Alstein

As for events, I don't think having some EU2/EU3-styled events which trigger based on internal choices would be a bad thing. These things have been put in 4X games before, Civ 4 in particular had a pretty good system for them, and FFH used them well. You have someone really familiar with this on your team. ^_^ I wouldn't want SK-style events for the reasons mentioned but random minor political events aren't a bad thing. In terms of the ec

I agree that due to how Steam does things, the founder's programs don't make sense to have via not-Steam. One possible idea for you 1) Make Founder's editions something you buy on Stardock in addition to the base game. All add-on content will be free (90% coupons for the expansions so they can leave reviews), but you purchase the game separately. Allow folks to buy it on platform of choice if possible. This way their reviews count, at least for

My opinions on the journal: 1) Folks don't understand what type 0/1/2/3/4 bugs are. That needs to be explained. 2) The "mixed" steam score is really close to mostly positive. The English language reviews are mostly positive- it's the foreign language reviews that are making it mixed (and only by 1 or 2). You probably could game the system and get it to mostly positive just by spending $100. You also are seriously hurt by

Because some folks will overreact to it not being polished enough. Prob less of a concern with founders, but you never know these days- customers think they're always right even when they're not.

If anyone did get in, see if you can generate a link yourself.

link doesn't work. Alstein #8461

https://www.starcontrol.com/starcontrolorigins#preorder

It was a make-up for those folks who bought Servo from Stardock (only from Stardock) because that game got scrapped.

The level of stuff provided from Founder's program and the level of improvement shown with GalCiv3 and Elemental - it's why I upgraded my free Star Control from Servo to Founder's. Even if a game doesn't turn out well at launch, Stardock has shown that they will make it right and good in the end. Over the years they've earned my trust- and it's rare for me to give that trust with my money. Hopefully I can start looking a

I like this, but what needs to be added is this: Allow folks to select/de-select what races can appear at random from the races they have. Even allow the standard races to be de-selected.

It worked- I'm just an idiot and read the game wrong since I haven't played in a few months. Sorry!

Resolved.

I'd

I've said this for years, and Brad has probably heard this for years ^_^- I complain more about games I really like than games I don't. The difference between say, a 10/10 game and a 9/10 game is more significant than the difference between 9/10 and 8/10, and down the line. If a 6/10 improves to a 7/10, that doesn't really impact me that much in a world where 8/10 is pretty easy to find regularly. If I truly do not like a game at all, and think

I've been complaining about things, and well, given what I saw somewhere else about Brad's original idea for GalCiv3, I think I can suggest an idea finally. I'm saying 2nd XP because the 1st is in development, and resources are limited. Idea for this comes a bit from Endless Legend You would have five pops. Every time you gain 1 pop point (1 billion people in current parlance, you would place them in one of five population group

This (above post) is a big problem right now- it feels like Stardock is trying to have it both ways, on something where you have to make a hard decision either way. The current implementation is actually worse than what it was before 1.4, as there are now extra steps to cheese the game.

how would I go about removing the Bureau of Labor from the game entirely, and changing Coercive to something else (I'm thinking a diplomacy bonus of some sort)

I don't like the wheel- it forces unfun micromanagement. Rest of the changes are positive, but that's a huge negative for me. After playing a bit more 1.5, the positives are there as well. Enough that it tempts me to get into modding. I suspect if you reverted things, you'd find folks saying the same thing- that a lack of wheel would make them stop playing. So I understand you can't win either wa

Disappointed, perhaps even angry at the update reverting 1.4 and actually making things worse. Major step backwards.

I would love to see SK features in a game with the replayability of a traditional 4X.

GalCiv3 needs to decide one way or the other on this- it seems no one is happy with what the current change. I think a slim majority want the wheel out entirely, but I'm biased. My argument for taking it out is the AI work involved, and those AI man-hours could be spent improving the other facets of the game which are more fun. Does anyone find the wheel one of the most fun things about GalCiv3? It really se

I have to agree, I want the wheel gone forever, and this feels like a step back. I'd even take the large empire penalty if it meant no bureau of labor and Krynn trait being changed back to where it was. I won't say "this patch looks terrible", but the game moved in the steps I wanted with 1.4, and now it's moving back away from it, so for me this is terrible, and much like the above poster, I've been borderline on this game for a while- I don&#39

My big request: get rid of the global spending wheel. I think it hurts more than helps. I've had a hard time getting into GalCiv3 so far, though much of this is due to Sorcerer King.

I really would like the AI make "reads" on what the player will do based on what happened in previous games- sometimes (not every time- because that would also be predictable) I think that would help with AI predictability problems, which exist even in the best game AI right now. Personally, I'd like to see you go farther and get rid of empire-wide spending wheels, make it more like the Elemental games, but I expect that's a very minority

From what I remember (I haven't played in a week) - it was everything.