I was talking about the max defense not being decreased by the full attack, but only by the fraction stopped by the defense. This scenario you describe is in no way different from any other, as each fighter would most probably chip away at the shield initially, lowering it, and one fighter would penetrate it eventually just like in your scenario above. The t
However, would that deal with the problem of only being able to go speed 10-12 (and that's near the end of the tech tree) or so in a gigantic galaxy? Or is that not really that much of a problem? Galaxies could be resized, say medium to 5x5 large to 6x6 huge to 7x7 and gigantic to 8x8, so that speeds are lower but distances are also made shorter.
No. Max defense is decreased by the full amount of the attack roll, regardless of the defense roll. So in the situation described above, a 5 point attack takes out a 4-max defense and still hits the hull for 2, which makes it effectively a 6 point attack... Now, if that defense roll had been a 1 or a 0... Ouch! <TABLE cellpadding=8
And shouldn't defense be 0-1, and not fully removed, since only 3 damage were assigned to a 0-4 defense?
Yes, defenses are degraded by the full attack amount, but the defense roll determines how much of that attack is absorbed by the defenses, and how much goes to HP as damage. That's what I thought, but so what about this: <TD class="mb-Body-Quote
All the Torian frigates are equipped with are Photon Torpedoes, so there's no analysis needed-that's what they're using first (and last, and only!). BSA has a potential defense roll of 0-4 (2+sqrt(6)). FB Attack roll (1-5) = 5 BSA Defense roll (0-4) = 3 The Arceans drop all the chaff they can, but it's not enough. The torpedo hits BSA squarely in the chaff
Something along these lines has already been discussed, most recently in the "Yor Super Ability has to change" thread IIRC.
I was actually thinking about AD&D when I made the remark about being neutral (too many years playing it in the good old days).
So, what you're saying is that you're not good because you think the Torians are not accurately represented in the game (or their way to act in the game more precisely) in terms of alignment, and you're not evil because that's not good for you in game terms, so by default you're neutral. I fail to see how that helps your point...
there are certainly instants when i'd like the ability to prioritize targets of different sorts, to retreat a ship or my whole fleet, etc. (snip) Seems like tactical combat to me I think that when someone with half a brain mentions tactical combat in GC2 they don't mean "complet
Because Neutral does not mean indifferent. Another civ that values a balanced approach to life on the GCII map is worth keeping around, at least in my past DL playing. An alliance between two mid-ranked Neutral players can help keep them out of harms way when the "good" and evil folks get to slaughtering one another. No, it means whatever is in
Yeah, which makes a lot of sense, shields affecting missiles and PD affecting energy weapons It's not about there being *3* attacks/defenses, that's just a confortable excuse. It's about being able to detect and exploit the opponents' weakness(es) in a way that doesn't feel natural, that feels like a system of counters instead of a solid, "logic" system. I think they tried to go for a different system (just for being different), which
So what you are saying is, you either hit, or you miss? There is no other types of damage? Either you destroy it or miss. Not a good idea. Hmm, it is *space* combat, so he is to some degree correct. A hit is usually a very bad thing, most probably fatal - doesn´t actually have to make the ship explode or kill the pilot, just has to disable the v
You can know what kind of defense your opponent(s) has, and choose an attack type accordingly. On the AI side, this is pretty easy to code (barring a human player's cunning of course), hence GC having a better AI than other games (on this particular issue). The fact is, how come armor has a lesser effect against missiles or beams than vs mass drivers? Doesn't really make sense, even in a game. Tactical combat, IMO, is a must.
Actually I did. When I said crits actually I was refering to a critical hit that would make the ship explode. If a ship explodes from a single normally non-lethal hit, that's gotta be a crit, correct? I wasn't really expressing my opinion on any of the systems. Individual weapons resolved separately is logical, and the chance for a "concussion" explosion should be proportional to weapon damage. All or
This would also argue again for stacking small weapons, because you're going to want as many rolls as possible going up against low percentage situation like this. Maybe it's just the roll system that is wrong? Logically, the % should be in some form related to the damage the weapon does, so that high damage weapons have higher chances for crits.
Super Organizer. When they are attacked, all races of the same ethical alignment will come to their aid. BTW, does this include Neutral civs? If so, why should neutrals care if other neutrals are attacked or not?! They are neutral after all
Randomizing special abilities would make the story parts of the game break. It's not like the game follows exactly the storyline. Why the need to research Trade or Universal Translator, for example, if trading has been going on in the galaxy for eons? And military techs like Laser, haven't they been perfected for millenia? Same goes for most if
This is also an obvious solution in terms of storyline as well, after all everyone had stargates originally and dismantled them (now they would be instantaneous, unlike in the story line). Could be the last tech in the propulsion branch of the techtree, which BTW is really... hmm, unorthodox to be polite. Ion Drive *after* HyperDrive, and after
The game was designed around the assumption that ships would top out at speeds of around 6 to 8 moves per turn. That means the AI was designed looking for ships that might be getting tops in that area. So ships gettign 40 moves per turn is not something the AI has been designed to deal with. Well, seems like a case of bad planning and poor te
Humans were happily hunting and gathering for 500,000 years (40,000 years if you count purely verified homosapiens) before someone decided to try farming. Farming, how hard is that? Yet it didn't occur to people for tens of thousands of years. The problem in the GalCiv universe wasn't that they didn't think of Hyperspace but rather had not thought of full-fusion power
GalCiv2 Forums
Stardock Forums