Increasing the occurrence of random events and United Planets issues.

I wish the "lucky" special ability did that, but it does not. Actually, it may decrease events slightly, since it does help prevent "bad" events.

UP meetings happen at a set length, I forget what that is. Would be nice if a scenario editor could change that, hint hint

~SDC~

I don't do this anymore and I don't know if it still works with the new versions. I used to colonize weak planets, get the morality boost, then destroy the colony. The price was only one colony ship with minimum crew. At that time I had a great lust for trade centers and did what I could to get a 90% morality so I can build them.

Now I don't care. Good, evil, neutral - who cares - just kick the AI's behind in a big way.

The UP is a regular event, it may be like every 24 months (turns) or is it 12? Anyway it is every one or two years and you get a warning that the UP meets next month so you can save the game and go grab a snack.

Good luck and have fun.

PS Rapid Rob - way to come back after taking a hiatus from Gal Civ. Maybe others will follow your lead and return when AP releases.



[Message Edited]

A few million crew members, each with family and friends, a million stories, tragically snuffed out by a thoughless tyrant who can't be bothered to follow the colony ships with a transport to save those poor trusting souls. Oh the humanity.

I am pretty sure it is each 4 years: first in december 2181, then 2185, then 2189 ...

I don't think there should be colinization events on planets less than class 15.

There should be colinization events on any planet that people are likely to settle for use as a colony (as opposed to a range-extender or a morality event generator). In the absence of mods, that means 12+ before Terraformer (at which point it's hardly worth it to go back and colonize the lower class planets, because they're undeveloped and the rest of your planets are at or near the end of their build queues). CariElf has, in fact, removed events for planets below class 12. (Mentioned in the AP bug reports thread, so it may or may not apply to standard GalCiv.)~SDC~
[Message Edited]

I just wish it was an easier and quicker way to get out of neutral in the smaller maps besides waiting for the random events (the non colonization ones). Also I like the UP issues and wish they would come up more often.
~SDC~
[Message Edited]

There really needs to be something to balance the fact that fewer events come up on smaller maps. And I'd like to see the UP meet more often, too.

~SDC~

Morality events are nice and all, but to me it doesn't makes sense for the game to rate players as 'pure good' when they spend most of their time rubbing their hands together and muttering "Excellent..." while plotting underhanded ways to stick it to the alien scum

I realize it would be impossible to balance, but I've always thought it would be cool to see is a more dynamic morality system that changed according to your playing style.

There's no specific time. THe first meeting is one year after you research diplomacy. If you have not met any major races by then, it checks every four years, like normal, and the first meeting on the first check after you have met one of the majors.

~SDC~

UP meetings are every 4 yers as Arturus Magi pointed out.

I think I read somewhere that there are no more events for planets below PQ12. I think it was in one of Cari's posts. CAn't remember exactly

I agree there should be more events. I don't have any (or rather vere very few) until mid-game, when I start having them regularly. It's always like that.
But this time I managed to reach a 100 alignement

Think of it this way... Morality is tied to how you treat the members of your own race/empire. Not how you treat ET. The question you are answering is... Does the end justify the means? You are after all fighting for the survival of the Human Race in a hostile galaxy. So consigning billions upon billions of sentient beings to whatever hereafter in which they believe is all good. The question is how many of your own people are you going to sacrifice to get there?

I agree.
"Given the choice between them and us, there is NO choice"
However, I do think that using terror star should have an impact in morality, or at least in relations with others so-called good civs.

Hey damoose, is your preferred title "Fuhrer"? I just want to make sure that you're proposing the Nazi version of ethics. Further, there's no reason to believe that the survival of the human species is dependent on your government.

There are no absolute ethics, there are always exceptions. I find a certain justice, however, in judging a species by its own criteria. That must mean it's damoose season!

Unless I feel like playing an ornery game, I prefer to play ethically. I rarely start wars, but I will FINSIH them, oh my yes. I will support those who seek peaceful growth. That part gets confusing, since even the good guys may be quite militaristic against those they consider evil. :notsure:

Ah well... just make sure ya have fun while playing

~SDC~

Heh, I was going to write a similar diatribe, but I wasn't sure just what his position was on the undefendable old saw of the ends justifing the means.

To be clear:
The ends never have, never will and never could justify the means.
(ie: "Isn't Warsaw nice and quite after we emptied the ghettos")

I don't think it belongs here, even as a joke, if it was such.
Sorry if I sound touchy about this. I guess everyone should.
I don't get your point about the survival and government part. They might not have the key to our survavil, but they sure do have the botton that will kill as all





yes I think there are absolute ethics. Sometimes a concious choice is made to ignore them, depending on the situation. But that doesn't change the facts: killing millions is a crime, no matter who does it: nazis (with jews, and many others: 20 million russian died defending their country), russians (millions of their own), Japan (with coreans and chineses), Americans (with indians, and vietnamese: 2millions of these died under US bullets and bombs, and many others through military regimes backed by USA), Chinese (with their own people too), France (with Algeria, viet nam), the whole western world with irak (and the embargo that killed thousands of iraki children every day for 10 years, and all this to, in the end, have a new war to remove the tyran that USA supported for so much time), Brazil and Argentina (against Paraguay in XIX century: 2/3 of the population killed), Rwuanda, etc...



well that depends. It can be either tolerance, which means it makes you better than them (somewhat), or you can just use it to be as bad as them, in which case, it's just a self serving argument to ignore our own ethics.



That's how I play too. And indeed it is hard to ba a good guy in this galaxy. But I'll yet make it to the pure good white smiley

I agree with you. I just don't think it is needed to call upon Hitler to make that point.
I think his point was that in a galactic war, were you face extermination, etc... That's what I understood. Therefore my first reply: Given the choice between them and us, there is no choice" (which of course applies only to a battlefield situation).

Just trying to make sure I wasn't misunderstood
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

Sorry... I'm confused. Happens on occasion...

I said



in response to Luminae's comment on the game. In terms of the game mechanics the morality events make sense. They are tied to how you treat your own people not how you treat ET.

The whole premise of the game is survival of the Human Race. Either though war, alliance or assimilation. The choices on how you achieve those ends using the people and resources of your empire dictate your morality.

I said



I did not suggest how you should answer the question... nor did I state how I answered the question, but my blue face should give you a hint. Hence my confusion on the Fuhrer comment.

So getting back to the point of my original post... given the premise of the game, utterly destroying a race has absolutely no effect your morality nor should it. Morality can only be judged from within the context of the civilization not from the outside.

The effect of using a TS on a race...

Surely the name "terror" star gives a tiny clue as which side of the good/evil stance use of such an item falls.
However their use as a deterrant is altogether a grey area.

I feel that the whole alignment aspect of this game has great potential but could have been handled better.
In the old days of pen and funny dice role playing games with real (allegedly) human 'dungeon masters' alignment was selected at the start of a game and playing out of alignment would always be punished in someway.
In Galciv however you start neutral and your alignment changes through the game (I know you know this, but bear with me). When you are presented with an event that could effect your alignment you know exactly what each selection will do - this is silly - when an event arises you should not know in advance what will happen for any given action, also as the same events recur, the reactions should vary.

Basicly what I'm saying is that player alignment should reflect the actions of the player, not which button he presses.

I guess I see your point; all the other races are trying to win too, and even the "good" Altarians don't seem very inclined to try for a diplomatic solution.

Though I agree that the terror stars should drop morality and make the other races more wary of you, kind of like using a planet buster in Alpha Centauri. Maybe it should even get you kicked out of the UP. (though I guess it won't matter if you kill everyone at once, but aren't they making that harder in the upgrade?)

Edit: And I didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion about Nazis, calm down guys
[Message Edited]

Yes... The foreknowledge aspect... It would be more interesting/difficult/challenging if you only had an idea of what the chices would do to alignment. GalCiv 2.0 maybe.

So using a TS should change your alignment and diplo? I can understand diplo, probably even agree. But alignment... Again given the game premis you're not using the TS on your people.




Are you talking about the TS alpha strike here? If so... nope it just takes longer.

[Message Edited]

Luminae,
I didn't mean to jump at anyones throat. I was reacting to the remark of Rabid Rob. I think it can be unwise to suggest that kind of thing on such a sensitive subject. And I think I explained what I meant in my post.




I agree too. Not because it may have killed millions of another species (I think that should reflect on your alignement), because the other races don't care that much about the one that has disappeared ; but because it is a definite threat to them, specially since we are willing to use it, therefore a drop in relations (except maybe for a long time ally, in which case the effect might be comulative: if he sees that you're trigger happy, terrorstarizing planets all over the place, they should be worried at some point... )

Yes, for example the worm critters that currently increase the PQ if you take the evil option, I would have it so sometimes their rotting carcasses actually decrease PQ.
I think the neatest solution is for each situation the computer should pick 3 from a dozen or so options and (within reasonable parameters) randomize the outcomes of each, this would make it almost impossible to learn which action to take, thus forcing players to make a choice based on the information given to them.

But as you say, one for version 2

I think it should,even if only a little. After all even some human in your planet may say that there is some kind of respect towards life that should be uphold. Even if they acknowledge the threat the aliens represent, they still might think that's an inhuman thing to do. After all you can go to prison for torturing animals, and they're not "us": so we consider it "evil".