Entropy Avatar

Reply to v2.2 - Top 5 Systems in GC4 that need fixing in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

[quote]The volley system was GC4's attempt to add some tactical combat into the overlay, and it succeeded at this, though the implementation could still use some love. Some people really hate that volleys ignore defenses, as its an easy way to snipe starbases in the later game. I think Missiles and Beams are too similar in how they volley (though not everyone agrees in this point). [/quote] I'd really like volleys to follow more of the regular combat rules - normal targetin

Reply to v2.2 - Top 5 Systems in GC4 that need fixing in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="Stalker0" reply="18" id="3917761"]that’s a solid idea, have a tier 2 sub space portal tech later in the game, which would likely be a fairly simple change to encode [/quote] I guess even revealing new connections between starting sectors could change the stellar geography and "who is worried about who" quite a bit.

Reply to v2.2 - Top 5 Systems in GC4 that need fixing in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="19" id="3917803"] I would like to see engines and range components be great again.Seem little point to them at present imo. [/quote] I think this is mostly a side-effect of the game's model of ship design. You have components that take a fixed amount of space and give a fixed boost to some ship stat. That works well enough for weapons but doesn't scale well for other types of stats, like range, speed or evasion. You either make it too hard

Reply to (LIVE) v2.3 War & Peace Update Changelog - Galactic Civilizations IV: Supernova in GalCiv IV Support GalCiv4 Forums

Armor degrades over time in battle. Hurray! Shields now lose strength based on the sqrt of the enemy's attack rather than a 1 to 1 ratio. This is bugged. The shields seem to absorb sqrt(damage + 1) and let the rest of the

Evasion Scaling in GalCiv IV Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

Evasion as a mode of defence is an interesting concept, but currently in the game it seems to be barely implemented. There is no extended tech tree and stacking of evasion modules is not permitted. However, I think with some fairly simple changes to the math, we could have evasion as a fully-fledged defence mechanism. Let's say evasion modules produce evasionPoints. There is no stacking limit: just add whatever evasionPoints you get from the components and techs and perc

Reply to v2.2 - Top 5 Systems in GC4 that need fixing in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="Grathocke298" reply="16" id="3917558"] One method I can think of is to have various techs after exotic worlds which would allow you to colonize the dead worlds. [/quote] You could take the MOO approach and replace most "dead" worlds with various types of inhospitable world, each with their own colonisation tech. So instead of exotic and extreme, it's ocean, barren, radioactive, toxic, magma, etc. Probably the most extreme types should be quite biased to non-core

Reply to [0.70.5.0] Carriers are over powered in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

One thing that jumped out from the description is that the game seems to be double-counting miniaturization for fighters. You can fit more into a tiny hull over time because the components get smaller. However, the tiny hulls themselves don't get smaller, so there is no particular reason why you should be able to fit more of them on a ship. As it stands, if miniaturization says doubles the capacity of the ship, the effective capacity of a carrier design will quadruple, since it wi

Ship Scaling in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

I find that the way the game handles the various ships sizes to be very counter-intuitive. 1. Engines are fixed size and provide a fixed movement bonus (and fixed cost and maintenance). So it is easier to make a fast, large ship than it is to make a fast, small ship. 2. Thrusters are also fixed size, though different ship sizes have multiplicative bonuses or penalties to tactical speed, so the case here is not so clear-cut. 3. Life support is fixed size

Reply to Slide-bar Math in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

[quote]If you are spending mostly social with some planets getting military focus to build ships... you probably realize that you actually will build the ship faster if you are actually building a social project at the same time? The focus only shifts funds that are actually being spent, I guess, so if your improvement queue is empty that money goes to the treasury and the military factories never see it, so they siphon off only what you are spending on research.[/quote]<

Reply to Why can I not sell or trade asteroid mining base? in Galactic Civilizations II GalCiv2 Forums

It would just be a pure exploit on the part of the player. Mining bases flip very easily, so you could just make a secondary income at the expense of the AI by repeatedly selling him the same bases. Planets at least have their own influence and can be made resistant to flipping. Plus you don't know what harm he might do during the period when he owns your planet.

Reply to Restoring Planet After Invasion Damage in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

Depending on who you're fighting, you often can't use a lot of their infrastructure anyway, and it is automatically bulldozed when you conquer the planet. That makes tidal disruptors more attractive because they have a big bonus but don't damage the PQ, just wipe out buildings.

Reply to Ship Maintence on ships with no weapons in Beta Reports GalCiv2 Forums

[quote]Take the long-term value of a car as an example. If you keep it moving at maximium velocity as much as you can, it will not be able to travel as many klicks as it could if you ran at optimum rather than maximum speed.[/quote] I don't think this analogy really works for GC2. Your research labs and manufacturing centers don't wear out if you run them too hard. More importantly, they cost the same maintenance no matter how much or how little you use them, and maintenance is a huge exp

Reply to Arcean Slowpokes in Beta Reports GalCiv2 Forums

I'm doing much better in my current Arcean game. Oddly enough, my current war against the Yor is again illustrating the importance of speed. Normally fighting the Yor you are pretty much at their mercy, but the Yor AI (set to genius) for some reason deciding not to research any speed enhancing techs or put engines on its ships. So I'm poking around in Yor space at a speed of 3, but the Yor ships are absolutely crawling at speed 2. So I can get my first strikes in and decimate them. In the land o

Arcean Slowpokes in Beta Reports GalCiv2 Forums

I just gave up on a game that demonstrated all too painfully the costs of plodding, trudging Arcean ships. In a no-tech-trade game, the Arcean speed penalty and lack of access to engine techs is a pretty huge disadvantage. Lack of speed is obviously a big problem at a tactical scale when you can't intercept fast transports or even sometimes invasion fleets. What I didn't appreciate until now was the strategic implications. Low speed means it takes you longer to gather forces for an inva

Reply to Which Ethical Alignment? in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

[quote]Seriously, who the hell thought that could compare to a +100% civ wide bonus to economy building?[/quote] Too me, this is the part that makes no sense at all. An extra +100% economy building that only operates on the one planet is pretty helpful. Add in the other (supposedly main) effect and it's pretty darn helpful. A building that gives you empire-wide +100% economy is absolutely silly. I can only think that Brad is himself suffering from the effects of some kind

Reply to Thoughts on invasion screen - not good in Beta Reports GalCiv2 Forums

[quote] Heh..I actually have Moo2 still installed (you can get it from Atari.com for 10 bucks, if you are nostalgic like me) and you are suffering from revisionist history. Moo2 was also "drop X million pop on transport ships and drop them to fight your pop" unless you had Telepathic. (Either your civilization, or your fleet commander) [/quote] No. In Moo2, soldiers and population were separate. You could contruct transports at any planet that had the required military installations

Reply to I don't think I am cut out for this type of game. in Strategies GalCiv2 Forums

If you try to keep 100% morale it might take you 25 turns to build that factory. ... And you don't have to ignore military vs. building up your planets. This is way different then Civ IV where you can build either a building *or* a military unit. In Gal Civ you can build both. Just build a Starport and after that you can build military ships on that planet at the same time as buildings. Two separate build queues. </di

Reply to I'm a miserable failure... in Strategies GalCiv2 Forums

I don't want anyone to appease me or "dumb down" the game. I might be able to win easier, but the victory would just be hollow. I hate the fact that so many games are being dumbed down these days to reach more people who are still unused to the hardships of hardcore gaming. I simply want to learn, no matter how long it takes. Appease was definitely the wrong word for me to use. It's just that most of my thinking about changes to the game

Reply to I don't think I am cut out for this type of game. in Strategies GalCiv2 Forums

The higher your tax rate the *more* of those shields go into military, social and research. Just try it on a mature world. Set tax rate to say 15%. Check the planet and note the number of shields in each production area. Now jack up taxes to 50%. You'll see a whole lot more shields in those production boxes and a ton more money rolling in to your budget. Have *you* tried it? I've never seen tax rate affect my productio

Reply to I'm a miserable failure... in Strategies GalCiv2 Forums

Whenever Mr. Wardell talks about trying to appease both the hardened veterans of TBS games and newcomes, I kind of shake my head. Surely these things are easy to figure out for everyone? I guess having historically played an unhealthy amount of these games does make things a lot more transparent. I do remember one old-time gamer writing something like: "Tens of thousands of hours of playing games and the mostly what I've learned is how to play new games without reading the manual."

Reply to Combat Balance in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Off type defense bug ? Check here: https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=274&aid=146134#1151081 Basically, off-type defences are a lot more powerful than they should be. Some people have found them to be *more* powerful than on-type defence, but that may be an exageration.

Reply to Defence now IS too powerful in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

The 'super shot' is due to the fact that all of the bonus damage from weapons bonus and (I think) starbases piles on to a ship's first weapon shot of each round. So say an enemy had a ship with a designed attack of 60 (15x4) but due to attack bonus, it comes out at 100 attack. Not only are you facing a ship with an expected damage of 50 instead of 30 (assuming no luck bonus), the first weapon to fire on that ship does 0-44 instead of 0-4. If you have say, 60 defences, you cou

Reply to Defence now IS too powerful in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

1) Yor are extremely frightening in battle. Their luck bonus combines with their miniturization bonus to give them quite an edge. If you want to be invulnerable to their 70 attack ship/fleet, you'll need to field in at least 140 defense. Huh? Even with a 50% luck bonus, a 70 attack ship should only deal an average of 35*1.5 = 52.5 damage per round. So 1 on 1, 70 defences on a single ship should be pretty decent defence, not typically overwhel

Reply to Defence now IS too powerful in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

Hah, I meant to say cost per unit. I agree you can start to run out of places to stick those shield projectors rather quickly... Yes, you could just turn recharge to 1/4 and double the rating of all defence units.

Reply to Defence now IS too powerful in Dark Avatar GalCiv2 Forums

I disagree. The problems we've been discussing have nothing to do with the off-type defense bug since we don't try against off-type defenses. This means that even if the bug is fixed, it won't improve the situation. I'm fine with defences being stronger in most situations than the weapon type they are designed to counter. If you are finding that shields do a good job of defending against beam weapons, then it's working as designed