Good Grief ..... !!! Thank you Stardock, you have yet again excelled yourselves; whilst that state of affairs is approaching the Norm, its still - nontheless - a source of delight and satisfaction to play this well thought out and presented game. Well done guys ..... take a bow (again!) ...... :)
The OP makes a valid point, and subsequent posts by anyone espousing their favourite strategy will not change things. The Game has evolved hugely since GalCiv1, and set to do so even more as various parts of GalCiv3 make their first appearance in future builds. There needs to be a concerted effort to meet the OP's basic - very valid - point, if Stardock are to widen the ownership of the game still further. This is beyond trivial discussion about inexperienced players, "Silver
A whole two weeks ......... The rumbling in the background is the earthquakes emanating from the Coding Room(s) staffed by coders with matchsticks for eyelid props [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Don some sun glasses to guard against the unaccustomed glare, and go for a walk in the fresh air away from the screen. Don't forget there is a real world out there [e digicons]:)[/e]
Pre-Alpha Check list : - Pay Power Bill... a real pain, but consequences of Alpha cut-off too horrible to contemplate (Don't forget .... thank the Judge for his patience) - Don't pay the Phone Bill, stop's those annoying calls from the Real World - Curse as you lose Internet Access - damn Phone Company - sign up for Satellite link - Ring mortgage company to finance Satellite Bill - Spring clean house, you need to avoid the wife going nu
GalCiv is a Strategy Game ..... its not a Tactical Combat Game, and this strikes to the very Core of the background game design. It is a big deal in terms of Core design at the lowest level of the software, and cannot be fudged. The priority must be to retain the Strategic Nature of the Game, and a focus on (circa) ship-to-ship fights as part of mainstream play and scoring is not it. It looks as though they have come up with a *Half-Way House* - it sounds like
[quote]The current plan is that the production wheel sets the civilization default with the ability of players to override it on a planet by planet basis. This allows players who want to micro-manage their planets to do so without forcing them to do so if they don't want to. The question is: What level of per planet tinkering do you think the game should have and why? [/quote] The dilemma on this one is the varying map sizes that we all play - one solution from a die hard "bigger
Stardock could not have been more clear: 1. Do nothing - great, we'll see you on Final Release 2. Don't fancy the hassles of an Alpha, but want a peek/be able to help test? Take the Beta release package. 3. You're well into this, addicted by the Game, itching to help, take the Alpha package. Stardock could not have been clearer or more fair........ geeeez, there's still 12-18 months before release, and a whole lot of blood, swet and tears
Don't even try to compare/suggest re fleet battles, Stardock have already re-written that part totally from ground up, just remains to be seen what they have come up with. However it would seem it is going to be radically different, and perform much much better than old fleet battles. However they have firmly stated GalCiv is a Strategy game, and therefore fleet battles will remain broadly positioned as before - its not individual shot-em-up battles as a core part of the results,
[quote]I'm assuming quad-core minimum, 8GB ram best.[/quote] Yes hard to say - no one really knows as yet, but Stardock do have a reputation for getting the best out of hardware by design, not forcing users to buy a sledgehammer card to overcome shortfalls in programming. Quad/8Gb I reckon will be a given as a "standard" hardware bundle, would be crazy to buy less - anyway its getting harder (as such) to find duals -usually old stock or throw away bargins now, duals
[quote]i heard that they can disable account for no reason and i saw their automated replies[/quote] Millions use Steam ..... hundreds use the forums - there's a subtle clue there. Moaners and groaners hit the Web, the other 95% happy bunnies just get on with life, wind Steam up, play a game and get on with life - you never hear from them. To think that millions use it thinking "I don't mind being screwed" is just fantasy. Developers and distributors love it, i
[quote]What do you think?[/quote] Wait until the Alpha is released. They have already been coding for months, and their original concepts are already in tablets of stone for the initial Alpha release. Right now they are dotting the i's crossing the t's for Alpha release. Until we see that, it just becomes circular speculation.
[quote who="Martok" reply="34" id="3418693"]Why? What's stopping people from simply choosing to auto-resolve if they wish? [/quote] Try that for 200 planets on the largest map and see what happens .... if you do, there is little point having it as its all back to square one with the AI deciding and therefore having to be outside the mainstream results for the game. The closest we will get is including Carriers inside Fleets, and building into the Fleet Battles the fact tha
Napoleon XIV had the right idea
The problem is too many don't understand the difference between Strategy and Tactics. Its like brining Dominoes to a Chess Game just because the Board is the same and expect it to work with the other guys chess pieces ..... duuuh Lots of games out there where JoeTheOne dives out of HyperSpace yelling "Die you Swine" as he fires the latest beam weapon through clenched teeth, incinerating all before our perspiring hero - or crush's the bad g
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="16" id="3418108"]People don't want quality anymore, or to think a cm deeper then the nose reach? I forsee a dark future for us all if this is true.[/quote] I can think of fewer things more tedious than to find under the hood of all games, tedious Tactical Combat at every turn. Tactical Combat has its place, and is good fun when correctly implemented within the Game context. It is tedious and boring to meet the tactical combat mantra
[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="2" id="3417941"]No tactical combat means boring unimaginative weapon tech.[/quote] Full weapons options will still be available in GalCiv III - but only used via Fleet Actions, not individual combat. [quote]GC2 combat will not fly in 2013.[/quote] No, it will not - that's why an enhanced version of GalCiv II combat is being made, however its still not full All-On tactical battles. The latter is not practical with th
The gaming industry - and with it hardware development - has reached a cul-de-sac in terms of Games Development. For sure talented programmers have created ever more innovative effects for the end user, but in the background they are thrashing around the same wall at the end of a developer cul-de-sac. The opportunities to create a dash for revenue by rushing down a narrow route (aka consoles), are now all virtually closed off in an innovation sense, its all "been done before" blah blah.<
[quote who="RedDwarf999" reply="4" id="3416721"]backs out of the room slowly... [/quote] Watch out for the banana skins ..... [e digicons]\o/[/e]
I would hang fire on memory for the moment, there is plenty of time, just see how Stardock is going to put the extra memory to use first, and how they will do it. I suspect Win 7 8Gb will be the new "practical minimum" (they will not force people to buy more than 8Gb to keep up minimum performance levels). Above that will depend on what they ultimately do with it. I suspect 16Gb will be the maximum they will play with on mainstream, any more than that and it forces people to go Win
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="39" id="3416264"]As far as I know there has never been a situation where u r garanteed to hit a mine. There is a chance. or at least in the movies u can accidentally go through a minefield I don't know the chance but I'm sure its plausable. Can a military person give advice on this please.[/quote] A guarantee you get through no - but it can, and usually is made highly improbable by the pattern of the mines you lay. They are laid so the
[quote]Maybe a simple "space is silent" toggle would/could make everyone happy.[/quote] Its called a Mute Button/keystroke - its on a keyboard near you. Its obviously a slow news day out there in the Inter-Gallatic Void [e digicons]\o/[/e]
[quote]Apparently, green stars do not exist;[/quote] Now there ya go ..... just shows the new technology bound up in Version III .... the good guys finally dumped that old early 21st Century technology so they could save save The Universe - and people start to get serious nostalgia pangs. Sheeesh .... some scientists need to get with The Program...... and dump the Retro Look, its so ..... yesterday ... [e digicons]\o/[/e]
Its a total re-write ..... assume anything from the past is not going to work now, if it does its a bonus. Quite apart from anything else, its a 64 bit Version, and I cant see them carrying over 32 bit baggage unless its "mission critical". In regard to "new stuff", take a rain cheque, its a total re-write therefore the only constant will be ever moving change until the design settles - and the latter is not going to be for months yet. Just assume anything you create as a
Dang .... apologies double post .... meant to include the wiki link, its a good overview for anyone making the final jump from XP. Scroll down as well, some good summary tables for a good high-fly overview. The usual barrage of picky exceptions are well documented in the Notes to the article, but 99.9% of mere mortals will be fine following the Wiki overview as orientation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7_editions </p
For those making the final XP to Win 7 switch, don't be tempted by Windows 7 starter - its 32 bit only, that would be jumping out the frying pan into the fire. For 95% of people, Home Premium is the most 95% of people need. Don't equate the Pro benefits of XP to an equivalent benefit level in Win 7 Pro, different beasts. Win 7 Home Premium does the job nicely, unless you are a ( Genuine - not wannabe) developer, or a