[quote who="Staxed" reply="73" id="3405253"] Is it bad that I'm considering buying the Founder's Elite instead of eating lunch for the next two week? decisions decisions /soexcited[/quote] Good decision, my friend, I'm proud of you. I mean, if you take the decision I would have taken. A Karma given in advance.
I wouldn't worry too much. They will keep this game GalCiv. Lot's of strange suggestions in the forum now, I agree, but the greatest design choices are allready taken. The good thing is that real Stardockians have taken these decissions, and not an eleven year old kid that is pulling ideas out of his nose before bedtime. :)
[quote who="Nikioko" reply="11" id="3407431"] Oh no. I hoped so much that the map would be 3D this time that I would have accepted both cube boxes or truncated octahedra. But it is once again 2D. This is not Civilization which is bound to a planet's surface. This is a game set in open space and therefore there is a third dimension.[/quote] The Universe does not have 3 dimensions, nor does it have only 4, it has 10 or even as many as 11 dimensions my
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="41" id="3408594"] No way should you go for Elemental 2, that's just dumb. Every time a post comes up on other forums about Stardock, be it Galciv3 being announced or anything else, someone (almost) always mentions that Elemental was a huge fail and that they are never going to preorder / buy from Stardock again. The Elemental name is etched firmly as a disappointment. Fallen Enchantress is your new IP, as far as I can tell. NOBODY speaks onl
[quote who="charon2112" reply="44" id="3408378"] Quoting Mordachai, reply 43 Where is real information on this upcoming game? The trailer is great, but I want to know if it has Sword of the Stars level combat, or just another number crunching engine with (mark 1, mark 2, etc.) same-old-same weapon & defense systems...? SotS is a completely different kind of game. The worst thing they could do to galciv is turn it into a completely
Go for Elemental II, and make it a great game. You Stardockians have learned how to make fantasy 4X now, and if it's great it will sell great, regardless of the name. The good thing is you keep the continuty, and saves the Elemental brand. :)
Trailers are wasted on me. I pre-ordered without even reading a word about the game. Well, one word I read: GalCiv3. That's all I neeed to know. :) Call me a fanboy, I'm OK with it. ;) Other then that, thanks for the awesome trailer.
[quote who="nomotog" reply="4" id="3405343"] I think I get what you mean about ship building getting being tedious. The first time you make a ship it's fun. When you have to redesign a ship to deal with a new threat or a new problem, that is also fun. When you have to go through and replace all your type 3 lasers with type 4 lasers only to replace them all again 5 terns latter without them ever evening have been used. That is the tedium. You could fix that maybe with an<s
Good strategy games have micro. Micro can add to challenge, immersion, strategy and even pure fun. Streamlining can go too far and ruin the soul of games. What's tedious is micro that are there just because of poor UI/design. [quote who="Ryat" reply="8" id="3407931"] That's the reason to buy a TBS game. For the mircro management. At least for me anyways.[/quote] Good point. That's the strength and beau
CO-OP never apealed to me, but it is popular even in these kind of games (for me that is more for RTS, 2 vs 2 games for instance). FFA games are what I play, and I find games like GalCiv are perfect for it (Fallen Enchantress would have been too). Just like playing the ordinary SP game, but with human opponents instead of AIs, which makes a huge difference in challenge and diplomatic opportunities (real shifting coallitions everyone). A marvelous gaming experience awaits us. &
[quote who="Sheeptorpedo" reply="29" id="3407936"] Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 27 Those games are more RPG and Tactic-games then they are strategy. Galactic Civilizations has always been all about Strategy. Age of Wonders series has also been about strategy, that never stopped it from having tactical combat, even more so in Age of Wonders 3. Not having tactical combat in GalCiv 3 would be a terrible idea, it would f
[quote who="Gaslov" reply="20" id="3406113"] With the exception of close friends, no one is going to play this game with you for 2 months. And even at that, how many games do you think you'll play? Probably 2 or 3 MAX. Most likely you'll just do it once and spend the rest of the time trying to plan a second game. Multiplayer just isn't very practical over 2 hours. And honestly, if you need more time than that to figure out who is the better
[quote who="Commander_Kryton" reply="4" id="3407520"] Quoting Zydor, reply 3 This is a Strategy Game - not a tedious shoot-em-up. This doesn't make any sense, are you saying that XCOM Enemy Unknown and MMH6 are "shoot-em-ups", whatever those are? That's just ridiculous, it's like you haven't read the post of the topic at all. [/quote] Those games are more RPG and Tactic-games then they are st
God job!
GalCiv2 is one of the absolutely best games I've ever played. I'm not worried. Stardock will make it once again.
Yeah, supreme huge ships that can take alot of damage and survive battles should cost ALOT! Small ships need to be really cost effective, espacially when they can operate in huge quantas. I suggest making these small fighters hard to hit, and that you willl need your own fighters to fight enemy fighters most efficently (dogfighting). I think we will see very impressive huge scale battle cinematics in GalCiv3. :)
I have been thinking abit and think tech trading might be sensible if you have a system where you have to send emissaries (a hero/champion type) arround to do diplomacy. Then it wouldn't be something you did every turn with every civilization.
Remake of the Civilization styled game called Call to Power! Perfect for Stardock.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="8" id="3406633"] The keyword is "interesting". Micro for micro's sake isn't interesting, only tedious. [/quote] Indeed yes. An example of tedious micro is for me checking possibilities of tech trade with every nation every turn. :)
I actually liked, and still like, the excitement in sending constructors vulnerable to attack out, and the fact that multiple planets can share the work on the Space Stations/Death Stars this way. Micro is OK when it adds to gameplay, but of course I guess there is other ways too do it too that can acchieve the same gameplay feel/consequence, or even improve on it. Anyways I want to underline this: The best strategy games have interesting micro. The worst
[quote who="yarodin" reply="115" id="3406053"] +1 for tactical combat. Just watching a completly randomized movie is not enough for me. I want (at least the illusion) of making a difference in the combat. [/quote] You are making a difference through strategy instead of tactics. You do this by many, many means, like ship design, being positioned there in the first place, tech priorities, production priorities, production capacity, choice
[quote who="jirkaesch" reply="1" id="3405987"] And of course, ltes keep an option to turn it off as well. You dont like tech trading and brokering? Turn it off. Problem solved.[/quote] I'm afraid it is not that easy. Take for instance GalCiv2 and the human faction (or how diplomatic skill worked in general). If you turned off tech trading it was a great nerf to the human faction, and also a nerf to tech/buildings that improved diplo-sk
I hope that how much the AI likes you will not mean everything when it comes to for instance allying you or joining you in a war. That a nation likes you doesent mean it's in its interest to join your war or ally you. It may rather be the opposite, that the best interest of that AI would be to join those nations it has had worse relations with in a coalition against a long time friend that is becoming too mighty and dangerous. It should not be to easy manipulating a
Let's face it, few mechanisms have been more exploitable then the trading of techs. With the diplo-bonuses of the human faction in GalCiv2 it became even more crazy. I like the way the diplo-skill worked in GalCiv2, but I've never liked tech-trading. The AI can't cope with it, research progress goes to fast, and it causes the boring type of micro'ing (micro can be good for gameplay, but not this kind of micro, checking AI diplo every turn to exploit tech-tra
The classical tech tree is superior to all other fancy ideas I've seen in this thread or in other games like Horizon. One tech at a time, and total player control of what to research (and knowing all pathways in the tree) is the way to go. Why? Because it gives the player meaningfull choices with (huge) opportunity costs. I couldn't care less for the realism arguements in this thread, because the alternative suggestions just seem like dull game mechanisms with very little or n