[quote]Vas can't hold it's own vs TEC early on without RA? Sounds like someone's a little lost in the SP world.Go ahead and PM me on MP for a nice 1v1 you TEC and me Vas. We'll see who is worthless early on.[/quote] There are eight million reasons I don't play MP. This has been one of them. (Apologies to The Naked City, for most of those here who are not, ahen, of a certain age.)
[quote]Another question does 'twilight' come with a manual when you order it with the CD. will this be sold in stores, and what stores?[/quote] No printed manual. You do get a .pdf manual. However, although it is titled "Twilight of the Arnor", it is (in a deception that should shame Stardock) the same manual from the Gold collection (which was a DA updated version of the original manual, which did come printed in the original GalCiv2: The Dread Lords physical box). Although a ToA manua
If you don't have the original GalCiv2 game, and want both DA and ToA, you'll need to purchase option 1, the Ultimate Expansion Bundle. This is the cheapest way to get the base game and both expansions. The $50 expansion bundle, with DA and ToA, will not work unless you already have original GalCiv2. The DA expansion, alone or in the Expansion Bundle, does not include the original game.
[quote]There's some bug with my nVidia driver that the game will freeze if I set the bump mapping to highest. nVidia says they're looking into it.[/quote] I have no problem with bunp mapping (and all other options) at highest on an nVidia 8800GTX. I'm currently using the latest drivers released last month, but the same was true with the previous drivers.
At times I have seen no edit button on a brand new post, so I can verify what the opening OP states. TBH, I don't find these forums user friendly in general. For example, there is no preview feature (unless I am missing it), the quote function does not state which poster you are quoting, and the reproduction of the opening post on each page of a multi-page thread is annoying (and unnecessary), especially for a long post with graphics. Edit--OK, the edit button was there :LOL:
[quote]For me, theres not much reason to go back to SMAC, especially because the graphics have aged seriously now, especially against Twilight. Diplomacy in SMAC was realy good and still is pretty okay, the use of spies is the only feature i can think of that SMAC does better than GC2 even today![/quote] I disagree with most of this. After reading another recent thread on SMAC, I reinstalled the game (I don't have SMACX and am not paying $100+ for it) and have been playing a bit. It's s
[quote]I apologize to all the strictly sp types. I wish you would come to the mp community. If its a hosting issue. Ill help in any way I can. PM me and we'll see what we can come up with. As for sp I use it to test tactics, but I find the ai lacking. After 1.04 that improved somewhat. Only in an OMG they must have a hedge fund backing their empire kinda way. To all you sp types don't you want to obtain victory against a breath thinking being?[/quote] I have noticed a similarity between
GalCiv2 Forums
[quote]Don't forget too, the Firaxis has a whole team of people to work on these things. Gathering from a post by one of the developers recently, Stardock, as least for the Vanilla GalCiv II had like 6 people. And it still beats the pants of everything not made by Sid or the old Microprose.And while some games do come with nice detailed manuals (which I do appreciate) many other strategy games don't. Don't fault Stardock for not throwing in expensive and time-consuming extras that many bigger co
After reading this thread I reinstalled SMAC and luckily it ran perfectly on my Vista system (I've had problems with other older games and many others have problems with SMAC and Vista). Man, is this a great game, far better than GalCiv (sorry, Stardock) and, after all these years, still nearly on a par with Civ4. Yes, the graphics are dated, but they are serviceable and will probably not be a major problem for any real TBS/4X fan; honestly, no one oohs and ahhs over Civ4's more modern graphics.
GalCiv2 Forums
[quote]A manual really wouldn't cover that sort of thing in any significant depth either way; it's not a strategy guide.[/quote] I really have to take issue wiht this statement. Indeed, it really annoys me. Readily providing the various tech trees (the most ballyhooed of the new TA features) either in a manual or ingame is not the function of a strategy guide; indeed, it is frivolous to so suggest IMO. The lack of this information has been a thorn in my side all through beta. Like other
[quote]It is a Grand strategy gameYes, it is a Real-Time Grand Strategy Game. I actually consider Sins as a Real-Time Grand Strategy Game too.[/quote] I'd strongly dispute this statement; sins has little in common with a game like Rome, far less than even the Total War series. I like Sins a lot, and far more than I like most RTS games, but it is in no way a "grand strategy" game. Although somewhat deeper and less frantically paced than the typical RTS, it is still an RTS and its most pr
Iraq. Recession. Diaster in Burma. A president shredding the Constitution. And someone is keeping awake over burning space ships in a game, although every other of the myriad unrealistic and ascientific aspect of the game is fine because it is just a game. Oh, and sound without atmosphere is A-OK (though fire is not) because George Lucas told me so. Visit logical reasoning much?
Frogboy's post is not altogther wrong, but his tone, and the gleeful Objectivist tone of most of the commenters, makes me want to take a shower. Or maybe replay Bioshock to see the consequences of unchecked capitalism run wild. There's few events in gaming more satisfying then going upside the head of Bioshock's smug, hypocritical Ayn Rand stand-in, Andrew Ryan (though I wish it was interactive rather than a cut scene).
I generally play TEC and build an Akkan first, which I name after the facion's leader--me! The I generally build Sovas and Kols, with a late game Dunov or two. The Sovas have a USN flavor--I name them after my favorite presidents, with the first being Roosevelt (Franklin, of course), others include Jefferson, Lincoln, Truman, Johnson (tragic figure--great domestically, unravelled by Vietnam). The Kols and Dunovs get a British flavor (they might not be hostorically accuarate but sound like real o
GalCiv2 Forums
[quote]All the while that pc gaming is making original games, indie games, consoles have nothing but the same old crap filling them.If anything is gonna die, it's gonna be consoles.[/quote] LOL. And George Bush thinks the US doesn't torture and is winning in Iraq. The capacity for self deception cannot be underestimated. As an old time PC gamer I really wish you were right. The console market (and I do some gaming on the PS3, though it is primarily used as a Blue-ray player) is killing
[quote]I traded for the "Barren World colonisation" tech with a minor Race. But after that I cannot colonize barren worlds at all.[/quote] Do you have Advanced Colonization, which is a prerequisite for the specific colonization techs? I may be wrong, but while you can trade for any tech, I don't think they are useable until you research or trade for all earlier prerequisite techs.
I may have found a bug in 6a. Although the game no longer calls non-core starbase modules (i.e., defense and sensor modules on an economic/mining/influence base) ascension modules, as per your change log, it now no longer permits you to build them at all. This was in a beta 6 save game (which did load as promised) playing Terrans, if it makes any difference.
54
[quote]The tutorials are great - if you read the manual first. Imagine that... you might need to read the "Training Manual"... As for the campaign mode to familiarize yourself? You mean you really want your hand held for a while as you are told exactly what to do? As I said, the tutorials explain all the basic techniques, and run you through them. Couple it with reading the manual and you should understand how to get started. [/quote] While I think the OP's argument is pretty dumb (hard
Sins Forums
I got the minidump and crash as well when I tried to enable in 1.03.
I'd strongly like a campaign. If done right, it could tell a great story. Academically, a campaign can also serve to teach the game (which would have been nice given the lousy manual and tutorial), but that boat will have sailed for most players by time a campaign would be issued. I'd really like the backstory of Sins to be fleshed out in an interesting way, especialy since I never play any game multiplayer (MMOs are a differnt story, so the five years of my life that I lost to original EQ, and
[quote]Why cant people understand you're supposed to make your own campaign..and play it the way you want to0oo?[/quote] Why can't some people understand that many others--like me--would have liked to see a campaign mode (which they would be free to ignore)? Not only is the lack of a campaign mode diappointing in itself, especially given the elaborate backstory created here, but a well designed campaign could have taken the place of the current poorly designed turorials. Sins has a high
I am generally a big fan of RTFM, and I think this question is answered there somewhere. However, I am hesitant to be quite so rude to newbies with quesions on a Stardock product. Whether as publisher (Sins) or developer (GalCiv2) a common thread runs through the products: great games, incredibly pro-customer attitude, unmatched dedication to continual development and improvement of the game, BUT a high learning curve coupled with terribly incomplete manuals, inadequate tutorials, and unpolished
Stardock does a lot of things right, but providing documentation on how to play (either ingame or in a manual) is not one of them. Sorry, but the current Gold edition manual is terrible, though wittily written. It barely scratches the surface of the game, and much of what is covered is so cursory as to be useless. Similarly, ingame information is lacking, notably in the tech tree, which is terribly designed from a UI point of view (this is a pet peeve of mine, and I understand some of this is be
It is probable that most of these are bugs, though some may be intended (such as paying for social production, whether used ior not--though it is a bad rule if so), but I wish the devs would address them either way. Clearly, GC2s' worst fault is that the economy (as broadly defined in the OP) is just not transparent. The comparison with Civ3 above is apt (and applies to Civ4 as well). Once all the rules were understood (and almost all the rules were set out somewhere in the manual or Civliloped