I'm not an expert either, but I believe it's been like that for some time. It is definitely the case in the game I'm playing now with one of the 1.7 betas. Once my economy is rolling, I'll set my sliders to 1/49/50 and leave them there for the most part. Of course, you can still use focus at 100/0/0 and 0/100/0.
The Arceans will need buildings on planets just to make them go faster than Impulse Drive. What's the weird logic behind this? Are they too stupid to develop Warp Drive? Or maybe they looked outside the box and found that it was possible to make their ships faster without having to waste space on each individual ship. Or maybe they never even contemplated putting engines on all their ships in the first place and laugh at all the other races who haven't
I think it mostly depends on your racial bonuses. I often have big econ and moral bonuses which allows me to grow my planets as quickly as possible unless there are just too many. Add in some population growth bonuses and it's even easier.
Oops. It not only happens for bought or leased ships, but for those built the old fashioned way. I've only checked this for 3 of my ships though. Saved game on the way.
Great stuff Mumblefratz. Thanks for the insight. I've been reading these MVL threads since they started, but haven't joined yet because of work related stuff. That'll change soon though. I enjoy reading them because I'm intrigued by the idea and like to follow the development of the league. But I certainly didn't expect to find excellent tutorials in these pages as well. Nice job guys!
Thanks Cari. I'll work on putting something together later this afternoon. Hi Marshall. No asteroid fields in the area and no super isolationists within 5 sectors of the battlefield. At this point, I'm fairly certain it's a bug. And I'm also fairly certain I haven't experienced it before 1.7 beta.
After some further experimentation, the ship speed problem happens only to ships that are bought or leased and remains in effect only for the turn in which the ship is launched. This is occuring in the latest 1.7 beta, or at least my copy of 1.7 beta. Is anyone else seeing this?
Give this link a try. If it works, it should take you to the post that I believe started the all-x build approach craze. WWW Link
No starbases are in the area and I never build the improvement that increases speed by 1 on just that planet. I have not come up with an explanation yet, but I think this only occurs with ships you buy or lease. I'll play around more later to see if I can better define the problem.
I am aware of these circumstances, but none of them are causing the problem I'm experiencing. On the same turn, I can launch the same exact class ship from the same planet, onto the same tile, one after the other, and one of them will have 3 movement points, the other 4. Another indication that something is awry happened with my cruiser with hyperwarp. After I moved it 5 tiles and ended the turn, I was prompted to 'skip' moving my cruiser. Encouraged by this, I attempted to take out
I'm running the latest 1.7 beta and have noticed that some of my ships do not have the correct movement points. Although I haven't pinned down the scenario that causes this, it seems more likely to happen with ships that I buy. I have a bunch of small hulls of the exact same class. Some come out with 3 movement points and others with 4. In my current game, I'm at war with the Thalans who have a superior military. I designed a medium hull with a hyperwarp drive. I should get 8 movem
I usually look at the colony summary to find out how many IP or RP the colony is generating to determine if an RCC or PP is next. I have not been taking into account the different maintenance costs though. Thanks for the tip. Stardock should really be paying some of you guys. Good work!
Also, if you JUST finished a gigantic map in 1.61, did you create the game before the 1.61 patch? Otherwise, how did you finish a gigantic map so quickly. I started that game some time in the middle of June, was out of town for two weeks, and finished it up just last night. I know the game has not been updated since at least the 29th and I'm pretty sure I started the game with 1.61.
In my current game, the Drath have about 10 planets. All their starports have 9 miners and 1 troop transport. They're up to something.
I have version 1.61 and just finished a gigantic map on which bonus tiles were everywhere. In the end, I had 450+ planets, five of them with purple suns. 300% bonuses were common and I had one of each of the 700's. The game I just started on a medium map and ~10 planets is just as good, maybe a little better even. I think it's just a random thing.
Great suggestions so far. Your economy is the key to everything. Those BC's not only represent money, but resources for your production and research facilities. Your population will typically provide most of your BC's through taxation. Trade (diplomatic and freighters) and tourism provide most of the rest. The higher your tax rate, the more BC's you bring in per person, but your population growth will slow. Early on, try to adjust your tax rate so that you maintain 100% app
I too appreciated Evil Stormbringer's contributions, but I haven't been around all that long to know his/her 'sorted' past in the community. My impression, in the short time I've been here, is that ES very much enjoys the game and community and wants to be an active participant. I think most of the problems were associated with ES's strong desire for Stardock to give a higher priority to game stability as opposed to more functionality. In a world full of rediculous "political
I've only been playing for a couple of months, but I have developed a starting strategy that works pretty well for me. I've gotten through painful, but have not yet won on crippling. I'm usually the Altarians with additional economic, morale, and research bonuses on top of their racial abilities. Sometimes I'll put a lot of the optional bonus points towards speed. I also prefer larger galaxies and lots of everything. 1st turn: If I can, I'll design a colony ship with a small
It isn't really an argument for taking one tree all the way to the end if you need to be developing something else, BUT excess tp's left from the last project are rolled forward to the next project IN THE SAME TECH TREE; so it is slightly more efficient in terms of tp's to stay in the same tree until you need to work on something else. Those roll over tp's are not lost even if you're returning to beam weapons after researching toxic world colonization to
Thanks for the sticker MarshallOneil. I certainly didn't expect anything quite so stylish. I hope the votes are pouring in.
Where do I go to get my "I voted" sticker? I fully expect, with all the attention to detail you guys have demonstrated, to have my choice of colors. Maybe you can even have it added to the MV medals for a time. Nice job all.
For me, it's the challenge of figuring it out, like a puzzle. I have no intention of playing any games with changes I make besides, of course, pulling out the PQ26 with 20+ precursor mines when things get rough. I have no problem with other folks using them though since finding and decoding the checksum is a bit more of a challenge than interpreting tile definitions.
Hi fellow conquerors of galaxies. I just figured I'd take time out from kicking some Korath arse, and having a great time doing it, to say how glad I am that I picked up GalCivII at the store a couple months ago. And I also wanted to thank all of the folks at Stardock that put time into making CGII the cool game it is. After the last few Space strategy games, I originally thought the colorful box on the shelf had no chance, but I broke down. I couldn't find any new in
What were the hit point values for the two fleets? If they were about the same, what you're experiencing seems odd. Your fleet: 22.5 attack/ship and 24.4 def/ship Korath fleet: 24.0 attack/ship and 1.0 def/ship If they have more hp though, I'd understand.
I have been keeping up with the 1.6 beta releases since they started and have had low framerates (3-4) for the majority of the time. I play on a fairly good computer (dual core, 2GB memory, ATI x600 with 256MB) and had quickly upgraded my video drivers to a March 2007 version. After getting the latest 1.6 beta and still experiencing the low framerates, I decided to see if there was yet a newer version of my video drivers. A May 2007 version had become available so I upgraded. <br/
