ticket for defeat. Actually i play few inhabitable planets 'cause i have no patience to micromanage too many planets and i think all in all is easier to find a good corner planet in the beginning. richard

I think this discussion is interesting but pointless. Even if you find a perfect balance between attack/defense you will end up massively building either one or the other. I'm playing a game in DA 1.5 just now and i haven't actually changed my defense-focused strategy. The real improvements seems to me not in the combat system but in the use the AI make of this. So the game seems now even more challeging than before and it's good. But the problem persist. An easy solution, as i said in

I'm playing computer games since 15 years and i can't remember a company so close to its players. Thanks. richard

I think the relation between attack/defence is mainly a tactical question. And this is the reason why, probably, there's no solution to this problem. The battles in DA are mechanical simulations based on fixed and random numbers. All our efforts are eventually to outnumber the fixed numbers of our enemies in order to limitate the effect of random numbers, either we play for attack or defence. The three-weapons-system is a complication of this model and allows us to make some tactical choice