So that's 100% economy bonus, 50% stacking manufacturing bonus, *way* better colonization events, best unique techs?! I knew evil was overpowered (which is why I don't usually choose it) but that's just ridiculous!
Oh well. Those were the days. Nowadays the only place you can use a 300% food bonus tile is on a PQ8 where your pop is limited to about 14.7B anyway or if your playing DL perhaps a PQ9 with it's 20B limit. I don't get why people say this. I always build farms on bonus tiles. As long as the planet's not in a high enemy influence area, and morale overall in your empire is good enough to keep your party in power, why care about a small number of planets
GalCiv2 Forums
Whether you want to call it an exploit or not, I don't really care; that's just semantics. I do care that it significantly narrows the way to play the game effectively, unless you choose to *deliberately* handicap yourself. Just decouple the sliders...a pretty easy programming change(?) requiring no other adjustments to balancing or AI (assuming the AI will have the sense to build more economic buildings to meet the higher demands on cash. If it can't do this automatically t
GalCiv2 Forums
for one, i think you should reference at least 3 or 4 of the "many times" they've shut down exploits. First strike combat system. Bundles of diplomacy related stuff. Engines. These were all *major* changes to the game mechanics to either shut down exploits or help the AI compete, at least 2 of them were very good changes IMO. I'm sure there have been *many* more minor changes. If I don't like it, don't use it...that's all very
GalCiv2 Forums
In a single player game, why do people care if other people do this? If it bothers you, don't do it. Why bother shutting down any player exploits at all, then? (And you have, many times)
GalCiv2 Forums
I will do some trading with minors for whatever is available. But in general, I find it's more important to get the invasion rolling asap before the balance of power shifts. Out of curiosity, have you ever managed that at suicidal with "very slow" tech speed?
They're balanced IMO. They're a "quick start" pick rather than a "long haul" one. Mid game onwards once you've grabbed a few resources they make relatively little difference, especially the morale bonus, whereas many other picks are still almost as potent as they were at the game start.
GalCiv2 Forums
Iztok, hasn't the income formula been nerfed in DA? This is probably why what previously worked in DL doesn't do so well any more; a marginal difference like that is significant in the early stages before research and resource bonuses to econ kick in. Plus the 250 starting pop is tougher, as you say. I tend to take Superbreeders and build mostly econ buildings early on. Purge has it right for very fast tech IMO (and possibly fast or normal), but I wouldn't fancy my chances of pulling
I think it'd be a waste of time because the game is still being frequently updated. Wait until the final release is out IMO...then people will probably be much more interested because it's the only way it'll get fixed. Unless, I guess, you believe you've solved all the problems and want to prove as such to the devs so that they can then incorporate your changes.
As far as I can tell, this doesn't seem to be the case for social production and military production. It would be nice if progress was forwarded into the next project on those as well. It *is* I think, at least as far as buildings go. Go to the colonies screen and click on any building you happen to be upgrading. It will show the precise cost remaining (in Dark Avatar at least). This is often immediately less than the theoretical cost of the upgrade.
So, are there easy solutions to the production problem? There's one extremely easy solution I think. Decouple the research and production sliders (but keep the social and military coupled). Then you can choose to use exactly whatever percentage of your max research capacity as you like, and exactly whatever percentage of max production capacity you like. I can't imagine this would be at all difficult to implement. You could argue it will affe
No. Move quick...you need to be invading whilst the AI is still concentrating on colonizing.
Also your insanely favorable economic conditions do not really come into play unless you're essentially granting my argument that income trumps production. I'm not following you here...the favorable economic conditions automatically come into play because of the map and galactic event. I'm still going to maximize my economy by whatever means I can in order to pay for my production, I'm just going to sacrifice as few tiles to it as I can get away with, w
I don't keep my save games and I'm a bit short of time right now (especially since I seem to be spending what little I have left on here! ) But don't think that means I'm ducking out of the challenge...it'll be fun to find out. I'm very confident in the all labs approach, since you can get insane x00% bonuses to research as well, plus I've done it many times. (Actually I suspect your approach is pretty much this one anyway for most of the game, just with the balance *way* more toward moneymaki
It's hardly a fair comparison if you take something which may very well not happen! But anyway, don't forget I have a fully built up econ starbase network, more than doubling production on every planet. Oh, and because of the insanely favourable economic conditions, I'm *also* running a nice surplus which can be used to supplement things. BTW, the cost to buy buildings ranges between about 8 and
It all depends on what you have on the planet. If you've already got 4 labs down, for example, a 25% bonus is equivalent to another lab (plus a bit more due to the initial colony contribution) and is worth doing. Any *additional* labs you build will be like building 1.25 labs! Same goes with production. A 10% bonus is pretty feeble...unless you happen to already have a monster production planet with 10+ factories on it. 20% needs 5+ factories.
The true comparison is to compare how much can be produced per turn by conventional production methods and then compare that to how much can be bought if all your resources are dedicated to income. I agree, but I still strongly dispute your claim. Let's say each stockmarket adds 100BC of income per turn (an overestimate, I believe). From a production point of view, that tile can *effectively* be considered to be a factory producing 10BC of production.
But I don't know if they ever will. It seems the game has developed a following of people who enjoy "playing the system" rather than playing a space colonizing game. I suspect that some of them would scream to high Heaven if Stardock "wrecked" GalCiv by making it work something like the way a normal person would consider intuitive - thus destroying all their meticulously practiced (albeit bizarre) slider strategies. I'd have thought people who enjoy pla
Buying stuff is very time efficient, but it's also *extremely* economically inefficient and should be avoided as much as possible IMO. There's no real need to change your planets with the focused approach unless: 1) you're in all labs mode and finish the tech tree. Your labs are now virtually useless (but then you've also won the game already if you have tech victory on ). 2) you're in all factor
Agree with the OP, *especially* with point 1. I was banging on about this many months ago and was also playing and advocating the all research/all factories approach which now seems to have become very popular as the most efficient method (excuse the crowing; I'm almost never ahead of the curve ) Regarding morale, Mumblefratz is spot on: As long as the triple effect
You could use asteroid fields to build your econ buildings. But since buying stuff is pretty inefficient, I don't think it's a *great* strategy.
Edit: was helping with the names of one of the books, but see I was beaten to it. Iain M Banks is my favourite sci-fi author. I'd pick one of those (not sure which one though!)
Remember that 34.5 multiple was originally a fudge factor to make the numbers work. I was later informed by somebody to use the population in *millions* rather than billions. If you do this, you'll see you need an additional 0.9 multiplier for v1.5 and 0.75 multiplier for 1.6. Neater numbers and more likely to be how it's coded, and thus changed. I'm surprised to learn there's an approval factor involved. I wonder if that's the root of the lower than expected earnings in late game I
Thanks Cari but I've seen enough people having problems that I don't want to potentially waste time and money. I really did mean "eventually" as well...it'll still be a great game in 12-18 months (or whatever) when the CDs get printed with the latest version. And if that's never...well I doubt I'll always be without a convenient 'net connection!
No. The CD versions do not require activation, they're just not the latest version. Do they eventually get updated too? Frankly I don't like the sound of all this offline activation lark so ideally I'd like to wait 'til there's a polished patched version available on CD.
