Mystikmind

[quote who="Go4Celerity" reply="7" id="3620081"] I no longer find Gal Civ III fun. So I don't play. I do come to the forums to gripe and offer suggestions and reinvest in my hope that it will someday, again, be fun. [/quote] I am still hopeful it is just a matter of getting the right map...... You know, i had exactly the same problem in Galciv2 - that is, getting that balance where the AI is not too strong at the beginning, but also is able to

Usually i start a new game from the main menu? I usually start a series of new games until i find a map with a layout that seems more interesting to try. I usually save every game start that initially seems interesting.... so i have a pretty good record of exactly how consistently this game has been stiffing me on planets. I would say the ratio of game starts with few planets is about 5 to 1 So sometimes i do get good maps.... i got a good one last week, and played it

Thanks, i might have to mod it. I tried another game since making this post. This time i tried reducing the number of stars and planets but keeping habitable planets on abundant. What was in range in my starting cluster was 15 star systems. there was a total of 17 planets not including Sol. 14 of those 17 planets were dead,,, again leaving me with just 3 planets in my starting star cluster. &nb

Damn, sometimes this game can be stingy on the planets or what? I have the settings gigantic map, abundant habitable planets, common stars - tight clusters. I start the game, start exploring, one after another star system is dead. Here is the official count (not including Sol) of the first 18 planets discovered, only 3 are not dead! (that's about 10 star systems) So that's pretty much all i get for my cluster of stars,,, 3 planets. so obviously i

[quote quoting="post"] Why such a harsh treatment over couple hundred credits when USA govt is trillions into debt. I wasn't even losing credits and have a positive inflow! I'm slightly upset. [/quote] Because its a futuristic game, so therefore inflation means the financial figures in the game are much larger than in reality.... errr, um Because banks and other financial institutions have no chance of controlling world governments and how much

Update: Well this game that i have been playing, it was coming together quite well...... i had a massive hold back in the early stages because my survey ships cleverly avoided anomalies like the plague, it was quite amazing,,, so i thought the AI will have a good head start now so i will have a fun battle later on. I had the Drengin on one higher difficulty level than the rest, and they were miles away so i thought they will be nice and strong when we finally meet.... bu

[quote who="Go4Celerity" reply="1" id="3619451"] Yes... filling a planet is more efficient than upgrading existing structures. No... output per maintenance is not the best gauge of efficiency. Bcs are easy to find, output per tile is more important as space is far more limited than money. If you need to save bcs watch your ship components, such as 3rd or higher tier life support modules, as you can loose a lot of economic efficiency quickly there. Also..

Today i just noticed that the first level science building is more efficient in terms of science output per maintenance cost than the second level ones? Anyway, if my logic is correct, on a science world, this means i am better off filling up all the tiles available for science with first level science buildings before bothering to start upgrading them? I never noticed this before because it is completely counter intuitive.... now it makes me wonder is there much more of this

[quote who="eviator" reply="40" id="3609248"] Quoting Mystikmind, reply 39 So really it is not about it being a bad game, it is about 'time'? Time which can be very difficult to get much of it for a whole bunch of people, so time is a precious thing to waste fiddling about with unnecessary ineffici

Are we talking about ship designs created before or after the save point? I have occasionally found myself puzzled where a ship design went from time to time? I wondered if there was a technical reason why i cannot build it, it should still be visible but greyed out? but it was totally gone? I never really gave it much thought beyond that? I suppose i am not really one to be too bothered with having the most up to date designs, so long as

[quote who="eviator" reply="36" id="3609155"] Quoting naselus, reply 34 Or me, apparently. I love how eviator can make a post saying the UI is crap, SD are ignoring problems so they can milk more money from DLC, and that he's sick of this and will walk if it's not sorted out PDQ, and Frogboy 'loves' th

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="4" id="3609130"] The techs required for star base range extension are Support Field Mastery +2, and Exploration Extension +4 they are both in the life support tree They both have a tool tip that reveals the improvement. They are well hidden and I had a devil of a time finding them when I first started playing the game [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Thanks for that! I had a ton of resources sitting u

Update; Somehow i now have the tech i was looking for. I do not know how i came to posses it? Based on earlier advice here i researched things in the support line, but i definitely did not see any mention toward extending starbase range written anywhare?

The planets i have taken in my game so far are honestly not that bad,,, and they were minor race worlds which have allot of competing objectives to try and fit in one planet! Most of the adjusting i had to do was to move the planet toward specialization.

a small thing can kill a game dead, but nothing like that in Galciv3, overall i love the game. An example of a small thing that killed a game dead for me.... civ5, the two unit tile limit, ok, that completely destroyed the game for me, played it once, that was that. Doesn't matter how much hard work went into the rest of the game if one small thing can ruin it. And the funny thing is, it is not even a mistake or a shortcoming, most people like the idea! <

Thanks, i have looked there many times but not seen it. I think it must not be properly identified/explained so that a new player ccould find it?

Hi, yea, um, I'm looking for that tech which extends starbase range? My game is like half over already and still no sign of it in the tech tree anywhere?

[quote who="erischild" reply="12" id="3608668"] I am not sure why people want to cite hardware issues. That seems odd.[/quote] The reason comes from Galciv2 actually, because there was a big issue that the AI will perform much better with more powerful computers. They even developed some special option if you want to allow the AI to use something i forget to use left over computer power in some way.

The AI uses my designs? I thought i saw that happening! lol The answer is that i usually do not bother upgrading except the ship which i am currently building, and there is usually only one type of powerful ship i build - which is a high defensive escort. I then fill the logistics with rubbish ships i traded from minor races. If and when i have to take a fleet into battle, and it looks difficult,,, only then i will update ... and the only importan

Yea i noticed the problem with setting the exit point from a planet. I guess they wanted to stop the cheese in Galciv2 of being able to 'boost' your moves with a planet? But in my opinion it was never cheese because in reality the gravity of a planet can be used for the 'slingshot' effect.

[quote who="naselus" reply="7" id="3608319"] Yes. Lots of other games have also implemented first-person combat. Does that mean the only valid question regarding whether it should be in GC3 is 'is it worth the investment of implementation'? Likewise, I hear that the FIFA series has managed to introduce a fairly impressive simulation of football into their games. Why is this absent from GC3? Or is this line of argument critically flawed?[/quote] I don't know what your

[quote who="MastahJ" reply="11" id="3608588"] I suppose it comes down, to what we expect of a game. I simply expect a nice sci-fi civ builder in space. It doesn't have to be a movie or some kind of VI.... If i wanted this to be more then a game, or a game of something else, i too, probably would think its horrible. However, i do not. As far as, Gal Civ III being a good 4x strategy game, im fairly satisfied. [/quote] I have been playing this game since galc

Same as what they did with Elemental, no other franchise seems to play 'whack a mole' quite to the same extent as Stardock. What do i mean by 'whack a mole'? Ok you have a game, it has various good points and various bad points, but collectively they are all 'moles' sticking up out of the ground. Stardock seems unable to comprehend very well which are the good moles and which are the bad moles, so they wack away at them wit

There is a notifications tab? lol Allot of the issues are easy to overlook, however i did notice how much culture flipping is a one way street in favor of the AI.... even though i try to understand what they are trying to do,,, it is too much of an 'in your face' insult to your intelligence.

[quote who="eviator" reply="2" id="3608453"] For wealth/research, I've been going with a 3-2-1 strategy: 3 research wealth, 2 farms, 1 factory (to assist building time). Maintain that ratio. There are too many factors to say whether this is optimal, but in my empirical tests it worked out near the top in terms of output/time. [/quote] Being an old g2 player, i am very used to building only markets, because its a financial black hole that