Dumhed

For me, a big part of planet management is the state of the civilization has a whole. That is, if my total credits are high enough, then I'm not as worried about a planet that is bleeding money. Or, when sitting on the planet screen, thinking about whether to "buy" a improvement, I like to ponder how much of a dent it makes in my coffers. Or, being able to quickly look at my civilization's income, growth, or what not... those have an impact on how I manage the planet

True enough, as far as reality is concerned. Stars somewhere would probably be named after a corporation or what not. Still, some people (sometimes me, but not always) have an idea of what a space fantasy world is and I understand why they might not want names that don't fit their image of space opera.

Question - After Beta 2, my guess is testing will deal with a number of game balance issues, and Beta 3 with fleet combat doesn't really impact the larger game progression. But after Beta 3, will any testing/feedback still be required? Or, at that point, we just hold our horses and wait? (I have no opinion, just curious).

Better yet would be to have some sort of some event, dialogue, which cracks a joke about it, just to acknowledge the weirdness and move on. For example, a rare event might be for the assembly of planets to meet and vote on whether to allow strangely named stars.

I'm starting to feel less bothered by the whole weird named star.. though I do think it has the potential to lessen the immersive feel of the gaming universe. Still, I understand IslandDog's comment that Stardock isn't the kind of company that takes themselves too seriously. We've seen that over the years. So to let a few "out of place" names through isn't the end of the universe.

I love you all... but I surely hope some of those listed get... well, sent back for revisions, even if it is an "approved" list. Some of them just seem to... not fit in the universe. Though... I suppose who says it has to. :/

What about my toilet?

I'm thinking about buying... but not sure how my laptop will respond.

What about having a system that includes a secondary project that progresses at a slower rate? Let's say... whatever is second in line in the cue gets some love, but not at the full pace. Doing this would eliminate the need to create a different interface other than a progress indicator on the second item (or perhaps the option to only pursue the primary project.) Perhaps a player could chose between construction settings (on a planetary basis) between 1

I'd be interested to know what function these ages perform other than being cosmetic (and opening up the next tier or research). If it is limited to this, then my fear would be the potentially restrictive nature of almost any age name. If you played a sandbox game on a huge map, with only one or two opponents, its very possible that significant conflict wouldn't come into play until much later, regardless of research progression. I don't know if it is

I'd think there would have to be extenuating circumstances to purposely build anything significant in the ocean when there are adequate land spaces available. If maybe the land is volatile with volcanic activity, or is home to some fearsome and dangerous creature that happens to be afraid of the ocean... Otherwise, only a water loving species would deal with the hassle. (but maybe that is just me speaking as a human and not a fish.)

I understand that keep things cheap makes sense in alpha to help us build up and go conquer. :) Nevertheless, with regard to the ease of buying, even in GC2 it was possible to basically take a financial approach... then when you get a new planet, just buy up while accepting that while your population grows, it will be a financial drain. Again, this could be a strategy that some people like. So when i mean "easy" I mean it in two ways. 1) It can be easy if cost

It is possible, that even a more pacifist type player will be engaged in war mainly because they will be forced to defend themselves. Still, I understand the OP concern. In sandbox games, theoretically, you can set your opponents and such that "war" would hardly be a feature. Even cultural incursion wold not be necessary if you just forge alliances with everyone. (I'd be surprised if many people play this way... it sort of removes much of the fun of features like

Yes, that is my feeling about it, too - that morale or happiness would not be about population control. Population control is better tied to a different set of of factors. But approval and morale do have the potential to be useful in deepening the game experience in a wide array of areas. (And for that matter, morale and approval should be two separate things. A population might really love their leader but are could still be low in morale). These thing

Show off. [e digicons]

I may have missed it somewhere... is that going to a part of things? I haven't seen anything in the research, improvements, or planet info or anywhere else to indicate that there would be such thing as planet or civ-wide happiness or morale. In GC2, managing this could be a big part of how you played. I assume that since Alpha is focused on conquest, keeping morale involved could slow us down. Did a dev say something about this? (did a search and didn't find

Age of Love! (But seriously, I think you are right. Having it predetermined as an Age of War might not reflect how a particular game is being played (Even though cultural expansion strategies could also be seen as a form of Culture War). My guess is that the idea is that around mid-game is when a lot of conflicts start to become more engaging. But still, I wonder if it would be possible to have that middle

In playing 4x games, including this alpah, I find the rush build option a bit "too easy". I mean, I use it all the time. But I think it would make sense to add some other cost to go along with the credits deducted. For example, a planet doing a rush build might see a temporary loss of morale or productivity (because you worked those poor citizens a bit harder to get that thing finished... and some of them need to rest). Or, constant rush orders, because of strain on the work

I would love to see Stardock touch all of my cores, too.

In https://forums.galciv3.com/452793/page/1/#3453395 Mormegil said [quote] There are several bugs that have shown up in the planet features, that we will be fixing. The Icons are all temporary, and most of the Names and Effects will be changing. The features showing up in inappropriate places, will be fixed with the new planet surface system, which should be

(Or I can just wait a few months 'til I'm back home with my desktop and keep using this laptop for work... which is what it is for anyway).

Well, I ran several furmark stress tests and low and behold...the computer shut-off a couple times. The temp however did not hit critical. Looks like I have a mysterious hardware problem. Since I can't just swap out components on the laptop, it looks like... well... time for a new laptop! Weee!!!

Ah yes. I forgot about that. Nevertheless, I would like to see a limit to the amount of information readily available for non-player controlled planets.

I noticed that when you click on Drengi or Kona, you can automatically see the stats of the planet as well as what ships are stationed. Functionally GC2 was not much different. However, from a "realism" perspective (I know, that perspective is not always useful) a civilization would have to have some way to determine this information first. I do not know what plans there are to the spying side of the game. However, I would love to see it be a bit more robust t

Thanks for putting together a completely playable alpha. (With my laptop failing, I'm using a friend's computer to test now). This is mainly feedback for things that are not working, or could be improved. Bugs Ship not moving manually - I "found" the Lost Defender ship. However, for the first several turns with it, it would not move manually (click spot). It would however move on auto when set to "Explore".</li