This is all very interesting, Amish, and it's great there's finally a counter to the rather boring LRF spamtastic battles, but... doesn't that leave this diagram look rather faulty?
Again, Amish, I'm posting my view on how I believe the developers were INTENDING game balance. The fact that it plays out much differently online I attribute to oversights such as the abuse of scouts. They simply weren't prepared for this. It's a fact that defensive emplacements play only a tiny role in online play. Should we conclude that this is intentional, that gun emplacements were 'meant' to be a near-redundant never-to-be-used unit? I doubt so.
[quote]This is a personal strategy, and i will argue such until you prove the devs wanted the game to play out this way WITHOUT resorting to something like "It's the best way to exploit these races." That said, i agree with Amish. Scouts should be, and are, a combat ship and were meant for such a role. They would have been given better shields/hull/armor and no gun if they weren't. The fact that they have an armor type they counter proves this, so people need to stop crying about i
[NOTICE] This valuable thread just received much-needed bumping. Just to be an ass, of course. And immature.
I never exploited illums because back when that was popular I didn't even play online. Like I said in #8 reply above, I 'complain' about scouts because they obviously weren't meant for combat. Had the developers intended for them to take a combat role - even a light combat, clear-the-neutrals-role - they would have had autoattack on by default. What instead happens is people exploit the scouts to counter the exploit of LRFs - something that is only necessary because fighters don't cou
Flak is NOT the counter to bombers. Fighters are.
[quote who="Deceiver_0" reply="3" id="2440349"] You may select your Capital ship as flagship, which may be a good idea if you're producing different types of units, but I highly recommend disbanding any fleets you create before engaging enemy units, especially if your flagship is your cap ship (because your entire fleet will follow your cap ship if you need to retreat it, resulting in unnecessary losses and possibly losing your cap becuase your fleet isnt killing whats killing your cap).
[quote who="anteachtaire" reply="29" id="2432874"]yeah, I meant the advantages for max all. by itself, (not for trade or anything.) its comprable to researching extraction and trade bonuses to a cert. extent. Personally I feel as though its a better investment though. And it can be a big factor early game, as you maximize your base income and set yourself up for a better eco. when you get more research; extraction research offsets the loss of income from low all & if you have higher all.
Carriers are unarmed to fool the enemy. The enemy will think: "Ahh, he's sending carriers, the fool... I will surely win now! Because I know that 'carrier: strong against none'. Hahaha! He's sending non-combat units to fight me! BWHAHAHAHA! MU-hahahah!" But when the carriers actually arrive, they are in fact carrying combat units. 'SURPRISE ATTACK AMBUSH STRATEGY' you then type to really put down the poor guy. And then your fighters fight him and your bombers bomb him. An
[quote who="CallenExile" reply="150" id="2442508"] Quoting Apheirox, reply 148 Six pages of this. Incredible. The same, simple-to-understand perfectly logical and valid argument being reiterated to a guy who believes the 'hit-and-run lore' has more to say about the game balance than the actual game itself does. Stop posting here, it's pointless. You've made your point. Pretty much the original post was all that's needed. The developers, I woul
As I briefly expressed my opinion on prior to the game we played a few days a ago, JJ, I'm one of the people who think scouts are not meant for combat. IMO, the validity of scouts as combat units are no more than a major oversight on the developers' part being exploited by advanced players who know the game better than its makers do. Scout: 'Strong against none' and auto-attack off by default hint at/prove this. This is a case seen in countless games, especially when a competetive onl
Six pages of this. Incredible. The same, simple-to-understand perfectly logical and valid argument being reiterated to a guy who believes the 'hit-and-run lore' has more to say about the game balance than the actual game itself does. Stop posting here, it's pointless. You've made your point. Pretty much the original post was all that's needed. The developers, I would think, have common sense and will obviously be in agreement that the Vasari are considerably underpowered, espe
This woman is seriously sexually frustrated.
This game seems like it could be really great, and it seems like the developers are doing their best. But thus far I've been totally mystified by all the reviews I read saying how spectacular the ai was. I agree 100%. I also don't understand why the reviewers are raving. Games like Civilization 4 or even the ancient StarCraft - most RTS games, i
It... auto-retreats? My guess is it returns your ships to your nearest planet. Try it out and report back here.
Let me guess... unescorted transports en masse? You don't need any previous games for that.
People are awfully quiet on this topic. Developers?
I'm not sure Stardock gets it, either
Bump.
Yes. And LordFu, however, is a freaking idiot. Here he gives us a blah blah blah.
C:\Programmer\Stardock\TotalGaming\GalCiv2\Data\English\Raceconfig.xml Iconian Refuge 90 The Iconians were the creators of the Yor. A highly inventive and proud race, they consider themselves heirs to the Dread Lords. <H
@ Strategist (and a dozen others out there) - I follow a lot of message boards, and I notice that there's always, ALWAYS, this dismissive assumption that people who like and defend a game are fanboys. And you know what? On a lot of those boards, where almost everything is a complaint, I can almost believe it. But here, where almost all the posts are positive, or simply foc
Careful what you post, Quitch - there's a base of rabid fanboys around on these forums and they're bound to bite unless you brainlessly praise the game, even if your points are valid. This is going to cause a lot of hate but I don't care much: Try a game of Civilization 4. The Civ AI may cheat at higher levels, but it makes for a much more cunning opponent than GC offers. Also, it includes in GC sorely lacking things like a foreign relations screen that let's you get a quick overview of relation
I agree, Quitch. The current AI's diplomacy is just not good enough. I must say I wouldn't mind at all if they borrowed the diplomacy AI from Civ 4 which is extremely savvy. To the original poster I will say this: Fixing the AI's diplomacy by making it more demanding and trading more will go a long way towards making alliances more difficult to obtain and thus make the diplomatic victory more fulfilling.
I'm not trying to rush you Stardock guys, you deserve your vacation. I just want an outlook on what timeframe to expect. Are we talking weeks, months? How large an update are you thinking about making compared to 1.1? Are you going to post a changelog for us to see what's going to be updated?
Sins Forums
GalCiv2 Forums