Thought; unless a military improvement called shields existed that would render bomabrtment nil. Heh think Hoth.. Overall i'd like to see the planetary defences improvements /attacks fleshed out a bit dawg
I agree on that count; even if it only gives a small plus; but that air/space superiority should count for something. dawg
yep cheese..extra creamy. reminds me of the 1 trillion dollar extorrtion bug in civ iii
Yeah its not as if there is picture of giant space sphincter..LOL dawg
Thnx for the reply monkey (albiet lat eas i was out of town last week). I was lookign at SU (reatil) seemed a good idea. I agree seems that developers are really missing the point when Andy and brad can make great games without 10 billion dollar budgets. Great gameplay is not about snazzy graphics its top notch gameplay. To be frank; few game shave that now; back in the "good ol days" a basement monkey" (like me) could make half decent piece of software, now it seems like a room full of monkeys
i'll vote for that snazzy piece of ass .. er sorry i mean recommendation LOL Waypoint would be very nice indeed. dawg
a few comments 1) "stop gag" i think the term is stop gap but in the context of MOO3 and the MOO3 forums that is bad pun in more ways than one..kudos 2) HOMM IV. I found the AI was no challenge to beat; indeed while it may have but its forces ok; it wa skilled constantly even by the neutral critters (dead gravestones everywhere). I never felt any of my cities were under threat ever.. even at the highest levels. Now i'm no 4X games pro (still cant beat Gciv in Normal or Civ 3 in King
addendum; Empires in Arms its a computer version of what is considered to be among the best strategic board games ever made.. It is a grand strategic game of the napoleonic wars (with variants set in the revolutionary wars, american revolution, Wars of Austrian and Spanish Succesion, and even the 30 years war.. and i have ven heard that somone had tried to make a crusades variant too!) Either way its a game many old board gamers are drooling for. Ahh yes nothing like a +2 Guard first ro
What would be nice is a TB based fantasy world strateic game based on a defined fantasy setting such as the Grayhawk Wars (battle of Chendl anyone), Videssos, Middle Earth or even Arthurian England. I know many fantasy games have strategic theme but its often contrived or generic; what is needed is one with real back story. thats why wargamers like to replay historical board games.. a real sense of time and place and lot of these fantasy settings are soo rich its not funny) dawg
The TBS fare has been rather low the past few years Civ 3 (and PTW) - good, but not stellar, some crippling game design choices (oil screw, AI trade-a -thon, late game tedium still there) but still fun AoW - very good, but AOW II seemed worse for some reason Moo3 - (heh heh) HOMM IV - Brain dead and expansions = son of brain dead . HOMM III was far better SEIV - very interesting - i have only tried the demos but
I think the probelm her eis also that teh empire budget can show positive cash flow but you still have almost no debt reduction. In one game 1 had 300 bc/mo positive income (econ screen) but my debt stayed at ~521 bc. I think the econ screen can get out of sync in debt situations. have also asked that a feature be put in the aalerts player when treasury is -ve not just -500 BC. trade can be soo whacky that if you are abosrbed in a war and forget to watch your cash on hand your only rea
According to Brad; posted earlier in thread -- no fleets ... period. Makes this thread seem futile :p
Now THOSE sound like good ideas. It would definately give you sense of dynamics about galactic politics. If you could use IP to actually even get a specific issue up (for your IP) would be even better. LOL maybe a way around it would be that UP sessiosn actually have 2 votes: one for the current issue and one for the whatever should be the issue for the next would be. However, I spidey sense tells me that would involve quite handful of AI reprogramming. dawg
The problem with the droids message is that in reality the trade AI realy isnt that much of pushover when I se the message. By that logic i should say "give me planet X you twinkie". True to form they (in not so many words say) "give me the planet X twinkie", liek good little robot. Dawg
Stardock Forums
On related note even humans In Rl (IMHO) dont give each other even deals; always someone tries to get something for free; or a little better than the item is worth. My own experience in MTGO (and other online games) is peopel will ALWAYS try to buy low and sell high; unless there is such a desire for the item that it borders on manic. Its the profit motive; alive and well. On sid enote thsi was problem in Civ3 IIRC. The AI would only trade you techs on really ridiculous terms sometimes
reminds me of dialogue from a bad anime dub.. :CONGRAT: dawg
I am not sure about thsi; but my total IP points available to trade varies with each race; you can even give trade them to minors (what they will do with them i havent a clue). But short of giving them away I havent gotten any trade value at all from them.
yes I love some of the humourous quips and references. I almost keeled over laughing when i read the Ceti Alpha V ref in the manual. :) Its been in Canada. IMHO while it tended to be far more faithful to the original story I found the acting and set quality to be really really bad. Lynch's Dune was a mess in terms of editing anf plot but the acting at times was stellar. To this day Patrick Stewart IS in my mind Gurney, Jurgen Prochnow is the duke (looks more like Paulus the Leto but..).
I agree i trust Brad and their team to take their time to consider play balance. That said though my big concern is that seeing the AI take soo many "suicide runs" just makes the AI look stupid; even if it isnt. Planetary defence is easily vieable by anyone except under PFOW (until discovered); hence ther eis no reason for the AI to launch piddly fighters vs. my dreadnoughts in orbit.. Speaking of AI though the one thing that does bug me mor ethough is how teh specials (random monsters.
Unfortunately in retrospect there is a down side; why would anyone build large vessels (and research weapons tech) once they had fighter craft; since 10 billion cheapos can do the job. (ie old Civ joke; why build anything but phalanxes as enough of them can kill anything) Thus ideally the evasion idea is better (they have chance at avoiding damage ever round) rather than better damage. dawg
Are they like currency to trade for something; if so the AI avoid taking them like a rock bottom peso. Dawg
That would be interesting fat wofl. If you gave size bonuses/negatives. Say fighter class ships would get an attack bonus vs lg ships or some sort of "evasion" ability. It would make prowling around the galaxy with a behemoth risky ask tons of small fighters coudl still do you in. This would make for some inetersting strategies as opposed the bigger is better mentality. Dawg
I agree there are two valid arguments here; but what I find strange is that; up to certain technological limit quantity CAN beat quality. Its only when technology/quality gap becomes so large that 1 unit can fend off hordes (think battle of Roarke's Rift, or heh even the current Iraqi war, or the film the Last-Starfighter). However, numbers of smaller, less powerful/advanced unit can defeat another single unit. The vision i have here (again sci-fi) is the battle of Yavin or (history) any major b
Stardock Forums
I wonder if this would work for an enemy starbase. That way you could mooch resouces too :) Are you getting 2x benefits with 2 bases then ??
heh I understand the idea of suspending disbelief, but from strategic point of view moving billions to a new colony is bit to easy. Colonies should be strategic beachheads with populations that grow over time. Its far to easy to move so many at once that "presto" instant rapidly producing colony. Since production is tied to poplulation its makes fronteir colonies rather quick building; both pop and production wise. Moreover, ok lets tak eteh idea of ship 1 cubic mile (coffin filled); is it more