Feeling pretty ripped off right now tbh. I paid a lot of money for this broken game. Gave it a thumbs up, too. Of course, that review can be changed... 

Also, if the devs answer is just "hey, we fixed the problem in our new expansion, pay $49.99 for it and you'll see". That's not good enough. I need to see the game I paid 80 bucks for fixed before I'm spending any more money. GC2 was a fantastic game, which is why I had a lot of trust in this developer. That trust isn't endless, though. 

I am not usually one to make complaints, but I do want to chime in on the AI not building farms.  This is the biggest disappointment I have found yet.  I'm very patient with all changes to the game, and don't mind relearning mechanics, but the farm/city thing is just annoying.  For the first time since I got the game (not a founder but got it upon release) I actually do not wish to start a new game.

I think you misunderstand me. My proposal includes that the player is able to contact any bazaar on the map, not just his or her own one. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Just a small request: is it possible to indicate which buildings cannot be removed before you choose to build it? It seems to bite me on most of best worlds over a long game and I would be happy to sacrifice near-term benefits for long-term ones if I had a clear idea of tile upgrades could not be reversed.

Another suggestion: in my current 2.6 game I again must confess that it's only viable to build the biggest ships all the time. The reason for that is (for me at least) mainly that I can put more engines on big ships and make them so the fastest available. If I would choose to put some smaller ships in the same fleet as big ships that would mean to slow the fleet down considerably what isn't what I want.

So to solve the problem that smaller hulls become meaningless as the game progresses it would be a good idea to turn the balance of ship speed and ship size around by making engines have more mass on bigger ships than on smaller ones. That can be done by changing the numbers in ShipComponentDefs.xml. There every engine has an entry like that:

      <SpecialValue>
        <Special>HullMassScaleMod</Special>
        <ValueParam>8</ValueParam>
        <ValueParam>0.2</ValueParam>
      </SpecialValue>

That means the engine mass is calculated as something like 8 + 0.2 * <base hull size> (base hull size meaning that hull capacity enhancing techs are not taken into account). So to achieve what I want the values must be changed to something like 0 / 0.4. That would mean for a tiny hull the example engine would have a mass of 0+ 0.4 * 25 = 10 and for a large hull a mass of 0 + 0.4 * 120 = 48.

But we see in that example that the numbers are not ideal. The engine would take up 40% of the space of a tiny hull which still doesn't leave much room for anything else, while on the large hull you would still be able to put more than one engine with hull capacity enhancing techs.

So if we could change the formula to have a negative fixed value that would help a lot to be able to put more engines on a small ship that on a large: make the numbers like -5 / 0.3, then the engine on the tiny hull would have a mass of -5 + 0.3 * 25 = 2.5 and on the large hull -5 + 0.3 * 120 = 31. So you see that the negative fixed value has a much greater impact on smaller hulls, making it possible to have faster small than large ships.

I don't know whether that could achieved by a simple xml change (so that we can at least mod the game in this way) or whether a code change would be necessary to allow negative numbers in above <SpecialValue> entry.

Hi Brad, I played probably 500 hrs Galactic Civ II and now have over 300 hours in Galactic Civ III.  I also play endless space and Stellaris.  Thus I think I have a pretty credible about of hours to comment on GC3.

I like what you have done with Crusade although I am not particularly fond of how you priced and marketed the game.  Gouging your loyal customers isn't a great idea IMO.

Back to GC3.  It is clear that you recognized what I disliked about the game, it was tedious, it was about the colony spam and it was about starbase spam.  I'll give you props for understanding why the game wasn't particularly fun.  Now there is better strategy over the first 50-100 turns. So, well done.  I am somewhat of a vet on changing the game files (starting in GC2) so some of my issues with your balance choices don't really mean much to me.  I'll tell you what I personally do - just as a FYI.

1) I figure out planet density of the "universe" by trying to fix the average habitable planet number to 15 for the player and AI.  I find it tedious to have more than this number prior to the fighting.

2) I like concentrations of planets and better planets.  Thus I pump up the #'s for yellow and purple stars, I make the size of the "nice" non-precursor planets like bountiful, etc.much larger (only in the 20-26 range).  And I do the same for precursor planets.  In addition, I changed the global raw production of the precursor planets from 1 to 2.  When you adjusted the population/raw production to 1/1 you should have adjusted the precursor planets so make them more special.

3) I think you should pump up the colony capital tile from +1 to +2 adjacency and add in population and morale.  Now I just look where it is at to see if it screws up my nice block of tiles.

4) I think you should make one more research speed choice, I use very slow and it is not slow enough.

5) And, the big one - if #4 is not possible is to allow multiple research per turn (if you have enough points).  I understand the ship restrictions, but I disagree with the research.

Anyway, the game is much better than it was.  I gave it a decent grade at 2.0 and a better review currently.  If I didn't have the ability to dive into the game files to create a nicer universe I wouldn't play the game.  So, it works for me - but if you want feedback, it is that bad reviews likely come from people that don't know how to adjust things to their liking.  Oh, and the only "nexus mod" I use is the one that adds missions to get more resources - without that one things would get frustrating.  Obviously it would be nice to have a more expansive mod section on Steam that address gameplay rather than just maps and ships - but I suspect that is a financial decision.

People really need to get over this concept of DLCs / expensions being "gouged".

If you want people to do work, you have to pay them.  It's as simple as that.

GalCiv II came out in 2006 and was $39.99.

GalCiv II Dark Avatar in 2007 and was $29.99.

GalCiv II Twilight of the Arnor in 2008 and was $29.99.

And if/when we make a GalCiv IV, there will be expansion packs and DLC for that.  Why? Because if people want more stuff, they have to pay for it because we're not your slaves.

I can't help but wonder if some of the people in this thread had ever had a job.

Quoting lyssailcor,

reply 264

I would happily pay for more DLCs and expansions if there would be new ones which contribute to a richer gameplay. Unfortunately the recent mech part DLC doesn't fall into that category so I can't give you my money for that to further develop GCIII

But there are so many ideas on that forum that it would be enough stuff for 10 more gameplay DLCs or so. On the other hand I cannot predict how many players would buy something like a ground invasion DLC (just an example to name one) so I cannot say whether that would give you enough money to fund some further months of maintenance or not ...

Perhaps use Kickstarter or another platform like that to judge the interest of the player base for certain DLC or expansion themes?

Unfortunately, we are moving away from the DLC model because it has a negative stigma.  Thus, artists and other non-engineering positions get laid off between major expansions instead.  The market has spoken.

The next expansion will be next year which will focus on politics and empire building.

Back in my day it cost $100 for a SNES game, and today people are acting like $60 is a hate crime.

I'm quite sick of the attitude of: Business wants money for product or service = Scandal!

Yes totally agree! I brought all dlc and will buy all of them. So please give us more stuff! 

Oh yes I can't understand the people which make the question to buy a extension for 3 or 5 or 10 dollar to a problem like they want to buy a car! Stupid!

A couple of years ago all the people paid 70 dollar for a Nintendo or PlayStation game without any chance of patches, extensions or something like that. Those games often had a play time of about 10 to 20 hours... 

So a game like GalCiv with all dlc is really really cheap also for people without a job in America, Asien or Europe I think! 

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="263" id="3694507"]
People really need to get over this concept of DLCs / expensions being "gouged".

If you want people to do work, you have to pay them.  It's as simple as that.

GalCiv II came out in 2006 and was $39.99.

GalCiv II Dark Avatar in 2007 and was $29.99.

GalCiv II Twilight of the Arnor in 2008 and was $29.99.

And if/when we make a GalCiv IV, there will be expansion packs and DLC for that.  Why? Because if people want more stuff, they have to pay for it because we're not your slaves.

I can't help but wonder if some of the people in this thread had ever had a job.
------------------

For me, and this is for Brad in particular, I have been a good supporter of your games.  I have GC2 & GC3, Fallen Enchantress, Ashes of the Singularity.  My issues with your pricing is not about the DLC model, because I appreciate improvements to good games.  Galactic Civilizations 3 I only bought because I enjoyed GC2 which I played for probably 500 hours.  My issues with pricing is not about GC3's DLC's, it was about the sub-par state GC3  was in at release.  And when you finally make the game playable, Crusade DLC, you didn't discount it for those of us who had purchased the base game and all DLC's for a long period.  When you finally had a sale, you did not discount Crusade, you discounted the base game and all DLC's at the price of Crusade to new customers.  That is gouging your loyal customers. 

The base game, I completely understand discounting heavily to get new customers after a few years, but for those of us who bought the base game at full price and a couple of DLC's - to hold tight on the Crusade pricing was inexcusable (for your loyal customers).  Perhaps you disagree.  Eventually you did offer the full package discounted based on what you had bought previously - but it was done far too late.  It is only because of my positive experience with GC2 that I put up with it.  Take this as you will.

Sorry, Purdypog, we disagree entirely.  You seem to think that SD owes you something because you bought some of their games.

No, they don't.  You already got what you paid for.

Say, wasn't there a Parable about the workers coming late to the vineyard getting paid the same amount as the all-day workers?  You should read it sometime.

I've said this before, but I think it needs saying again: I paid $100USD or thereabouts to become one of the Founders - the idea of the "pay once, have an impact on the way the game is made and get all the DLC and Expansions" had me sold.

I never for one second thought my purchase was bigger than 0.0001% of the money Stardock have allocated to GalCiv 3. Heck, you can maybe add an extra zero after the decimal point, who knows?

GalCiv3 is not and will never be the kind of game I'd have designed. Founders will remember how early the Ship Designer came out - 0.3 was the Beta Number IIRC. Well, if it was up to me, espionage, diplomacy, politics and Citizens would have been the focus from Day 1 and you'd have to wait until the next expansion before you could design your fancy-schmancy ships. I suspect, however, that had I been Head Boss For Galactic Civilizations 3 I'd have been called into my boss's office pretty early on and advised to seek alternative employment because not enough folks had bought my game.

I'm cool with that - frogboy's mentioned 90%+ of players play the game at Easy level so he doesn't want to piss them off and fair enough. Those 90%+ probably prefer ship designing with the fancy parts and so on to spending turns and turns creating a war between Race A and Race B that you caused but they don't know that and even if they found out, Race D will smote them if they come anywhere near you... I live in hope that the next expansion really makes ideology more important than the "Get Pragmatic 1 for the 3 Constructors then jump down to Malevolent 1 for the Cruiser then up to Benevolent 1...etc" free-for-all that it offers at present but, hey, if it doesn't, it doesn't. I trust frogboy when he says "Ugh. I'm dying to tell you about what's coming in the next expansion pack! Some of you guys are going to loovvvve it I think." and I hope - not expect - that I'm one of those guys...

Stardock deserve serious respect because of the number of patches/DLCs/work they've put into the game. You could say "but they fixed something that shouldn't have been there to start with" and, okay, that's a fair point in some cases. But when you add in that some of those things - if not most - that Stardock have nerfed/improved/removed are extremely subjective, Stardock have done a hell of a lot of work.

I am dissapointed that Steam Reviews seem to have the power that frogboy says they have - it's going to get to the point where every developer have to impress one set of gamers which is a crap situation to be in. But if that's the way the gaming world is going, Stardock would be negligent to ignore that sad reality and point to reviews on Metacritic etc if it can be proven that those don't influence their income/support levels in the way that reviews on Steam can.