Honshu

Oh my [I]GOD[/I] shut up about comparing real life tech trading to ingame tech trading. Guess what people? REAL LIFE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BALANCED OR ENCOURAGE TECHNOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RACES. THIS GAME IS. Seriously. Everyone. Stop farking caring or talking about real life tech trading. It has [i][b]no[/i][/b] bearing on this game. Stardock clearly desired to make races more unique in ToA. Understand? That's [i][b]all[/i][/b] you need to know. Now all we have to ask ourselves i

Uranium is quickly becoming my favorite poster on these forums. [quote] This continues to be a horrible idea - if you play Altarian, you may need better morale buildings. If you're Thalan, you may need all kinds of techs to boost your ability to get up and running. If all of the races had relatively balanced access to various kinds of technology, your idea might have merit, but since some races' tech trees are designed to give them rather vast holes in their development and

Really hoping that SoaSE has room for good micromanagement. I'd love to see a game like Starcraft again, where focusing on micro and taking your attention away from macro would lead to a noticeable shift if your gameplay. Where players could suck at micro but be so good at macro that they could still be victorious, and vice versa. That's the main reason I'm excited about the game. I see it as a game that's complex enough to get away with such an up to date UI without having the skill-ro

[darthvader] Impressive. [i]Most impressive.[/i] [/darthvader]

[quote] Yeah. You already have to research five techs, build the terror star with [i]six[/i] constructors, wait ten turns for it to become mobile, and then move it to the target at one pc/turn. Making it one-shot just makes it go from a strategy to a gimmick.[/quote] Fixed ::) Remember, you need a constructor to build the initial foundation for the Terror Star as well. Personally, I think the AI needs to take a greater offense to Terror Stars on their borders. I mean, serio

[quote] When he's rational, he does make good points. But that's not the point. If he was telling you that you were retarded, and needed to learn to play, you would get rather upset with him too, I think.[/quote] Nah, I wouldn't. I'd probably get condescending and ramp up the jackassery a good bit, but openly upset? Please, that looks terrible when you're trying to be snide. Snide is my style ::P And mind you that although I spoke of the possibility of simply modding all th

Even if it doesn't get addressed, there's still always mods. They're giving us all the tools they used to make ToA with the expansion, right? So someone may well just be able to mod all this stuff in, if I'm remembering correctly.

It's official: I agree that this is the most awesomely cool idea in the universe and that it should be implemented by Stardock posthaste.

[quote]Anonymity of the internet really brings out the worst in some people. I really stopped reading any post of his anymore as it's normally a flame-fest.[/quote] I love that no matter how many incredibly good points he makes, you'll write him off because he offends your delicate sensibilities. I've read all of Uranium's posts and I agree with him on every single solitary point he's made. I played maybe two games with tech trading on since I started playing GalCiv 2 and have

Thalans having a lack of strong soldiering and farms is a racial weakness that I can personally accept. I just wish they had a more extensive industry tech tree so they could upgrade their buildings even further so they actually did become some of the best industry and research buildings in the game. I personally always saw them as a lategame powerhouse that were hindered by their lack of readily available soldiers. I mean, when a planet can only have 6m people tops (Discounting your Homeworld a

[quote]Try learning english before going crazy and insulting the guy. He wasn't saying your question was stupid you moron. He was saying that HIS question was stupid. Notice how his sentence ended in a question mark? Those are known as QUESTIONS.[/quote] Jeez, not even [i]I'm[/i] that rude. Tone it down a little, dude. No need to go throwing insults around ::P

How about we balance the ones we currently have before going and making new ones, hmm?

Hey all, I found a pretty weird bug today while playing as the Arceans. When I placed a Laser IV weapon on a particular slot on one of the small ship designs in the ship building, the ship completely bugged out, turning invisible and not allowing me to remove any parts from it. It happened quite consistently to me, so it should be easy to reproduce. Here are some screenshots to better display what I mean. First, we make a new ship. [img]http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg213/

[quote]First, you did fail. It's Spaceballs, and this is relevant. If you weren't absolutely sure what you were referencing, you should not have referenced it. Right or wrong, errors like this inevitably degrade the percieved credibility of the rest of your argument. The same holds true for blatant spelling or gramatical errors, which you have thankfully avoided.[/quote] Doh. That's what I get for posting right before I go to bed, I suppose. ::P [quote]Second, there are no assu

[quote].... you fail.[/quote] Trollbait aside, do you have anything of [i]value[/i] to contribute to the thread? If not, kindly go and spew your irrelevant comments elsewhere. @AG3: Look, if you're going to go ahead and accept that being evil should be "easier" than being good, then you have accepted the premise that the game should not be balanced. I ask you, then; once you've accepted that idea, then what on earth is the next decision that should be taken? Should Yor

[quote]This is getting to be a pretty interesting discussion! I have to agree there just isn't much opportunity for good to accel. However, that doesn't mean there's no reason to ever play it. Barring the score mongering, there are game scenarios where playing good can be a rewarding experience. Maybe the devs intended it to be this way and we're just assuming they could have "balanced things better".[/quote] If the devs [i]intended[/i] for good to, for lack of a better term, [i][b]suck

[quote]Sensors is sensor range.[/quote] Which, to put it far more explicitly, is how far your ships can see.

[quote]By that same token, everything in the game ought to be exactly the same. Civ differences ought to be obliterated for the purpose of complete balance![/quote] Completely absurd. Look at what Starcraft accomplished and never try to make that ridiculous point again. Granted, games where the sides are not different from eachother are the easiest to balance, but that hardly means balancing different ethical alignments is beyond the developers. Let's never mind that I never even sugges

[quote]Sorry guys, no beta this week. The Team has been doing some play-testing on the Sins Release Candidate, leaving GC2 with only a small handful of tweaks, which we'll roll into the next update.[/quote] !!! Sins of a Solar Empire, huh? Just as a little fan encouragement: I'm really looking forward to that game! It's looking really awesome ::) /turnofffanboymode The only real adjustment I would make to the Thalans is giving them a stronger end game. Expand

[quote]I think that Evil being powerful in Dark Avatar makes a lot of sense. After all, the game is all about the galaxy going to hell in a handbasket. Conversely, the balance should firmly (but not overwhelmingly) shift to Good in Twilight. Neutral for DL, Evil for DA, Good for TA. Makes some kind of story sense. Good should win in the end.[/quote] Oh my god, don't give me that. Lore should have absolutely no say in balance. None. I don't care if it "makes sense," especially when you c

Good is pathetically weak and only worth considering in the event that you're surrounded by other good races and want to nab a diplomatic victory. I really don't understand what Stardock was thinking when it balanced this game's ethical alignments out; in every single solitary choice given to you in the game, you are penalized for being good and rewarded for being evil. There is no balance in any sense of the term between the two extremes. Evil gives you an incredibly powerful economy building a

I name my ships with nothing but their stats shortened to the shortest possible length. For example: BNM 15-0-2 R12 M1 = Beam damage medium vessel with no defense ([i]B[/i]eam [i]N[/i]one [i]M[/i]edium) with 15 damage, 0 defense, 2 speed with a range of 1.2 and the first miniturization (Or however you spell that) tech researched. Lately I've been trying to cram even more info into them, like my exact percentage bonus to miniturization. Unfortunately, I'd have to get rid of the

[quote]Except, like I said, minor races are not part of the UP.[/quote] Considering they can trade with you, I'd rethink that statement. As I recall, if you leave the UP, you lose the ability to trade with other races, correct? Therefore, the minor races are clearly a member of the UP, except they don't actually get a vote in it. Probably because they have no [i]influence,[/i] at least as far as I can tell. Heck, one time I actually got a minor race that had his homeplanet literally wit

What makes me think I touched a nerve here? ::/ [quote]So if you don't like it, skip it. Do you also just toss shit onto hull and send it out or do you sit there and design your own look to your ships? Guess what, that's pointless too. Guess you better start skipping over the shipyard.[/quote] I think you've managed to completely miss my point. Outside of a bit of backstory to give races some flavor, perhaps incorporating such [i]without being verbose[/i] into their tech trees

[quote]I'd consider that a bug in the UP resolution, though.[/quote] Considering that minor races don't [i]have[/i] influence, I don't see how so.