userfriendly

No problem, keeps it 'bumped' to the 1st page of the forum Besides these things always have a life of their own.

but have no real idea of the complexity of doing it. All in all I prefer that they spend additional time they have fleshing out the new game (ie depth); for example with the ideas you mentioned in the Diplomacy thread already.,

BR> I think this could be pretty effective at least until playing on a Gigantic galaxy size. At least its my first "Cool" idea

would have been clever to use a rush approach and sometimes better to have built up a stronger foundation of the starting colonies; thus no partular strategy will always have a better chance of success.

y and so I am jumping to conclusions , but I am not convinced yet it will have all the desired effects. What would dissuade you from getting as many planets as possible at the start?

.gif" border=0 ALIGN="absmiddle"> Also, perhaps the "Chatty" mode should have an on/off switch in the game options screen for those that want less interruptions. ;

er strategies except land grab? Whats your alternatve idea (like Angelwrms)...or is it just fine as it is like Star Ranger?

ion. It could also be that the devs have already thought of better ways of doing this based on Brads quote, but AFAIK we have little info on the details yet, hense my post.

Hope this hasn't been discussed elsewhere, if so just shout at me A good feature of GC2 will be that you have limited tiles and what is good to build on them. However I am still a bit worried that a sudden speed asisted land (planet) grab is going to be a strong factor in the outcome of a game. In order to counteract this I thought it may be an idea to keep track of t

the cake

nce tweaks. At the end I don't think there is much more strategy involved, but there should be more variation possible as well as a better chance for players to make the wrong choices.

hint) interesting to hear what they have focused on improving . Maybe via a journal entry?

rly implemented in GC1. It needs to have a real noticable effect and rewrite in GC2 or be dropped completely.

st a short term measure....reflecting reality. Despite this - I can't this being implemented as it may be too complex to manage with constantly swing moral + making play testing more difficult..

ont>

172;)

Not sure if this has been discussed recently, but some races should find certain planets more appealing than others - esp the YOR. I doubt much can be done now but the whole area of trade/food/research and PQ should be effected by race phsiology and psycology. Eg. Should the YOR care about planets with many agricultural tiles. What about cold rocky planets w/o water these could be ideal for YOR but crap for water based life forms. - Maybe w

I question is critical but if these aspects could be handled then it is certainly something worth coding in the future.

N="absmiddle"> The devs can respond to the RSS Question...In the meantime you can always access the site without images enambled in he browser....

should have to come from that planet to get benefit.

..... Link

It also looks like with the starship design capabilities the player is free to specialise how they want so everyone can 'tool up' how they want.

"defend themselves at some time" which was exactly another of my points mentioned above - increasing defense possibilities, and going the non agressor route.

a bit of both.

I am concerned about the game balance in terms of the need to focus in building up a stong offensive military force. While I like the fleets approach and ability to design ships I still think the bias could be too strong towards offense. It is near impossible to get through a GC1 game by focusing on peaceful techs. Also at the same time it is hard to adopt a purely defensive/ non combatant stance. Therefore I really hope that the balance get s moved so t