OT? SEIV vs GalCiv

[Kamog]

Well, I would prefer to know exactly how things are calculated, too. It helps when planning strategies.

Like how is fleet experience determined, has anybody figured it out?

[Roanon]

Simple. The more ships you kill, the better you get .
Would similar combat and experience exist:
- in GalCiv, ships would pick up experience by moving through certain squares of the combat grid.
- in MOO3, the game would calculate by a very sophisticated algorithm function called random() which ships get how much experience after combat, disregarding any shots fired, hits or the side who won the combat.

[DarkAnt]

"- in MOO3, the game would calculate by a very sophisticated algorithm function called random()"

Thats horrible. They didn't really do that did they? Just that alone would turn away most strategy gamers if they found that out.

[Atrocities]

MOO3 was a horrible game that even the word horrible is barely enough to describe it.

[The Frenchmen]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
MOO3 was a horrible game that even the word horrible is barely enough to describe it.

Just curious, what did you think of moo2?

[Fyron]

There is no basis of comparison whatsoever between MOO2 (or MOO) and MOO3. MOO2 and MOO are very good, classic space opera 4x games. MOO3 is, well, something else entirely...

[Roanon]

MOO1 and 2 were milestones and some of the best strategy games ever made. I think MOO1 was even better, considering the standards that were available then, because MOO2 was too much influenced by Civilisation and has a tendency to unnecessary micromanagement. The slider system and the more global research effects in MOO1 were far better than having to move around every single colonist in MOO2, and having to build a specific building on every planet every time a new research has been made.

[Beck]

Like how is fleet experience determined, has anybody figured it out?

Simple. The more ships you kill, the better you get.

Actually I don't think this is entirely accurate. I haven't done a sandbox or anything, but based on my Last several games, killing ships lets you gain SHIP experience and destroying fleets is how you gain FLEET experience. It's the only thing that explains the behavior of having fleets kill hundreds of ships without gaining any fleet experience points and have a fleet have one big battle against a lot of ships garner 10+ fleet experience points. It's not tied to killing X number of ships equals a fleet experience point, but whether I kill all the ships in a single fleet. I checked my current game and I have several fleets with only 21 or 22 fleet experience points (20 of which they got training)that have a large percentage of the fleet being legendary (many maxed at 50) indicating a lot of action, but most were, IIRC, against small stacks of ships and hence would not have been fleets. This feeling is further buttressed by the behavior of several recent battles where fleets have engaged enemy stacks of 250+ ships, win the battle without being able to kill all the ships and receive one or two fleet points and have a fleet re-engage the remaining enemy ships and gain 5 or 6 points having only killed 10-15 ships. The first fleet clearly was unable to destroy very many enemy fleets while killing a lot of ships and the second was able to destroy a lot of fleets while killing only a relative handful of ships. My fleets have been engaging a lot of 150-350+ sized ship stacks and the fleet experience points received has varied from 2 to as many as 16 which again makes it appear to be dependent of the fleet makeup the AI is using or has in the stack and not on how many ships are killed.

[Abdiel]

Regarding fleet experience, nothing will beat parking the fleet over a training facility for a year. It's unusual to have one fleet, even through the entire game, meet enough fleets to get up to 30% fleet experience. So maybe that needs to be changed in the future.

Ship experience is simple. +1% for each ship that ship gets the Last hit on. I've got no complaints against that one.

Abd.