Firehawk153

[quote quoting="post"] Admiral Battles: We are considering (depending on sales) letting flees that are commanded by an Admiral (a promoted Commander) have tactical control over their battle. Right now, GalCiv III has tactical battles, it's just that they are forcibly put to auto-resolve (there's no UI to control units of course but if you watch the battle closely, you can see that the plumbing is there). Only Admirals would be able to do this

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="3" id="3675721"] Gameplay. It isn't related to Crusade one way or the other. With the changes to Crusade, I can probably make the map bigger. That said, it's pretty disheartening seeing Crusade at 41% because people think Crusade is changing map sizes. [e digicons]:([/e] http://store.steampowered.com/app/527070/Galactic

Playing this game for the campaign is like playing Skyrim for the main menu. Not saying they aren't well done and enjoyable( I quite enjoyed vanilla gc3 campaign) but it's not the focus.

Many thanks, Brad and team!

The Bounty looks suspiciously like a Hyperion... As for the rest of it...dammit Brad, do like to tease us?

Founder or not I'd wager that Brad was selective with who he gave keys to in the Discord chat because he was wanting players that he knows have ongoing interactions on the forums and will play it and give feedback on bugs/issues. I don' think he wanted to risk handing out keys to founders that would just play the game and get butthurt and ragequit when they came across the first bug in the beta.

Assuming that a campaign detailing what happens after the liberation of Earth will come in a DLC?

[quote quoting="post"] This was important because it allowed me to divide up the AI's fleet manager and the AI's planet manager which sped up turn times. It was not a friendly game by today's standards (45% score on Steam). One of these days, I'd like to go back and update this just to make it work on modern computers. I only recommend this for nostalgia folks now. [/quote] <p style="te

[quote who="Arioch2050" reply="174" id="3673297"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 172 You don't HAVE to do anything. Lifetime Founders will get Crusade when it ships automatically. People w

Godspeed John Glenn :(

[quote who="Lucky_Jack" reply="35" id="3657963"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 24 In preparation for the fact that I'm an old, cranky man now, Brad? Old? Come on. We have met (you probably don't remember). It was during the development of GC1 and I visited your facility. I had just retired th

Brad, a few questions if you don't mind: Will the mercenaries mechanic be iterated on in future releases? Things such as additional bonuses, upgrading mercenaries, etc. As others have said they seem to lose a bit of their potency mid to late game and it would be nice if we could do somethings to beef up their usefulness. Are "heroes" or "leaders" still planned and are those intended to be a separate mechanic from mercenaries or does the

Holy smokes, I thought Sins 32-bit engine couldn't handle anything else?

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3608838"] My objection to tactical battles is that in a game as massive as galciv, I might have a dozen battles per turn. I dont' want to fight those battles nor do I trust auto resolve enough. But I don't object to tactical battles if there was a way to have them that didn't force players into feeling like they had to deal with them. [/quote] Just a thought...only fleets with commanders or fleets with a "Command and

This EXACT same question came up just a few months ago and it got pretty nasty. The question still stands though why we can't issue some limited pre-battle commands for fleet dispositions or limited targeting orders (such as "stand off" or "close to enemy). Combat in this game is woefully shallow which is a shame considering how much better the game has gotten since release. Hopefully it will get some attention later on down the line.

Awesome! Looks great guys!

I just want Ashes to have a planetary spending wheel and tactical combat.... [e digicons]O:)[/e]

I agree peregrine, I've requested the same thing in a prior thread. It seems incredibly artificial and gamey to permanently bind the role to the ship design and not be able to change it. The types of engagements and enemies I face can change from battle to battle so why can't my ship behavior change with it?

After seeing what's coming with improvements to AI, reduction of micromanagement and improvments to starbases I'd personally like to see the following 3 things addressed for an expansion: Fleet Combat Right now we've got a basically unbeatable combination with the armored escort ship roles acting as the damage absorbers while the other ships pound away. It seems the other ship roles are sub optimal compared to th

+1 Hats off to Paul, Brad and everyone at Stardock for making phenomenal games and then making phenomenal games better. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]

+1 I actually created a thread about this a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to be able to change the ship role at the fleet or individual ship level.

Sooo back to GalCiv III(not that speculation about future space warfare isn't interesting)... ...So I'll be blunt: is there any room for compromise on combat? Brad says no to individual unit controlled combat but it seems that a large number of us aren't really after that anyway. As many have said, we'd simply like a few more options given to us to influence and fine tune ship combat behavior. The ship role concept is a welcome addition

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="61" id="3552365"] If you want tactical battles, find another game. We will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER have tactical battles in GalCiv. [/quote] But you're saying there's a chance, right?

At some point Brad mentioned that they were planning on implementing a "hardcore" combat mode that would take weapon arcs and ship facing and other factors into consideration. If you are going to all that trouble why not just implement tactical combat anyway but whatever...it's their game.

Ash, I asked this very same question just a few weeks ago. I was specifically requesting a dedicated ship role that would allow missile ships to stay at range and leverage their range advantage. And I agree with some sentiments expressed earlier in this thread about the battle system in general. I honestly think the dev had grander plans for it than what we got but it seems that a lot of the more tactical mechanics of combat that were hinted at initially weren't implemen