Slightly off topic, but is a Parsec a "real World" unit of measurement? Parsec is a real distance measurement. 1 parsec = 3.26 lightyears. It stands for "parallax of one arc second". If you look around the room, keep one eye open and then switch eyes, you'll see that things appear to move
Either I have very bad reflexes, or it's much faster on mine
GalCiv2 Forums
Also, damage ratings of 1, 2, 3 should be more specific and tell you how many hit points it takes out. Uh, the damage rating *is* how many hitpoints it can take out. A heavy-mount Laser I would be either be pointless, or totally supercede Laser II. The thing to remember about the GC2 combat is that it adds all the weapons of one typ
GalCiv2 Forums
When you read some of Stardocks AARs, the text is full of interesting names and other made up stuff, why not spend the 48 hours it would take to add some of this into the game? Part of this is for accessibility. Alpha Centauri had some very interesting tech names, but people didn't know what any of it
Another wrinkle on this (and to bump it back to the first page...): It's been argued that a point against defence is that it can be unlucky. At a stage in the game when attack and defence scores are high compared to hitpoints, one low roll on defence, combined with a high roll for the attacker, can be crippling or deadly. While this is true, I don't know that an all-offence design is better off here. A low roll for a no-defence at
As I understand it, the system was purposefully made to produce truly random starts, rather than forcing a reasonably balanced start. If you want a game where everyone is dealt the same hand, you can hit ctrl-N a few times until you see what you like - this only takes a minute or two. If the game forced relatively equal starts, you wouldn't have the option of playing an unbalanced game (which can be a lot of fun).
GalCiv2 Forums
The point of the empty hull thing isn't that you would get the ship for cheaper than building it, it's that you'd get the ship for 'build it yourself' cost without actually requiring that much production. To be fair, you'd have to figure out the cost of the new components, and charge 'purchase price' on those. Which I suspect is pretty close to what they are doing. If you just swap one component, the upgrade cost isn't very high.
One of the most interesting things about the GalCiv2 combat model, to me, is how things change with tech level. In a lot of games, it's common to have things in a sort of stasis. In the beginning you have ships with 10hp, 10 attack, 10 defence and later you have ships with 100hp, 100 attack, 100 defence. In GC2, we have two mechanisms that really go against the usual lock-step scaling. 1. Base ship hitpoints hardly increase at all compared t
GalCiv2 Forums
Yes, I think the problem with making upgrades too cheap is basically avoiding manufacturing constraints. If they implemented a system along the lines of MoO2, where you had to remanufacture the ship to get the upgrade, that would be reasonable. The trouble with that is it would be a micromanagement nightmare.
Tiny ship (3x Phasor VII, 1x Graviton driver IV - fills the hull completely, no wasted space) HP 6 FP 18 Cost 218 Log 2 Huge ship (12x Phasor VII) HP 48 FP 60 Cost 760 Log 6 The problem with this example is the tiny ships are the perfect design for fi
All good suggestions, Brillig. Also, on the offensive, the AI should bring it's own constructors with the fleet, and in areas of heavy combat, drop its own military starbases near the front lines. That's just evil.
It's certainly worth commending that the AI plays the same game as the players. Even on the levels where it has significant bonuses, it's still playing by the same rules. To get back on my hobby horse, I really think simulation of fleet battles could help guide decision making. You could spend a lot of time trying to tweak some equations to describe the relative strengths of fleets, but simulating a few dozen engagements gives you the real e
The planet I took over from the Dark Yor seems fairly well put-together, even without any reconstruction. Actually, it's probably my best planet at the moment. You know, with all the comments about poor algorithms at higher difficulty levels, it might be worth checking that the AI difficulty selection didn't actually get messed up somewhere around release. Overall, I think there is a good chance we'll have a much more competitive
I think the point in splitting your attack against someone with reasonable defense is that unless they're using weapons o the type you have a defense against, your defense number gets the square root taken to apply towards defense. It may be prudent to *research* two weapon tech (In this case, it act
GalCiv2 Forums
The game uses the MoO1 model where populations exterminate each other, so there is no 'reduce civilian casualties' option, or even rebellious enslaved races. Conquest *is* expensive. Another interesting factor is if you drain your planets dry taking over his, you not only take a big economic hit, you leave your own planets more open to invasion. For more punch per transport, try research the advanced troop module. That holds 1000
I'd like to start this thread to get examples of how the AI responds to your ship designs, and if you think it is making the right decisions. So I was playing a head-to-head game against the Drengin last night (crippling diff), and dragging out the war without capturing any of his planets, just to see how the AI would adapt to my ship designs. I had a large ship, stats were 9 beam and something like 5 armour, 2 point-defence. Thi
The game caps sensor range on ships to 15 parsecs.
At least in the game I played, I'm fairly certain I was only getting the starship bonus on attack, not defence. My race had a +30% defence bonus, and I had +55% starship bonus on the planet. If I designed a 12/4-4-0 ship, it would come out 18/5-5-0. If I was getting the starship bonus on defence, it would be 18/7-7-0.
So despite all the technological sophistication and sheer combat power of the German tanks, the Americans were able to win through strength in raw numbers. It's something you might want to consider. I think if they had swapped designs, the Allies would still have won handily. Let's not forget the huge
I think the starbases point is a good one. Smaller ships stand to gain more in proportion. I don't see the point about cost, though. Small ships are surprisingly expensive for their utility. A fully-outfitted small is going to cost about half as much as a huge, and I don't think two small ships are the equal of a huge in most situations. It's not hard to build a huge in 2 or 3 turns on a world that's geared for it. Though it is true that sm
I think I agree. Most of the time, small ships aren't worth it compared to large. Unless you are going up against an opponent with huge offence and no defence (e.g. Dreadlords), you seem to get a lot more bang for your buck out of large ships.
From when I had a planet like that, it looks like a bonus to attack. E.g. a ship with 10 attack will have 14 attack if produced on that planet.
Ah, +military production doesn't work the way I thought it did. So where I said it was equivalent to a discout on ship cost, that was appears to be incorrect.
GalCiv2 Forums
That's very interesting. I had seen that the bonus from research was 'free' and assumed the bonus from military was as well. That does reduce the attractiveness of military quite a bit.
I was talking about the global spending slider. I usually turn that to 100% right away and never turn it down. Anyway, the traders come after the colonization is done. The start on a larger map for me looks something like: Turn 1, buy a factory, set 100% spend, 100% social, queue another factory Turn 2, finish buying second factory (reduced price), queue another - repeat until you have 5 (only have to buy the fi