[quote quoting="post"] I find it amusing that a nebula will restrict a sensor range of a ship within the nebula but a ship can see past the nebula if not within it. [/quote] Why.The nebula stops sensors so why would signatures outside stop it.This is not detection with a looking glass or on a flat plane.
Cool.Cant wait to see star system HitlerStalin Ingame.
The only downside I see with shipyards is the A.I's ability to defend them.A well planned blitzkrieg effectively finish a faction in a turn.Suicide constructor ships would not be very effective.
A separate strategic ship yard would be a great addition to the game but it isn't new in 4X games. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
Not really.Most 4x games only have 1 queue and it cuts down on micromanagement each turn.
It's a troll heaven.I do wonder why so many developers do early access unless the desperately need the cash.
It does seem a little dated and you end up just picking the ethos answer type to fill buckets and not caring about the actual event..New games like KingArthur did these better. Why should that primitive race we give a reservation not rebel and slaughter the colony in the future?
It sees a bit strange that ideology only comes from events but never in game activities.I can declare war and invade at will costing billions of lives without any impact but some event on a planet does.
The best and most popular fiction is generally not cheesy.
The present factions need more differentiation both visual and gameplay rather than adding more generic factions. More Loot is always good. A naval game added. New heroes with a little more imagination.Some Heroes have a few sentences.Not the best for immersion.
The UI looks a lot worse than GC2.In GC2 you had a whole side devoted to planet overview.In that pic I see 6 planets max which means a lot of extra fiddling The mini map is huge.With a strategic view who uses it much anway? We shall see how it develops.
It's a bit of a let down but then again I only became a founder for the free DLC. [e digicons]:cylon:[/e]
You basically set them on automate because of their magic sensors that knew where all the goodies were.I hated that it basically killed exploring for loot.
The problem with the terribly dull combat in GC2 was not just the lack of any interaction but weapons tech is just a boring numbers game.The difference between laser1 and phaser was nothing but a number.No range,no rate of fire,no shield penetration or anti armor bonus.Games like Dominions4 and gratuitous space battles show that you do not need full control to make it interesting.
Once again dodging the tactical combat question.That same answer was given weeks ago.Create checks and balances does not mean anything..
The art style has gone a bit cheesy cartoon compared to the older games.
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="46" id="3423979"] If it happened today, every single nation would set aside their differences and be forced by circumstance to co-operate..[/quote] No, what would happen is some nations states would appease them for favour by giving them landing bases.Assad for instance.
Black hole guns,stellar converters and stealth systems on ship design excite me.Putting pointless bling on a ship does not.
The problem with Smurfs,Navi and Asari is why have they evolved blue skin on a green planet?
Bllue?
A big issue for most 4x space games is galaxy exploration is done very quickly.Civ manages it better because of the terrain.Exploration of a large galaxy should take most of the game in my view and be interesting.
Finally it is possible we could get a Galciv without shit combat.
I see long range mass drivers.Sad that trees in a Sci fi game are linear still. Long range :)
The early ones always reminded me of the planet of the apes orangutan.
Wow that is some AAA standard race graphics.You expect that for MassEffect but not a strategy game.