Chibiabos

I think strategy games and complex simulators (like SimCity .... ugh, don't get me started on five ... :/) would both benefit greatly from 64 bit CPUing. I guess it was too much to hope this new engine could apply to GC3 ... but hopefully it could be a place to test some things out, and maybe a future GC3 expansion could make use of it .... though that would probably not be realistic either, since expansions tend to just use relatively minor enhancements to the original engine. &nbs

I have a lot of pet peeves, and its true, but among them are supposed Turn-Based Strategy games allowing for strategic depth (versus the APM fests of RTSes) ... but for some reason its been accepted you are limited to seeing moves on screen. GC2 and some other TBSes will zoom around the map to show moves, but you really gotta stare at the minimap to see where the action is taking place and keep all the action in mind. Why the heck not simply have a system for showing what transp

I'm cautiously optimistic. There were a lot of disappointments with Civilization V ... I think the biggest buzzkill of the game for me, though, is it doesn't efficiently multi-thread. In late game on large maps, end turn processing can take over a minute (!) to process, taxing out one core at 100% while my other cores sit idle. Taking a minute to complete a turn is atrocious ... I was hoping Firaxis would have noticed GalCiv2's notion of processing AI rivals whil

I'm guessing alpha stage is even more chaotic than Beta. I remember in the beta for FE, things changed a lot sometimes on a weekly basis. I don't think its so much a matter of spoilers as it is getting fans excited over a system in the game ... and then a few weeks later after testing, realizing it wasn't working and replacing it with something else entirely, then the folk excited over the system might get miffed.

The only silly question is "Is this a silly question?"

Does Stardock have us fans reduced to kids staying up late on Christmas eve trying to sneak a peek under the gift wrappings to see what we get? :P

Its a shame it hadn't been made a few years later, when Paramount changed its Star Trek licensing deals. That's the reason Birth of the Federation, despite the name, only had starships which appeared in Star Trek: The Next Generation -- it only had a license for that series, so no Constitution class. :( Paramount changed its licensing, essentially sharing IPs from all Star Trek series. If only someone would buy the license and make BOTF2 with a newer license de

[quote who="Zydor" reply="9" id="3409224"] Quoting Starbound_Dust, reply 8On Venus the Sun does rise in the West. You'll be surprised what the Sun does on Uranus ..... [/quote] Given Uranus' spin axis is tilted nearly perpendicular to the solar plane, very weird indeed if we could observe the sun from there.

I heard themes (or at least elements of them) from GC2 in the Elemental trilogy ... not to mention names like Altarians, etc.

Would love to see hexes in a future iteration of ... especially tactical battles.

Much of the humor I liked ... but yeah the tech descriptions were a bit over the top sometimes, and it seems clear the text writer just got bored after awhile. Some of it isn't even formatted properly in ToA, seemingly manually line wrapped so it won't fill the width of the screen (and won't fit vertically).

[quote who="satoru1" reply="1" id="3408549"] Wouldnt an 'alert' mode for units be more practical?[/quote] It would be less effective. A fast unit can zip past your units, waking your units up but you'll have no idea what woke them up because its already past sensor range. This really drove me nuts in games like Civ IV: Colonization when I'd try to park my Privateers near rival colony shipping lanes and put them on sentry ... they'd

Star Trek: Birth of the Federation was a bit clunky and had some shortcomings, but it also had some good points, one of which was a map control feature that I hope the GC3 team might consider: allow a group of ships to engage in missions such as 'interception' which will automatically engage any hostile units that come within their range (range being how far the units can go in one turn). This differs from, say, 'auto-attack' in that the units won't

[quote who="Sheeptorpedo" reply="35" id="3408020"] Quoting chuck1es, reply 34 It won't matter what you've researched nor how you've researched. It'll only matter how _many_ ships you have. I just can't stand that kind of thoughtlessness in competitive endeavors. I can't stand that kind of thoughtlessness in the campaign itself and it's exactly what will happen if there is no tactical combat or at least

Jagged Knife is a knife in the back ... but not even close to enough to get me to turn it off. I still wind up winning, often without even trying to reclaim my planets. It does offer an opportunity however -- you can not only reclaim your planets, but those it took from other empires and you don't have to go to war with the other empires to have their planets.

I disagree that 3D adds nothing to Homeworld ... its great and central to that game's design. However, I agree it would add no value to GalCiv3. They are different games that play differently. While its great that games borrow design elements from other games, in the end each game should be its own. I hope Homeworld 3 expands on Homeworld 2's epic borderless (or invisible border) cosmic vastness ... I hope GalCiv3's tactical combat gives us pretty eye candy

I concur with most of the above posters in opposing the suggestion by the original poster -- I want micromanagement to stay. However, I do hope there are better macromanagement tools to assist ... I like epic campaigns on the largest maps, but tools to /help/ reduce management tedium (without eliminating micromanagement) would be nice.

How about Stars! ?

I do hope the GC3 team borrows from FE the notion that while it may not be realistic, reducing guesswork in diplomacy (and the general interface for things such as planetary development, etc.) by providing the player with more information about how their options will affect things (such as exactly how much an AI values trading a tech or resource). I'm guessing they will ... but not knowing for certain, I am hoping they will.

[quote quoting="post"] 2. Keep someone high-up independent from the process. I think this was one of the fundamental issues in Elemental, which I remember Brad talking about before. When you are tied up in something you really care about, it is easy to have your vision clouded by wanting it to be as good as you want it. In Elemental everyone high-up was involved, and it meant that there was no devil's advocate to point out the flaws that were deep in the game. You need som

The ethics system is part of the GalCiv signature. I'm sure it will have its own flavor in GC3 ... but should definitely be present. Yes, other games like MOO2 were fine without it ... but GalCiv is GalCiv and it should be present.

That would be incorrect, kengrant. GalCiv2 had square tiles, you couldn't place anything between tiles.

I got that from the trailer. Were you expecting anything different? Real science fiction (differentiated from "sci fi") is a rarity in film. :(

[quote who="sareth01" reply="95" id="3405733"] A living constitution is subversive and not law. [/quote] The founding fathers gave implicit acceptance of slavery, and regarded women and ethnic minorities as property. If it is subversive to find aspects of the original constitution, before adoption of amendmends, as having been in any way evil -- such as slavery -- then I am proud to be subversive.

[quote who="ctiberius" reply="20" id="3405641"] 4x tech research has a serious flaw in my opinion. It always assumes that technological research is somehow centrally planned. There are vast private industries, presumably, in the GalCiv universe. I'm sure they're all researching their own stuff for commercial purposes. I'd love to see the private sector added to 4x games as the market is vastly larger than what is planned centrally by a government. In that id