Well, the Tactical Combat thread ( https://forums.galciv3.com/448996/page/3/#3405445 ) is the biggest one on this subforum by a significant margin already. It's a bit of a hot issue...
[quote who="1xador" reply="9" id="3405020"] So instead of defining a system of government, I would like to see a system of multiple fundamental belief systems like Civilization uses, or a system where you can give up control/power for some benefit. For example, giving up control of building production on a planet would give an increase in production; giving up control to direct research would give an increae in overall research (this requires an undirected research system); giving
The thing is that he [i]stopped[/i] updating it, basically told everybody that features he promised weren't coming after all and that he'd start working on StarDrive II now...which would have all those features but would also be another full-price game. And he was, well...a complete and utter asshole about it. It turns out people can be a little touchy when that happens.
[quote who="jim_viebke" reply="1" id="3404817"] Interesting thoughts; can you elaborate on Star Drive mechanics for a non-SD player? [/quote] Weapons placement determines firing arcs, among other things. SD had fixed hulls with a slot-based equipment system. But the placement of parts actually mattered. Shields and armor had to be placed to cover possible threat angles. Engines could only be placed on the rear of your ships, cockpits on smaller craft had to be somew
I do have to admit that Elemental basically killed the company for me for quite some time. I've only started to feel tentative optimism about their products again fairly recently. A completely botched release like that can destroy any kind of faith in a dev team, and that'll [i]ruin[/i] smaller outfits without the reserves to take the hit in a real hurry. Stardock turned out to have these reserves, and it looks like it's worked out alright, but it was a close thing, and I can unde
Democracy doesn't necessarily mean 'good guys' (nor is the inverse necessarily true). If the will of the people is to conquer and commit atrocities, then a democracy, which at least nominally follows the will of the people, will engage in these practices. Athenian democracy, often cited as the ur-example, saw nothing wrong in razing cities to the ground, slaughtering the civilian inhabitants and dragging the survivors off to slavery...that's how warfare [i]worked[/i].
I've been having a lot of fun with the Total War series' approach of a turn-based strategy layer and pauseable real-time tactics (although Rome II has turned out to be a bit of a stinker :P). It still retains the good old TBS feel on the strat layer while allowing for something that has a somewhat more fluid and open feel than turn-based combat without making things dependent on twitch reflexes. Not sure if it's the right thing for the GalCiv series, but the combination of
Generally it should be the other way round, military dictatorships tend to have an easier time enforcing public order and morale during 'normal operation' but are more vulnerable to violent upheavals. So maybe allowing them to ignore a certain amount of unhappiness (while democracies get an instant hit from it) to represent using repression to keep things under control. But yes, more variety in political systems would be good, just as long as it doesn't beco
I've edited my post a bit to get my point across better. I'm not looking for a card system exactly like Endless Space had (although I do think it did a tolerably good job), but something like putting the player in the fleet admiral's position, rather than giving them direct captaincy over every single vessel in the fleet. Giving orders to ships not individually but by division or class, passing out formation and engagement range orders rather than manually positioning ever
GalCiv2 was a great game and I spent way too many hours on it, but one thing that always kinda rubbed me the wrong way was that it basically forced you into an early colony rush to grab the best planets ASAP. Anybody going for a more sedate rate of expansion would find themselves left in the dust by the rushers (and the AI was fiendishly good at it). I feel a sequel would be greatly improved by having a mechanism to limit this, or maybe offer incentives to stay small. Similar to how C
How about a hybrid? No direct control, but general orders. Like 'first division, advance to optimum weapon range', or 'cruisers, stay out of range of their guns' and maybe 'retreat once you lose X% of HP'. It'd give us the interactivity we tactical gamers crave without completely alienating the pure grand strategy crowd. Endless Space kind of went into that direction with their battle cards system, but they didn't take the concept