It appears buildable in the city build list, but the game doesn't let you place the improvement anywhere.
nullspace
The bug is more general than that (beta 2-A). In unit design, whenever you switch a functional item to a useless item, the stats don't update. Here, I just changed heavy plate helm, breastplate, and greaves to what you see in the pic:
There's a swarm spider standing in my town center even though there is a defender. It was just passing through and kept going the next turn. I had some caravans moving to and from the city; it may have been targeting those.
[quote]When you find a weapon, you will want to equip it. To do that, click on your player portrait.[/quote] Can we please get an upgrade to the inventory interface? There's currently too much mousing required for simple tasks like that. If a character is carrying one weapon, it should be auto-equipped. And I want to give an item to another character without un-equipping it first. I should be able to change
[quote who="AdmiralDan" reply="14" id="2655532"]And for the fact, that each city costs a one-time amount of money: That means that founding a lot of cities very early is even better, because the longer a city exists, the more you get for your money.[/quote]Yeah, most things in this game have a large up-font cost and no ongoing cost. This makes early game development very slow, but once you begin completing some lumbermills, markets, and libraries it starts speeding up very rapidly. 
Fun idea: Sovereigns can take back their essence from revived land.
I think there will inevitably be more strategy and less micromanagement as features get added and the interface improves, but I do agree with your goal. The fun part of the game is making the tough decisions where the "best" choice depends on the current conditions, actions of your opponents, and other decisions you make. The parts that feel like work are those decisions where one option is almost always better than the other. These can be "no-brainers" where the right choic
More posts like this please, Brad! I like to see what your goals are for the game: what choices you want the player to have to make, and what different strategies you want the player to be able to pursue. That lets me know which parts of the beta are working as intended, and which parts you might want suggestions for.
[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="129" id="2653636"]I do agree that houses should make up a fair portion of your city. It is just a hassle to put lots of them down, especially since to do so is to juggle food with all of your cities.[/quote]If the micromanagement is the big issue, it could be solved by improving the interface instead of changing the game rules. Building many gardens and houses would be less of a hassle if you could queue up many of them at once, That's difficul
[quote quoting="post"] More mobility in general (units get more moves) [/quote] I don't think one or two moves per turn is too slow(for basic units traveling on foot), currently the problem is that it's too cheap and easy to increase a unit's speed. Slow units aren't bad, it's just that you can get a faster unit without giving up much. Leveling up a hero's strength or dexterity only has a small effect on his combat ability, but upping the movement stat is a majo
I'm liking it the way it is. The main point of getting high-level towns is to unlock the advanced buildings, not just to have lots of tiles to build on. If you want more high-level buildings in your metropolis, replace your farms, mines, and lumbmermills. Those low-level industries can be moved to low-level towns (that may stay low-level) or handled by pioneers. I like the idea that an efficient metropolis has a different character than a useful small town. It ma
Count me as a vote for camp 2. It sounds like that simple system offers some good opportunites for high-level strategies where the various options have unique pros and cons. Do you settle a city where it will be large and productive or where it can harvest a resource that benefits your other cities? Send your iron to the city that trains the best soldiers or a city closer to the frontlines? How much protection for your supply routes and should you raid your enemy's?&nb
[quote]Question: can you turn over that tactical stuff to the computer? I liked being able to manage the tactical fights in MoO2, but I also really liked being able to delegate when I was sure a battle was horribly one-sided in my favor.[/quote] I tried the original demo of SOTS, and it does have an autoresolve option for combat, but I had some problems where the autoresolve would preform badly in battles I should have won easily. But if you're planning to delegate the combat, SOTS probably
[quote]As a compromise, will tech stealing be an option? Can I turn it off so I don't have to play with it?[/quote] I'd really like this option, too. Even before TA, it is unfair and exploitable that you can get any tech that your enemy has when you invade their planet. If you get lucky, you can get a tech that you are nowhere near researching, and then you can skip all the prerequisites. Or maybe just a change so that you can only steal a tech that you are currently capable of resea
Hmm, that is strange that you are being ganged-up on so often. I don't really know what would cause it. Some ways to avoid war are to have a high military rating, a high diplomacy ability, trade routes, the same alignment, and to give in to demands. You could try doing each of those more, since your first priority in the game is to survive, and worry about domination later. Also, don't annoy the Drath, because they will use their super ability to make others attack you.
[quote] If your having issues with your economy, especially on gigantic maps, I'd suggest going Super Breeder. I've never had an economy crash early on me with super breeder because the most I colonize the more my tax revenue skyrockets with my population. That said I rarely use it (Super Hive is just to much of a draw when I go all factories, which I always do). [/quote] If you're not using super breeder, you can get a similar effect by putting a
My planetary development scheme is pretty much the opposite of CraigHB's. All my planets get a few factories, so they can build their other improvements. My low-quality planets are mostly factories and labs. My good planets have some factories, a farm, a morale building, and lots of market buildings. I do this because you make much money by having a high population and many market buildings on the same planet. Against the dreadlords in the original GC2, a good tactic is to build l
I only played the demo of SEV for a little while, and the impression I got was that it was a very big game with lots of "stuff" in it, but it was also micromanagey, repetitive, unbalanced, and the AI was weak. If you play GC2 at gigantic/abundant and wish the game was bigger and longer, then you might like SEV, but it didn't appeal to me at all.
Military rating, diplomacy ability, trade routes, and same alignment seem to be important for getting to "close" relations.
I think that tech trading is an advantage to a player who's willing to do it a lot. If anything, the AI does not trade often enough, so leaving tech trading on probably makes the game easier. On the other hand, sometimes it is nice to play a game without having to check for trades often, so I play with tech trading off sometimes. Bottom line, play however you like, I don't think that either way is really better than the other.
Well, that's kind of vague, how exactly are you getting beaten? Tech or military or what? Anyway, here are some tips: 1) Play on a difficulty below "tough" which is he fair difficulty level. 2) Expand quickly at the beginning of the game. Buy some factories on you homeworld, then switch 100% spending to military to build colony ships quickly. Try to get more planets than each AI. 3) Next, build the basic factories, labs, and lots of markets on your planets. That will get yo
I think the Federalists are best because you need money for everything. More money means I can fund more factories and labs, plus do all the other stuff that costs money. Population growth and morale are good too, but no political parties offer large bonuses to those traits.
Big fleets of tiny ships should still work against the dreadlords. They can still only take out one ship with each gun, so a fleet of 11 can finish off a dreadlord that has 10 guns. That seems cheaper than using defenses to survive the attack.
Visuals and animations are key part of any gameplay. That is the foundation from which you start building. Everyone knows that's why games like Chess and Go are terrible, right? Just remember that auto-resolve option solves all your "problems". No it doesn't, not for me. If controlling the battle well gives you an advantage in the game, then
I disagree with your conclusion about production. I think there are good strategy decisions in the sliders, and in building a combination of factories and labs. By building factories and labs, you can set your civ's overall bias towards production or research. And you can change this slowly by upgrading factories or labs, or replacing one with the other. The sliders let you quickly change between production or research based on your immediate needs, such as an unexpected war. This gives you