[quote who="jrdufour" reply="3" id="3411132"]Makes sense that Terror stars won't be in the campaign, as it's restricted by the storyline[/quote] Please note that Frogboy said "at the start of the campaign."
I guess I wasn't very clear. Yes, there are a lot of settings that are saved in .ini files, which is really intended generically for options that might persist from game to game and wouldn't change once a game was started (such as galaxy size). The views or settings I am talking about are those generally manipulated during a game and would be saved with a game in the same file the saved game was put into.
I often wish to see a list of the rally points I have created, but was always selecting a ship or starbase and telling it I wanted it to give me a list of rally points I could send it to. I would rather have the list accessible similar to how accessible planet lists and ship lists are so I can see the RP names I have already used when creating a new one. Did GC2 have this? I would like GC3 to do this.
One of the things I found lacking in GC2 was that any time you reloaded/restarted a game you had to re-establish so many settings, such as: The zoom depth and view angle of your galaxy The selection of which "Civilization Manager" you were viewing (F6) and which list item you had your colonies sorted on (i.e., colony name, planet quality, population, et al.). Minimap zoom factor I think the number of environmental variables saved should be increa
[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="28" id="3411071"] Being able to filter the list of colonies instead of just sorting it would be really helpful. Maybe I want to see just colonies that are specialised in research, or the ones which haven't been specialised yet, or the ones which are in danger of flipping to another civ.[/quote] I remember the planet list having a lot of sorting options, but not any filtering options. So how would planets be assigned specializations? Would
This sounds a lot like the declaration "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". The idea that a coalition is dissolved once the agreed upon objective is reached is appealing. Alliances tend to be between generally like minded entities, Coalitions tend to be between entities desperately looking for a means of survival against potential annihilation. I have had a difficulty with strategy games that has been very difficult to find a solution to, and this idea may be it. The problem is that
[quote]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.[/quote] I think that saying " > needs improvement" should be OK. Stating that something "feels like it is lacking somehow but I can't define what it is" can be a wonderful springboard for discussio
[quote who="wuphonsreach" reply="14" id="3410911"]- Starbase tech didn't keep up with ship advances. A starbase (in my mind) should be competitive with even the largest ship hulls if you invest the constructors into upgrading it. In my mind, a military starbase should be able to fend off multiple of the largest ships.[/quote] Why do you say that? GC2's Starbase hulls were much bigger than the largest possible ship hull to begin with. And I have had starbases fend off multiple
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="48" id="3410985"] GC2 did that, as long as the tech was in the same chain. If you overkilled Laser II, the excess would go into Laser III, then Laser IV, etc. The only time it would matter is when researching a terminal tech in a chain. That's not to say it wouldn't be nice to be able to redirect the remainder to something else if I wanted to end at Laser II for some reason.[/quote] And if you generated enoug
[quote who="Tridus" reply="11" id="3410864"]If you're limited to DX 10 because you're on Vista, than you're stuck. The game doesn't support Vista.[/quote] I had Vista and it had DX11.
The only thing about starbases I didn't like in GC2 was how expensive they suddenly became in GC2. When people kept asking for them during the GC1 test cycle, I didn't want them at all. Now I think they became a great well done feature.
[quote who="amrbean" reply="4" id="3405329"] Founder's Elite here. I can't believe I spent that much on a single game at one time. Totally worth it though.[/quote] You didn't. You also bought several follow-on upgrades that will cost others to buy.
[quote who="Weidbrewer" reply="7" id="3405454"]Well, yeah, that's what it says now. You've obviously never worked in software development and had to present a pre-alpha feature list. [/quote] I have, but the feature list was required long before coding could begin. We had many stages in our development cycle, and Requirements was first, followed by Design, then Code, then several levels of Test, Integration, System Test, Final Production, another Test, then delivery.
They said they will only support Windows 7 and 8. As to DirectX9, did Win7 even ship with DirectX9. If not, to support DirectX9, GC3 would have to include it in their packaging.
Planetary governors? GC1 had four of them and you could assign a planet to use any one of the four, or none at all. With the planetary maps of GC2, planetary governors becomes much more problematical. The assignment of buildings to tiles that had the matching bonuses is very important, and is a reason I was fearful of using them. I should have tried it to see if they would work well. I just took a cursory look at what GC2 has, and it looks like you can create an infinite number of planetary g
[quote who="erischild" reply="8" id="3410734"] I don't have a floppy drive on my PC and haven't had for years. Am I going to have to upgrade my system to use this feature? [/quote] If that is what is being asked for, I have great faith that the SD people would reject the idea without comment instantly. But if some of the sound tracks they create were made using (or simulating) the step drive of many floppy drives, that would be fantastic. And
[quote who="you28" reply="268" id="3410706"] Have they said when they are giong to say what they are going to do ?[/quote] If past test cycles are any indication, each build (there were many builds in both the Alpha and Beta test cycles) will contain what was added in that build, which was an implicit statement of where they wanted us to concentrate our efforts.
[quote who="Zydor" reply="4" id="3410688"] If they turn it into a Tactical War, that's cool, its their game - it just will not be for me.[/quote] Zydor, I don't think you need worry about it. Brad has stated many times over the last two decades that GC will always be, first and foremost, a strategy game, not a tactical one, and that is what has attracted so many of us to GC. I have not yet seen anyone asking that GC become strictly a tactical game. If anyone did, the entire GC
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="1" id="3410580"] I've never heard of this r u trying to suggest an idea for Galactic civilization 3[/quote] Yes. I failed to clarify that. Thanks.
I just got copies of the GC1 and GC2 Ultimate editions. I had no idea the tech tree had grown so large. I now see a need for a search ability for finding a tech by name. If I want to find the path to a tech, I would like to ask the tech tree to show me where in the tree the tech is.
It may also be that Tyrantissar is talking from experience from a particular level of GC2. I had noticed that the re spawning of anomalies quit on at least one particular upgrade.
Androshalforc, I think you just made my point for me, although it may not be readily apparent. The specific example you give is a good one for showing some divergence in tech trees, but it doesn't get past the point that researching how gravity works is a universal problem. The method of getting to the point of being able to use the knowledge may vary, but the uses that can be made of the basic discovery is limited by the rules of physics imposed by the universe itself.
[quote who="Starbound_Dust" reply="55" id="3410489"]I was seeing things more complicated than they should have been. My mind works differently from most peoples, heh[/quote] Isn't that true of all of us??? [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote who="satoru1" reply="15" id="3410304"] Personally 'alignment' doesn't really work in GalCiv. for my own campaigns alignment was more about the 'broad' morality that a character adhered to. And to be honest I'd only really pin them down on it, if the lawful good paladin suddenly thought that burning down the orphanage full of kids so they could make their escape from the trolls was a 'great idea'. If you're going to introduce alignmen
[quote who="Starbound_Dust" reply="13" id="3410299"]sidenote: does anyone else always wipe out Miriam at earliest opportunity?[/quote] Yep. I find her "holier than thou" rants and "religious proselytizations" very anoying. But I think that was a big part of the game's purpose, having a number of contentious character traits.