WIllythemailboy

[quote who="qrtxian" reply="6" id="3416142"] Quoting Gaunathor, reply 5 Quoting qrtxian, reply 4 To be honest, I just want a system where my 100% good race doesn't have to, for all intents and purposes, commit genocide every time it invades a planet. Frogboy said in this interview, that they are replacing alignments with ideologies. So, no Good vs Evil anymore. That's not really my point. I just think it's kind of ridiculous that I can

[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="14" id="3415916"]The Altarians have a late-game building (the Dark Energy Lab) which gives them a significant bonus to Weapons. This effectively cancels out the penalty. But you're right, until they build it they're at a significant disadvantage. That's why, when you're setting up a galaxy with Altarians, you should always have a race in the mix which shares their alignment so that they can use their Super Organiser ability

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="21" id="3415871"]Question. Can a civilization change its ideology? For instance, could the Drengin discard its ideology of excessive cruelty, slavery, consumption of intelligent species? Could they adopt a more benevolent ideology? Back in GalCiv 2 Twilight, a random event might change the Drengin from Evil to Good alignment, and I find it weird that their tech tree remained largely the same (they still had access to slave factories, pain appliers, d

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="16" id="3415435"]I have a question do U think this game wpuld have been considered to complicated if it would have came out in the 90's Willy? I'm talking about Galactic civilization 3 twilight of the arnor or civilization 5. Just asking a question. I know this would have been overwhelming for me to have played this before. [/quote] Not at all. I've enjoyed strategy games since finding PTO II on the Super Nintendo. I don't tend

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="10" id="3415282"]I don't get how this could be too complicated, but however I think this model is outdated and using the square system of GC II. Besides if you think this is too complicated, I feel sorry for you and your lack of ability to manage even a class 1 planet. [/quote] It's not ONE planet anyone worries about. We just don't want to deal with three hundred of these crapholes every game, and anyone who does want to is an idi

There is a limit of 4 starbases per sector (added in DA I think). Starbases can affect 8 squares away (rounded up, so if the circle just barely reaches a square it counts as in the ring), and sectors are 15 squares wide. That means bases set in the first four squares in the corner of a sector can affect the squares in the center of the sector next to it, and the first square of the sector just over the border. A crappy text drawing: x[ooooooooooooooo[x x[oooooooooooooo

If you were willing to put in the research and construction, you could already do something similar in GC2 with a starbase array. Up to 24 starbases could affect one space, which could then boost the ship's normal speed by 72 points for the turn it starts on the sweet spot. Even more, if you got the Korx module tech, which allowed a 120 point boost from a 24 array. That's enough to launch a ship about a third of the way across an immense map in one turn.

[quote who="yarodin" reply="7" id="3414332"]I don't like the idea. You replace a easy system through a much more complicated one, increasing the management factor by 5-20 depending on your planets because instead of 1 grid, you have to manage x grids per colony. I can't see the benefit, it would just increase micro management enourmously. Think about a GC game with 30 colonies (which is not so much, depending on the setting you play) this would become unplayable in my eyes.[/quote]</p

[quote who="Voqar" reply="25" id="3413759"]Kind of dreading seeing some of the stuff people come up with, actually, and hoping the quality control is pretty tight on this.[/quote] Agreed. Hopefully only the best get into the game. I have a few ideas I'm kicking around. One example: Buckley. The name only works if the system can be programmed to be the designated victim for any improbable catastrophe that happens in the game. Two planets collide? You can bet it happened somewhere i

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="51" id="3413602"]I tried to get all the quotes under one edit earlier. I couldn't make it work I will try again. It would be easier if I could just delete some of my quotes. If it take me days to read a site then there is no way I can remember all the posts. [/quote] A helpful hint: if you use the quote button, it will always put the selected text in a quote starting where your cursor is in the reply box. If you want to quote multiple post

[quote who="Seilore" reply="6" id="3413531"]Burried somewhere in the GalCiv2 Forums there are several posts from Brad stating that he was going for a trilogy which would mean this saidly would be the last of the series, however, with that being said, he's the CEO so he can make as many as he wants and change his mind as many times as he'd like [/quote] He can always go the Douglas Adams route, too. "The fifth game in the increasingly inaccurately named Galactic

[quote who="wuphonsreach" reply="73" id="3413471"]With starbases having "slots" (just like planets have surface slots for improvements), you can mix/match the focus of the starbase. (For game-balance, you may still need to restrict some modules to only being mountable on military / economic / influence / mining bases.)[/quote] If you're having construction slots on the starbase, why not allow hybrid designs? The biggest type of base might have enough space to get all the military

[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="68" id="3413406"]Freighters spawn a mini-freighter when they set up a trade route, starbases could similarly set up a supply freighter which ferries supplies (production) from a designated planet. This would default to the closest planet which isn't over-committed to providing building supplies. This would make setting up remote starbases a teeny bit more problematic, as the longer the supply line is the more chances that a supply freighter

[quote who="UnleashedElf" reply="62" id="3413169"]How about we just simplify everything down to 1 constructor? 1. Build constructor, send to location. 2. Choose type of starbase. 3. From there, buy needed upgrade modules. No more constructors after. Construction time takes place by being added to queue of a planet assigned by the user. 1 starbase needs 1 constructor. Modules are then upgraded by cash afterwards an

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="6" id="3412611"]The Civilizations in the game consume trillions or quadrillions of tons of metal in the course of the game if the "tonnage" measure in the ship view is correct. This would vastly outstrip every easily-available source on multiple planets like Earth.[/quote] Not really. Extracting the metal content of entire asteroids seems to be within the tech limits of the game civilizations; getting 10^18 kg of metal out of a few dozen large aster

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="55" id="3412266"]This confuses me, do u mean by a hundred modules on one srarbase. Do u mean 100 modules on all the starbases, or is this a designation for something else. If this is can u clarify.[/quote] If I'm understanding him correctly, in the game files all the modules are assigned a number. #1-7 might be the mining upgrades, #8-16 the influence modules for those bases, #17-28 the trade modules, etc. (numbers made up for convenience, whic

[quote who="mogthew" reply="306" id="3412212"] Quoting mattiscool555, reply 304 If you intend to make an argument for tactical combat my advice is to not cite chess, what is arguably the purest form of non-tactical TBS there is. Not sure if you're trolling or not Chess - Turn based, 1v1 tactical Combat - Turn based, 1v1 These two criteria are the most

[quote who="mormegil" reply="1" id="3412178"]As you wish [/quote] While we're at it, can we get a way to "obsolete", better yet "hide", specific planet upgrade options while placing structures? Assuming of course planets build in pretty much the same way as GC2. Towards the end of the game you'd steal or buy tech to build a bunch of roughly equivalent buildings and only ever want to build one of them. For example, healing pools and VR centers. Give us the option to move

[quote who="Reaper273" reply="8" id="3411463"]I see your point, but would also mention that size should not equal power. The SG-1 episode 'It's Good To Be King' where O'Neill destroys a Goauld Ha'tak with a Puddle Jumper with one shot due to much more advanced tech is an example of what I mean.[/quote] The Honorverse, especially in the most recent few books, have plenty of similar incidents. A handful of destroyers taking out battlecruisers in one launch each, for

You can mod life support ranges to your heart's content. That was true in GC2 and will almost certainly be true in GC3.

[quote who="jrdufour" reply="10" id="3411150"]I do somewhat agree with that, but the combat systems math, pooled all weapons of the same type together, so it was kinda how it worked. Even if they were treated as separate weapons, on a larger ship the weapons would have a reduced firing arc, meaning that a gun would need a faster response time to hit a target for the short amount of time it was in range.[/quote] That hasn't been true since Dread Lords. Possibly Dark Avatar, but I d

[quote who="yarodin" reply="7" id="3411111"]I'd really like to count which is more often: posts about a carrier/fighter element or posts including "it's not a shoot-them-up" and "hell freezes over first" from zydor? It really gets exhausting... [/quote] Fighter/carriers, by a fair margin. Zydor only posts that in response to carrier posts and he's bound to miss a few.

[quote who="jrdufour" reply="6" id="3411117"]I think the biggest issue in gal civ 2 in regards to fighters, was that you could build you own 'fighters' by using the smallest parts, but there was no point. The combat simulation didn't take ship maneuverability into account. So, a massive battle cruiser with a giant cannon, could blow away a bazillion fighters, despite the fact that in reality, the fighters would move so fast that a large ship would have difficulty hitting them with

[quote who="Tridus" reply="26" id="3411081"] Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 20 I'll add a conditional vote for the minority as well. Starbases will be significantly less valuable without the capability of building them quickly, which is what most of the alternative schemes lack. If I blow up a Torian starbase on an economic resource, I want that stack of constructors to build it from nothing to full production immediately, not 20 turns from now. Slow buil

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="25" id="3411075"] Quoting wuphonsreach, reply 14 - Starbase tech didn't keep up with ship advances. A starbase (in my mind) should be competitive with even the largest ship hulls if you invest the constructors into upgrading it. In my mind, a military starbase should be able to fend off multiple of the largest ships. Why do you say that? GC2's Starbase hulls were much bigger than the largest possible ship hull