Morghenes

Galacticus wrote: A word to our Canadian friend, IF I was being spyed on by my government, I would have nothing to worry about The normal guy who's life only containes eating, going to work, going to bed and playing video games in between, yeah, he probably doesn't care who is spying on him. However, on the political side the opposition p

Skyjack: The incidents that Cikomyr was refering to were the following: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First: For several years the US government has been receiving detailed information about money transfers worldwide from the company SWIFT, a company which performes several million money transfers a day. Now this is nothing illigal, governments are permitted to request information if there is substantial suspicion of c

Rasori There's no such thing as good or bad people? Hmmm guess I have to get a little philosophical now... To the above question: No there's not, unless you're a hardcore cristian/muslim who claims to possess the ultimate truth, of course. Bad and Evil is something completely relativ. Even Osama and all he's follow

danielost wrote: personal feeling on this but the usa needs to pull out of the un mainly becouse the next major war will be the us vs the un (the un is already trying to tax everyone so it can build its army) Now that's complete shit. The UN is an organisation to find solutions for world problems in multilateral way. The UN doesn't have an

Thankfully it is highly unlikely for WWIII to ever happen. We're living in an interconnected world where all countries are dependant on each other. An attack against an other country would be as attacking yourself. Western countries don't want to live without cheap products from china and china is hihgly dependant on western technology and companies. America's and Europe's economy would collapse if they would cease all economic ties etc etc. Rasori wrote: <TABLE cellpaddin

When multiplayer can't even crack the double digit percents in a multi-thousand player poll as the #1 feature people would want to see in a sequel combined with a decade of personal experience (EA, btw, is a company, not a person) of making multiplayer games and being familiar with the numbers of sold units needed to reach critical mass for a multiplayer communiity, it doe

If you want to autoresolve something, you have to simulate the combat in some way. The problem is then on which data will this autoresolve be based. If its based on the abilities of a average gamer it would be not accurate for a experienced gamer, nor accurate for an inexperienced one. If it's based on a experienced gamer it would be the same, etc. So the autoresolv

Not that I particularly care about whether it is real time/turn based. I'm just saying don't write off real time as automatically being without tactics. I think all this real time and 3D stuff and so on belongs to this mainstream wave where everything has to be as realistic as possible. More realism doesn't really mean a better game, but that

Maybe it would be good to look at why tactical combat really became the nomber one issue in the poll. I don't know the motives of others so I can only speak for me. First of all: War is simply an elemental part of the game. In nearly all games I spend at least 40% of the time with war, no matter what victory type I'm heading for. If the palyer doesn't declare war, the ai will certainly do it sooner or later. Some people fear that the game would become too war oriented by in

I am, however, surprised at how poorly multiplayer did. I thought it would be at least #2. Well I guess the poll doesn't clearly represent what people want. You can only vote for one item and that might distort reality a bit. I'm sure this poll would look a little different if people could have created a list of priorities. For example D

What is USELESS is .... Having a vaild point and then CRYING like a little baby about it ... Instead of articulating it in a clear, unambiguous manner without being abrasive and annoying !!!! If I remember correctly random50 already opened a thread about the topic of having no appropriate difficulty mode between crippling and maso. So I

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion Very true. I would prefer a turned base TC. Realtime just doesn't fit, I

I think every TBS game I ever played had a end turn chime. When it comes to chimes alot of people seem to think of loud, 5 seconds chimes....That truly would be annoying. As long as it's only a subtle tiny "click" I can't imagine why that should annnoye anyone though. Double clicking an item in a windows menu by standard also generates a "click " and that doesn't seem to annoy anyone either, so why should that be annoying in GC? <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#F

While it is clear that tak won't be included in GC2, I still think it's necesary to add some spice to combat in this game, because as it's now, combat feels a bit dull. Other games have a real strategic element to combat without having tak. Take civalazition: In civilazion, there's a bunch of strategical thoughts before going into battle. Here a couple of examples: -Your troops get a defense bonus when they are attacked standing on a hill, fortification, city with defense improvemen

There were many posts about tactical combat on this forum and in the end I must say: There's no use argueing about the pros or cons. It's a matter of taste, either you like TC or you don't. The no-camp may have many good arguments, but that certainly doesn't change the desires of TC fans to have this game feature, and vice versa. Whatever....I can't accept the phrases of people saying things like "a decent TC is impossible to create", that's just rubbish. The goal is no

I had that happening on my computer 2 times since i bought the game, so it seems to be extremely rare. Somehow the programm gets cought up in an endless loop, no idea where this comes from though. I guess it must be a special incident/situation that triggers this, because if it occurs, than always at the same turn. If it once occurs at turn 100, it will always occur at turn 100 no mater how many times you reload the game. Your game is just lost than <img src="http://images.stardock.

for me the BEST part is once you are over the hump and get to pick the spoils of your hard won victory... that so called "hump" is total victory by surpassing everyone in every field from economic to military to research... why SHOULD you have troubles after you do that? the gang up is an option but even it has its limit if you set your borders properly... (they are still

Let me see: you have set a lot of habitable planets and aren't using all AI. This give lots of room to get a nice base. Why using so many usable planets? To get a greater benefit from using production starbase? Abundant planets and abundant habitable planets doesn't really mean a harder game but surely a longer one Well, it doesn't leave that m

IT is how you chose to play the game. That is it and it really is that simple. IF you are playing the maps on anything at normal AI setting or lower then you will continue to have the experience you are describing over and over. Challenge yourself and crank up the AI, unless you like easy mode and winning all of the time. As I wrote above: Crip

But I also like the new fear component in 1.1.2 .009 Beta where the civ's will gang up on you if you get too powerful, supposedly. I have noticed so far my relations going south in a hurry after I start conquering others,but I have completed my conquest before any body has ganged up on me. I played 2 games on 1.2 beta, both games with my all ti

I think this is more a factor of 4x gaming actually (that and political/military reality in these games). I can not think of a good one I have ever played that did not suffer from this eventually. It may be so to some extent, but it's undeniably extreme in galciv2. One difference from galciv2 to other games is that the ai treats every player t

what settings would you use for a medium map? I guess you have also a fast computer As I said i don't like meduim/small maps that much so I don't even bother to play them. The smallest i play is large, usually with at least 6 races, adundant planets, habitable planets also set to abundant and starsystems set to uncommon, at the very max t

First of all I'm a big fan of 4x games, which is reason why I bought galciv2 in the first place. I own this game since it was released in europe and I played it quite often. In the meantime I had many galactic conquests and I must say I'm growing more an more malcontent with galciv2. I only like playing these games on large maps.. I can't stand playing 4x games on small or medium maps that I can finish inbetween supper and bedtime. And this is exactly the one thing galciv2 can't o

At least you were busy in Rome Total war. In Gal civ2 you sometimes spend a lot of time being friendly with everybody and the only 2 civs that are unfriendly with you won't attack because your military is a bit stronger.

Hmmmm. Things are not always so black and white. For instance, in similiar games (!), it's obvious that the AI 'knows' you are the human player and will treat you differently. One of the main aims of the AI here (and the reason I like it so much), is that the AI is not targetted against the you, the human player. Ultimately, you are the 'first among equals' . </TA