the_only_normal_1

I have definitely noticed this several times, in passing. Never huge enough amounts for me to go and make a comment, but I have also made special note when it happened that it was unrelated to starbase construction. I don't know how often this is happening, but I definitely had been noticing it around once per game (often when I went to look at resources for market prices there would suddenly be a downward DROP, inexplicably). Sorry, also no saved games (at university and definitely cannot ri

I am pretty sure that ancient gifts is meant to be that way -- everyone begins with wormhole research completed --that is the 'ancient gift'. Others, correct me if I am wrong.

[quote]but I could live with 'basic level', 'veteran crew' and 'elite crew'. each new level gives you a slight boost in stats (as with capships) and maybe an extra slot. I mean not that I think it really needs to be done, but linked with experience and just being two more anyway, it would be a nice touch to give experienced sbs some extra punch for a price.[/quote] I really like this idea. In my ideal world this crew-experience system would exist along with the idea of 3 researchable

I disagree with the proposal to make torp ships cost as much resources as cap ships. However, I don't think they are adequately balanced either. I think what may help rehabilitate them to a more balanced place(because now I think they are too good at ripping apart a fully upgrades, super-expensive SB -- fleet support or no) in TEC fleet dynamics would be to significantly increase their supply cost, while leaving resources and stength the same... maybe 20 (+/-4) or so supply for each shi

I agree with Agent of Kharma, no levels-- increases in SB power should come at the hand of research and cash -- and preferrably (for me) in 3 distinguishable tiers of SB.

With regards to the Torp cruisers: I agree with the supply increase completely, the stength upgrade not at all. I think at present the biggest thing driving me nuts with torp ships is their numbers -- I don't mind seeing them, and given their strength (which I think is appropriate) their price is ok.. but I don't think that they should be as cheap on the supply-side as they are. If an enemy wants to knock off one of my SB's, that is fine (and expected).. but given the cost of SB's, he shouldn

I think at present this ability is too irrelevant, and regardless of tweaking will remain so in all but the most bizarre cases. The best fix that I can see would be to twofold: I) implement Psyco567's idea of it preventing a planet from dropping below 1hp; and II) make it cost perhaps twice as much to research, but make it a passive ability, like the jump destabilization ability -- this way all SB's get it and it is no longer a waste of an upgrade slot. Given that the idea of auxilliary gover

I think the starbases at present are OK. I find the 8 slots a limitation that becomes somewhat frustrating later in games, when large fleets and even just 10-15 torp cruisers can man-handle a SB, even fully upgraded. Having to choose between weapons systems and squadrons and special abilities is particularly frustrating. I don't know that a leveling system is what I would suggest, but rather a tiered system of say 3 different scales of starbase. These ideas have already been discussed at grea

It is laughable that people are even arguing with Ron about this: it is so logically self-evident that you would not be wanting to place defensive emplacements on your planet's surface that I am having difficulty understanding how people are arguing so vehemently against him. These defensive structures are placed in essence to prevent damage being done to the economic and administrative infrastructure: the planet/asteroids. These strucutres therefore serve the double-role of acti

a huge price increase at this point, without a similar increase in strength or slot numbers or some other factor, would make them prohibitively pricey and practically unemployable.

ya, I have noticed that as well -- too many times to tell. The AI's cost/benefit analysis seems absurdly skewed in a few situations. When invading their planets, they never force a pyrhic victory on you in order to make you pay in blood for that planet, which simply by the act of delaying my advance, they would suerly benefit from staying to defend. Another key instance of AI feebleness comes over on their attacks, when they get to a point in a battle where they think they are bound t

ya, auxilliary gov needs a boost -- maybe a bonus to planet's cultural allegiance cap or a bonus to planet bombardment resistance or a bonus to construction times will under bombardment-- something along these lines maybe. ... on the other hand, IF wider starbase reforms were ennacted which allowed for more slots/base, then aux-gov may become more relavent -- right now just not as useful as buying another round of strike craft or weapons..

ya--- otherwise a great deal of wasted typing and consideration...

ahhhh.. that makes sense of it. And just with regards to the encyclopedia: that would be a godsend! but I feel ashamed to ask for a project like that ontop of starbase suggestions I have made... I would have to start tipping this game developers to nullify my conscience! On another note , once again unrelated (that I don't want to clog the boards up opening a new post for)-- what are the specific stats for fighters/bombers? Do they differ by civ? Many upgrades effect them, and

unrelated to entrenchment, but on the note of the deliverance.. why is it that when a culture flip occurs on a planet the population just fanishes? Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense if they actually switched the planet over to the empire who's culture took over? -- alla Civilizations 4 culture swaps. Sure, it would likely be a temporary flip most of the time, and the planet would cost the empire it switched to some cash (underdevelopment) in the process, but that makes perfect sense ..

I an advent addict, and Shadowhal is right -- starts at two and each of the first three upgrades are of 4 squads, last one is a wicked 6 -- but almost never makes sense given the limitation on slot totals.

With regards to the whole 'hard choice' thing, I don't see having a starbase that you have dedicated to combat but cannot get all of the combat abilities for a 'hard choice' scenario -- its just kind lame.. more weapons or more strike craft? really.. I think that if this is going to be defending from the insane fleets that Sins allows you to construct, why not both? It seems a strange and unecessary limitation that is not mirrored in fleet construction at all. To limit defence in such an obvi

i understand how the ability works now. I am suggesting a stronger and more targetted ability. Perhaps on-top of the damage make it disable strike-craft construction, or abilities, or weapons, or something along those lines -- just a way to make a more targeted and precise use of this ability to hurl meteors around willy-nilly and fix the problem of the inadequacy of final judgement. maybe 1500 dmg would even be sensical for such an ability, so long as cap ships were the only ones affected--

Yay for Beta 3! P.S. does anyone know anything about a timeline for final publication of entrenchment? Is there a date beyond which this great beta process (and I mean great, what a great developer to take such time and take such consideration of fans' feedback!) is not permitted to travel beyond? Also, those who have knowledge of the previous question may be able to answer regarding another curiosity: what are the themes of the next two micro-expansions and what are their general

I have used final judgement only in one case (and found it useful, only in that one case), which goes as follows: I was playing a game with unlocked teams, start with an ally in a 2v2v2 map. After my team had got a difinitive edge (and the other two were moronically fighting amongst themselves), I built up starbases in key allied systems, preparing for the great betrayal! I turned out to be quite interesting to have a fleet prancing from planet to planet (of your former ally's), while having

Why not just scuttle the starbase and build a new one? the difference seems minimal, and if you are tearing out all of the upgrades and starting from scratch you may as well (as construction workers know, it is always much cheaper to build from scratch than to rennovate the entire complex) -- maybe this brings us full circle to the logic behind not being able to refurbish a base? ... just a thought.

I haven't been able to build more, I believe.. though my memory may be failing me -- I love building sb's at stars..

Interesting. You didn't happen to note how many phaze lanes there were going to the star did you? Maybe the max is determined by the number of lanes? Just a guess at some justification...

Solanus could be balanced easily enough. just make its chance to hit lower, area-of-effect 1/6 the dmg of the torp, etc.

I would agree with you for a massive rise in the cost of anti-structure ships if there was also a scaled-up rise in their survivability. Otherwise, they would be far too easy to target with strike craft or whatever, and far too expensive to justify building.