I agree with just about everything in the original post. While the context-sensitive information gets less critical as you've memorized more of the game, the sliders are just wacky. They reflect relative percentages when you really want to control absolute BCs. It would be nice if you could lock a slider, not at a percent but at a BC total, and then twiddle with the others. If I need 15 BC to complete research, I want to set the tech slider at 15 BC and not have that move aroun
thongor
All planets have a strategic value, and I recently had a precursor event that raised the PQ of all of the uncolonized planets in the Sol system by 7. So suddenly Mars went from a class 8 to a class 15. Cool.
Starbases now have a maintenance fee?!? All right! That was a seriously imbalanced part of the game.
Well, I will readily admit that I used the PQ bonus in almost every game. I LOVED it. However, if it is unbalancing I have no problem with it being removed/nerfed. It's kind of hypocritical to tout the game's good AI and then forsake our own starting strategy by constantly using the most overpowered trait. I don't want cheese. I want a challenging AI and a level playing field.
as Yin said, this style is definitely more challenging because you can't use diplomacy to bankrupt the AI (well, at least until they start begging for peace). I play on Tiny maps, so starting position is critical for success.
I play the majority of my games this way. When they demand something, I tell them to f*ck off. When they declare war on me, I go beat the crap out of them. When they beg for peace, I clean them out. The game plays more quickly this way.
(Note: I accidentally posted this in the General Forum when I meant to post it here. Sorry for the duplicate!) Here is a quick & dirty analysis of the difference in effect between a morale improvement (Entertainment Network) and a planet quality improvement (Soil Enrichment) http://www.astrosdaily.com/laurie/gcimpr.htm I've been wanting information on the merit of morale improvements, but none was forthcoming. So I did this and I must admit that I am shocked at how muc
Here is a quick & dirty analysis of the difference in effect between a morale improvement (Entertainment Network) and a planet quality improvement (Soil Enrichment) http://www.astrosdaily.com/laurie/gcimpr.htm I've been wanting information on the merit of morale improvements, but none was forthcoming. So I did this and I must admit that I am shocked at how much better Entertainment Network is than I thought. I used to wait forever before building it but now I may start rush-buy
I use Control-N all of the time depending on how I want to play: Isolationist/Xenophobe = corner of the galaxy. Diplomat/Trader = near center of the galaxy.
"Thongor, I would guess your playstyle has more to do with this than any "cheat" in the AI. " Well, actually, I went out of my way to demonstrate this as early as possible, rushing to get Universal Translator on a Tiny map. I think it's fair to say that it's not a priority issue, but I don't think my playing style has much to do with AI decisions made at first contact before Turn 15.
OK, it would be cool if a Phoenix could figuratively rise from the ashes of a battle... LOL
Here's another idea: if a defending ship has a higher base speed (= more mobility), then it can become the attacker if that is more advantageous in combat. I think this is a fair and logical way to reward ship speed improvements. I'm not sure how much this would hurt BattleHammers, but it couldn't help them considering that they are slow ships. Also, I agree that speed improvements should be +% improvemnts instead of simple increases to distance. That way, a battlehamer with +2
The problem with the Metaverse is that is doesn't prevent anyone from using legitimate but cheesy exploits in the game -- colonize-destroy until +38% PQ (or to change alignment) -- profiting on straight money trades -- infinite starbases -- using unattackable freighters as walls (fixed in new patch?) -- etc etc, more out there I'm sure Brad has said that they are not planning to fix some of these exploits simply because they want to focus on more important issu
The AI seems to diplomatically treat the human different than the other AIs, i.e. accepting deals from other AIs that it would never accept from humans. Emphasis on the "seems to". I documented this to an extent but gave up because no one else seemed to think it was an issue worth addressing.
Mesopotamia *was* the cradle of civilization....
"The rest of the morale boosting buildings such as Medical Center, etc are just too expensive vs. the benefit." My point is that you don't *know* that. You are kind of guesstimating, right? Certainly there is a point at which the population size would support a medical center or some of the more expensive improvements. One thing I've found is that I can raise the tax rate after building a morale improvement instead of simply letting the population grow. Does that tax i
On a Tiny map, I like to surround my home star system completely with starbases and then upgrade them one at a time. I figure that *eventually* I'm going to build 5-6 anyway, so they might as well defend my most important system at the same time. One nice side benefit of this is that you can build constructors to improve your colony defenses (instead of ships), and this keeps your military maintenance low.
I would like a better understanding between the effects of improved morale bonuses and maximum population. Then I could do some kind of cost/benefit analysis on the morale based improvements. If something costs 3 to maintenance, but gives you a 10% boost in your economy, then you know that you need an income of 30 before it pays for itself. I can't draw that conclusion with morale benefits. If something costs 2 to maintain and gives me +20% morale, then how much will my populat
MOO3 is part of the Master of Orion legacy in NAME ONLY. Now let us never speak of it again. :(
A simple fix would be to allow any ship to pass onto and through any square occupied by a freighter once this law is passed. Just because they cannot be attacked doesn't mean they should be an inpenetrable wall.
Any programmer effort used to add multiplayer to the game will take away time that could be used to improve the single-player game. So, I disagree with you. Adding multiplayer to the game will hurt single-player.
I think limiting the # of starbases is an unappealing solution. I'd rather devise an economic solution that allows a player to build excessive starbases IF he is willing to pay the price. I would suggesting a sliding scale for starbases to make them affordable in the early game and less affordable later. Why not have the first starbase in a sector cost 1 maintenance, the second base cost 2, the third one 3, etc? By the time you get 5 or so bases in a sector, you are th
Holy cow, you can cancel social projects?!? Do you get reimbursed in any fashion? If you do, then I know what to do with those wasted BC's. I'll just revert to the old Civ1 strategy of constantly building an improvement and then selling it.
I go with PQ 15% and Morale +10% Then I choose teh Populist party which gives me another Morale boost. More planets + More Pop/Planet = domination
This game is very cool because it encourages some role-playing. However, it is difficult to roleplay a xenophobe or an isolationist when I am constantly forced to trade with other races against my wishes. The ability to refuse trade routes should be a check box or something for each of the 5 races.