!!!!

I'm on the verge of using my ass as a musical instrument, I'm so excited! Better be good! And show planets this time!

I want to see what we can break

i had a question about shipyards

how do shipyards work in regards to rush building?

in gc 2 an economy empire could rush build a ship on every planet (that had a star-port) every turn for as long as it had sufficient funds.

in 3 it looks like shipyards will be able to make multiple ships per turn as long as the production is there but what if my empire is focused on wealth?

do i define an amount of wealth to turn into production? can i blow my entire savings and buy an armada of ships in one turn? or will i just have to buck up and say these planets are production focused so i can get ships?

Starting in just a few!

Not sure where you want the feedback about the questions mentioned in the stream you I'll just put it here:

I don't think it's a very good idea to reveal all planets until it's really like in the last fifth of the game (mich like Civilizations Satellite). It would just take out too much of the exploration aspect of the game.

However I think revealing the stars could even be more expansive. From the stream it looks like all you can tell is that there is a star.
But what do you think about seeing the type of the star? And it would be even cooler to have planets around it depending on the type of the star.
For example: "Neutron star: Neutron stars are dead stars which were not massive enough to form a black hole when they died. The chance to find a habitable planet here is non-existant" Or "Blue Supergiant: Blue supergiants are very short-lived, very hot stars. Therefore it's very unlikely Terra-like Planets formed in it's orbit".

This would not just the game an element of "do I want to check out the white dwarf or rather the red giant which is farther away but it has a bigger chance to have habitable planets" but give also some astronomical stuff for players to geek out /learn about. Of course that would also mean you would need to drop your pink stars and you would need to do some research, but I think it would add a lot to the game.

Another thing which came to my mind in the stream: If you can see the ship building in the ship yard, you should be extra careful about multiplayer.

You don't want to force players to redesign all their ships to "hide" which ships they are building. It should either not display it at all - or also have additional ways to display it, so that the shape isn't the only source of information.

1.  I don't like that you're thinking about having a tech that shows you what class distant planets are.  I think you should have a tech that shows you where planets are.  Potentially even about what class planets are such as planet class up to 8 or potential 8-12.  Such as right now we as a planet can tell planets are around stars and estimate it may be earthlike ect.  But don't know for sure.

2.  Love that there are more tiles on the planet screen.

3.  Planetary Invasion should be age of war and should take a little bit to get to, this will keep from rushing a weaker empire right away,  Let space be explored and colonized prior to stealing colonies.

4.  In research are you able to click a couple techs ahead and have it auto research to that tech?

5.  Diplomacy should also be used for communication between players in multiplayer?  I hope they have better communication in multiplayer in Alpha-3 as the steam communication form sucks.

Anyone can invade any time but if too soon then the chance of success is small and as time and military knowlege goes up so does chance the invasion will work.

This is exactly what I was thinking, perfect explanation.  Gives a reason to explore

it makes sense that you can see all the stars right away, the ability to do that is very low tech, but seeing planets and type of planets, or type of stars, yes it makes sense to put that on the tech tree. So i vote for the stars on the big map right away, and a tech to see more details. As for the minimap, I would like to see the stars in the gray of what shows. Zoom, pan and all that, not really something I think adds much value in the minimap. These are my two cents. For what they are worth (literally $0.02 )

True, and I do agree with your realism points. But conflicts with realism here are minor at best; there are FAR less realistic entities in the game as is. Also (please correct me if I'm wrong here) I don't think the definition of a Planet Class has been specifically defined to gauge our realistic assumptions on. For instance I've always seen understanding the Planet Class as understanding the logistics capacity for the planet, as that is what it defines. I've always thought that as far as things like atmospheric composition, diversity of natural resources, etc. of a planet go, these have always been known. It's just knowing the logistical capacity for a planet, which would be based on having knowledge of all of those things plus more.

Options, options I agree with completely. However the optional feature should definitely be the "realistic" approach, simply because time and time again has shown that improving gameplay is always > realism when it comes to games.

Despite what I've said, I wouldn't mind the planet revealing technology in the game still. So long as it comes towards the middle/end-ish of the expansion period, thereby still providing the enhanced gameplay of exploring space first and for the majority of your civilizations exploration. Hell, you could even try to rush this technology so that you can enhance your exploration window of complete Planet Class certainty from something like 25% contribution to your total exploration to 40% (I can explain this last point further if it doesn't make sense, but basically enhance the window that you've had this technology helping you explore vs. having to explore by default).

In Gal-Civs so far Planet Class has only been about the number of useable Tiles [/hexes] available on any planet, plus in "twilight", other info on whether the world was habitable or which Terraforming Tech was needed to make it become habitable.

If GC3 takes Planet-attributes further, by having mineable ores/minerals/jewels or a valuable commodity on hexes not just Tile production bonuses, then all well and good, especially if this will give you some sort of bonus in the later game.  Maybe say, Cesium(?) for a speed boost from a more powerful fusion drive, or whatever elements can be useful in other ways also.  Or is this type of thing reserved for asteroids and/or dead planets ?

I missed the podcast and would like to catch-up with a text-based transcript.  People's enunciation on podcasts is dismal as you can generally tell by the attempt to decipher it that the voice recognition software struggles to make sense of the slurred sounds of "normal" speech and regional accents.

 Have just seen the podcast on utube and the last paragraph/sentence goes double, it was so boring.  I don't think I'm gonna like the finished game.

I don't disagree with having an updated version of resources in space and these being more prominent in game-play, perhaps what I was struggling to identify as an idea was making at least some planets be more valuable because of a Tile/Hex bonus, and now I think about it further, I think these planetary bonus resources should be something Tradeable if the Space-resources are going to enhance things like a speed boost from using them in a more powerful fusion/warp/hyperwarp drive as was stated in the podcast [Ilirium I believe was mentioned in this context, mined by a starbase next to a Dust-cloud containing the  glowing resource].

I agree with Siylenia's Reply#23 that the majority of resources should be fought over in Space, and if the planetary resource is tradeable then you just have to buy or sell it (depending on whether it's your planet and resource or not).