Tyrantissar Tyrantissar

GCIII New ship component

▼

GCIII New ship component

from GalCiv3 Forums

Information from IGN http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/stardocks-galactic-civilizations-3-revealed

"He compares the new customization system to LEGO, but the pieces you’re connecting have an effect that goes beyond the cosmetic effect." -IGN

If this is true, then we must start with ship component ideas on this forum, I been reading too many post that says do this better or do that better, we need more specific ideas that actually mean something other then saying something needs improvement.

 

EX. My first idea is that a hanger bay would be a new ship component that can contain 3 classes of fighters.

Laser fighters

Gun fighters

Missile fighters

each fighter has a strength of 1 depending on the class, and they work together as a team. So lets say the smallest hanger holds 5 fighters for example. The maximum potential of this hanger is about 5 damage depending of what fighters the player chooses.

ex. 5 laser fighters would yield lasers (duh), so that has 5 beam weapons strength

You even have the option of mixing it up a bit, for example

ex.2 2 mass driver fighters + 3 Missile fighters

The mass drivers would be effective against ships with no armor while the 3 missiles would pack a punch if the ship doesn't have missile defenses.

Over time the tech tree would unlock better hangers for bigger and bigger ships, and some super hangers for only the largest of ships.

One last feature of a fighter fleet is that if you have a fleet adjacent to a ship with a hanger bay, chances are that the fighters will help the adjacent fleet in battle. This may bring some interesting tactics to the table and ultimately is far superior then anybody who says "make _____ better"

Thank you for your time and consideration.

64,597 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

oops, wrong button, cant figure out how to delete it

Reply #27 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Oh, WOW. Is this discussion getting philosophical fast. I can remember lots of articles on the mechanisms of earth that minimize heat loss into space, so I suppose the idea that heat gets propagated into space has to be a given.

That said, I have seen a lot of scientific misinformation that so many of us have unknowingly learned get propagated, so I think we all have to be very careful about the credibility of the source of our knowledge.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #28 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

The only way for natural objects in space to dissipate heat and that is through radiation. IE an object that is being heated up will continue heating until it reaches the maximum amount of energy generated from receive radiation. The ISS doesn't become molten when it faces the sun but it does get hot enough to burn through a spacesuit. Likewise on the side facing away from the sun is far colder than freezing (-100C). For our limited industrial sector in space this can become problematic at these temperatures and variation are not typically found on Earth. However by the time we are traveling to other solar systems heat mitigation will be yesterdays problem.

By simply running a standard radiator system from the sun (hot) side to the space (cold0 side with a liquid that is doped with a mixture to prevent boiling off and freezing solid.

The above example is incredibly simplified and likely not something that would be employed in the future but it is something that works, is simple, and very easy to repair in space.

In space you literally have the exact conditions that a peltier device thrives in, one side incredibly hot and one side incredibly cold. Why wouldn't we use a liquid to absorb the thermal radiation from one side and transport that to the side in which it can most effectively be radiated away?

Reply #29 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 27

Oh, WOW. Is this discussion getting philosophical fast. I can remember lots of articles on the mechanisms of earth that minimize heat loss into space, so I suppose the idea that heat gets propagated into space has to be a given.

That said, I have seen a lot of scientific misinformation that so many of us have unknowingly learned get propagated, so I think we all have to be very careful about the credibility of the source of our knowledge.
End of Lucky's quote

 

 

***********************************************

How did this post get in this thread? I had intended it to be elsewhere. This is very strange.

Sorry.

*********************************************

 

Reply #30 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting jrdufour, reply 6

I think the biggest issue in gal civ 2 in regards to fighters, was that you could build you own 'fighters' by using the smallest parts, but there was no point. The combat simulation didn't take ship maneuverability into account. So, a massive battle cruiser with a giant cannon, could blow away a bazillion fighters, despite the fact that in reality, the fighters would move so fast that a large ship would have difficulty hitting them with a gun the size of an asteroid. 

This is basically the equivalent of the death star, being able to destroy an x-wing with it's planet cannon. In reality, the larger the gun, the less accurate it is (usually).... galciv 2 never looked at that. Although sins of a solar empire rebellion does somewhat. Hopefully this will be fixed in 3.
End of jrdufour's quote

 

 

The issue is that combat just wasn't that sophisticated. We had a few ship sizes, with the larger ships offering marginally more capability, but at the same time, we had deviation from that formula.

 

1. No larger weapons sizes

2. Direction of weapons did not count (nor turrets that would rotate like in other games), nor were there collision models

3. Moving targets that could sometimes miss not counted

 

 

All of the suggestions made require that combat be made better - something like in SOTS or Sins