A few questions from a newb... » Forum Post by gmulhern

Can Trade Goods be repealed? If I offer Xinathium Hull Plating to someone but later want to revoke the bonus it gives them, can I? If I am, in fact, trading "goods" and not the technology itself, I should be able to stop sending those goods at any time I please. Will Trade Embargo do this?

You are trading the tech, and as such it cannot be taken back.

Why do planetary improvements of the same kind (e.g. Market Center -> Adv. Market Center) label the button "Build" but from one kind to another (e.g. Market Center -> Factory) label the button "Upgrade"? This seems backwards.

Because they didn't change it until the expansions.

Why can't I launch a troop transport with 0 troops? Let's say I have a planet with a lot of manufacturing capacity so I choose to build the transport on that planet but I want to load troops from another planet. Putting 1 doesn't really hurt, only reducing the local population by 1000, but I *should* be able to launch it empty.

He's the pilot.

It should be possible to move (by "move" I mean decommission and then build on another planet) the four "capital" Super Projects. Any good reason why not?

Because someone would abuse it and they didn't write it that way. It adds depth and requires you to plan things accordingly. This is a strategic game afterall.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Can Trade Goods be repealed? If I offer Xinathium Hull Plating to someone but later want to revoke the bonus it gives them, can I? If I am, in fact, trading "goods" and not the technology itself, I should be able to stop sending those goods at any time I please. Will Trade Embargo do this?

This is rightfully irrevocable. They would back engineer the product. Your only alternative is war

Why do planetary improvements of the same kind (e.g. Market Center -> Adv. Market Center) label the button "Build" but from one kind to another (e.g. Market Center -> Factory) label the button "Upgrade"? This seems backwards.

As prev stated this has been fixed.

The other 2 are arguable but are the way they are for arguable reasons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the answer "He's the pilot". That's a perfect answer

Successfully updated karma reason!

He's the pilot.

Although a good answer, it actually means one million soldiers and not just one.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Then it would be the skeleton crew required to pilot the ship ))

Successfully updated karma reason!

Then it would be the skeleton crew required to pilot the ship ))

Agreed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are trading the tech, and as such it cannot be taken back.

I kinda expected that to be the answer. Thank you.

Because they didn't change it until the expansions.

Ahh, okay.

He's the pilot.

Creative but not exactly useful. There are 1 million of them? Actually I found it is possible to have a troop transport with 0 troops but it somewhat defeats my purpose of doing so... you can upgrade a ship to a transport while out-of-orbit. The question was primarily academic anyway given the small numbers involved.

Because someone would abuse it and they didn't write it that way. It adds depth and requires you to plan things accordingly. This is a strategic game afterall.

That's a reason but not a good one. It would be hard to abuse if it were strictly imposed that you couldn't build a new one until the first was fully decommissioned. And as it is, you could have more than one now anyway (am I right?) by capturing the planet of another race that had already built a capital. "This is a strategic game afterall" is hardly compelling.

#1 "You may only have one ship at a time!"
#2 "Why?"
#1 "This is a strategic game afterall, plan accordingly!"

Thank you for your first two answers.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ok, ok. A realistic reason for you.

An economic capitol is not just a building, but a massive collection of businesses that work out of a bunch of buildings that you set up and offered to these corporations to bring in major tax dollars. While as supreme ruler of the galaxy you could order them all to move, it would be an extremely expensive process and certainly not very popular. You must also consider the billions of workers that would have to loose their jobs or move to another overclouded planet.

Thus, you can't move a capitol (other than the palace, since thats you) due to the deep entrenchment of the whole thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

...Or because they don't want you to be able to decommission a capital on a planet that your enemy is about to invade and conquer just so you can rebuild it on another planet. They would rather you defend it

...Or move your political capital around for the morale bonus until you have time to build proper happiness structures.

...Or move the political capital around to make it easier to flip planets due to the influence boost (although I like that exploit)

Are those better reasons?

Successfully updated karma reason!

...Or because they don't want you to be able to decommission a capital on a planet that your enemy is about to invade and conquer just so you can rebuild it on another planet. They would rather you defend it...

I thought about that but concluded (incorrectly) that since invasions are over in one turn you wouldn't have time anyway. I failed to consider that you would see them coming and have time. I definitely see that logic behind that. Now, if you lose a capital to a planet takeover you cannot build one again? You technically don't have it anymore.

Or move your political capital around for the morale bonus until you have time to build proper happiness structures....Or move the political capital around to make it easier to flip planets due to the influence boost (although I like that exploit)Are those better reasons?

Thank you! See these are things I did not know about. Having never built a political capital I didn't know what it was capable of. I've only built manufacturing and technical capitals. These capitals wouldn't benefit much from being moved, except to a better class planet (more room for improvements) but not something you would constantly be moving around. Moving the political capital does seem exploitable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Now, if you lose a capital to a planet takeover you cannot build one again? You technically don't have it anymore.

I don't know the technical details as to how, exactly, but this is how I would have set it up (and it seems to hold true, as far as I can tell):

1. Game checks if you possess x structure (true of most if not all 1 per civ structures - capitals, resort, spin control, hyperion shrinker, etc). If yes, structure cannot be built. Meaning if you take someone's econ capital before you build your own, you're screwed. AFAIK this is true even if you lose the building before trying to build yours.

2. If #1 comes up no, you can build. Somewhere in the coding a value gets changed from false to true, and you can't build another one that game. I'm assuming this is the same thing that happens in #1, possibly even the same line of code. Like I said, I can't give the technical bits. On a good day, I can program a VCR

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wouldn't mind being able to tear it down at some super high cost, only to build it again elsewhere. It should take a while too.

So tear it down for 10,000 billion over 10-20 weeks (obviously with upgraded factories) and then build it elsewhere (perhaps take more time or cost something each consecutive time?).

That would allow us to move them, but we'd have to really want to.

Now, if you lose a capital to a planet takeover you cannot build one again? You technically don't have it anymore.

If you loose a capitol and build another, then loose that planet and build another...

Or worse yet, the AI does. That would be a serious exploit or problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!