I'm generally for things that make ship-to-ship combat more interesting. It would certainly make decisions about ship design more interesting - maybe two lower-powered weapons are better than one higher-powered weapon. Sounds like a pretty dramatic change though, since core gameplay would be altered and the AI would have to be taught how to evaluate survivability in its ship designs.
I haven't had an issue with invisible starbases, but ever since the most recent update I have invisible constructors. Sometimes saving, quitting and loading restores the graphic and sometimes it does not. I deleted the My Games\GC2TwilightArnor folder, but that didn't improve the situation. Dunno if this post series is related to TA or not, so here's to say that my report is related to the latest beta of TA. This is what I get for not looking at which forum the post was in afte
Heheh kryo ;) I want to like Sins of Solar Empire but an RTS and GalCiv don't have terribly much in common ;) I'm definitely planning on checking out the demo (assuming that one comes out) though. And yes, I still want to see more complex battle animations in GC ;)
Argh, I really don't want to turn off surrenders - especially for those instances where its just a matter of tedium to go and finish off their planets. Guess I'll keep my eyes open and see if the surrender mechanism starts biting me routinely.
I just had a game of round-robin surrenders without loss of planets. The Pirate mega event had just fired, wiping out everyone's military. I (Terrans) rode it out, researched large hulls designed to crush the pirates and then came out with a massive military might (I had a couple hundred thousand BC and bought fleets of my ships). At this point the Iconians decided I was too strong and declared war, the Korath liked me just fine and the Yor sat there. Then an assassination even
Wow Namus, keep it up :) This is some great story telling and interpretation of the battles!
Yeah, it'd be super-sweet to have swarms of fighters screening larger capital ships, intercepting bombers, etc. Ok, I need to stop thinking about that awesomeness and just hope for it in GCIII :)
I would like this too, but only if it doesn't 'break' in a worse manner than now. What I mean is, if ships stay at their maneuvering ranges so that they can point their weapons (well, their nose) at targets, then when the fighters close with the battleship the battleship won't be able to track them, so you get the same results as now. Goofy shots 180 degrees from weapon facing ;) I think I'd just rather the weapons be turrets that point to face the enemy. Or a massive
I agree that tourism seems to generate too much revenue. I wish the devs would comment so that we could get an idea of what they have in mind so as to better direct our thoughts. I just played a game (well, right now I'm hovering over the decision to win w/ an Alliance or not) and I could have outright purchased a Large hulled vessel every other turn. I had the Tourism mega event, but still, I was comfortable even before that. Also, is tourism based solely on other races visiting? I wou
I figure he's talking about the most recent TA beta, as that's the problem I'm having and others (further down) have posted too.
GalCiv2 Forums
Woot, new toys to play with 'til my Friday really starts
[quote] January is fine. But PLEASE open the pre-order option (and so the Beta) for guys without credit cards like me! [/quote] Actually I think you can. The PayPal option works for a week after each new beta release, if I understand it correctly.
Ah, you beat me to posting this one. And here I had a save game all ready to send in when I got back from work today. Well I suppose I should send it in anyway, just have to remember to reference this thread.
I could have sworn that I had a couple things to tweak, but right now this is the only one I can think of: - Make clicking in the text areas when saving a ship design work (pretty please?) I end up designing and tweaking ships frequently enough that this is extremely annoying when you want to just add a version designator (e.g. My Ship, My Ship M2, etc.)
Then perhaps the answer is to give you the middle technologies as if you had researched them rather than add another pop-up window that you have to click on? (My philosophy: Boo on popups that I have to click on, Yay for reasonable alternatives)
I like it, but you do have a point of view slip in the 3rd paragraph where it goes from third person (referencing Lord Vega as he/him/etc) to first person (Lord Vega becomes I) and then back to third. Otherwise kudos and keep it going
GalCiv2 Forums
[quote] [quote]They need to be fleeted with your attack ships during combat to get the bonuses, so how do you construct them so the AI attacks them last? I've never gone into comabt with non-combat craft, like transports, fleeted with attack craft...do they even take part in the battle? Is it worth putting any weapons or all-defenses on the ships, or will that just draw the AI's attention? Would you want cargo hulls, or as many HP as possible?[/quote] Don't put any weapons on the co
Clicking on the acct balance in DL does the same thing so I figured it must have been intended since it's been around for so long. I agree with you though, I would expect it to bring up the Domestic screen if it does anything.
In DL (not sure about DA, but I assume it's there) when you hover the mouse over your account balance a balloon window shows your cash flow (e.g. -30BC). That doesn't happen in TA (nothing shows). Also, if you park some ships on the same tile as a starbase both they and the starbase are visible. However in TA the ships cover over the starbase, making it look as if it isn't there.
Seems like an entirely cogent point, even if you're splitting hairs. Unless you're suffering from expansion pressure where you [I]really need[/I] more planets and can't (for whatever reason) expand via conquest, they seem like a waste of research points. Honestly, it's moments like these where I wish the AI was written in Python or Ruby or something similar and accessible for us to extend Wishful thinking and all, I know, but still
