WIllythemailboy

You didn't find an answer because we don't have one yet.

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="33" id="3436994"] Quoting Tridus, reply 31 How big? A Starbase should be able to defend itself effectively, but if I bring my two strongest fleets at it and it still wins, how are the things ever going to be defeated? One of my late-game fleets in GCII was an expendable 12-strong fleet of frigates with about 1000 attack and 3000 defense. I'd imagine most other players used similar setups because of realistic limit

1 - A repair module that fixes ships quickly. I know there was the upgrade workaround but if cash was tight a huge hull ship could take a game year to repair, even in orbit. I know something of that sort was build for Twilight but the techs and modules for it had to be modded in. Or at least if it was in the stock tech trees I never found it. 2 - Sensor units that actually matter. Even fully upgraded a starbase's sensors were no better than what was available for ships. In GC2&nbs

[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="3" id="3436681"]"Galactic Civilizations isn’t about fighting long tactical battles." Can we put the begging for tactical combat to rest now? Please.[/quote] Unfortunately, it won't. The trolls will argue that Stardock meant that we're getting *short* tactical battles rather than *no* tactical battles. Stardock persists in feeding the trolls with hopes that there will be tactical battles, and drives otherwise reason

The trolls are getting out of hand in here.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="61" id="3436327"]It's DARCAs sentence that I have trouble understanding. It seems to say that, because there'll be auto-resolve, my statement is false. Or, put in other words, the devs have hinted at tactical combat, because there'll be auto-resolve. This makes no sense to me, and I'd really like to hear an explanation from him of what he actually meant.[/quote] I think the major stumbling block is that DARCA isn't applying Stardock&#3

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="5" id="3436306"] Hey Willy are you kyro I noticed that a lot of people are missing like Maiden this time around.[/quote] lol no, Kryo is a Stardock employee. I used that because it's a system that appears in nearly every game I play. If you hadn't noticed, many of the systems and minor races are named after Stardock people. You frequently see systems named Mormegil, Kryo, Wardell, etc. And the Carinoids are clearly name

This is probably better than renaming the planets like I usually do. I end up with a lot of "Kryo III S25" planets, using S for ship bonus, R for research, P for production, and occasionally M for morale, followed by the value of the bonus. Research planets often get a space before the name so they are at the top of the civ manager list and trade list - I like to sell them to whoever I want a specific tech from.

[quote who="Seilore" reply="22" id="3436246"]I'm lost don't know what "ZOC" is[/quote] Zone of Control - the territory you control. In GC2 terms that would be your influence borders, presumably it is something similar in GC3. [quote who="Seilore" reply="22" id="3436246"]I liked sectors but, I'll take your word for it.[/quote] The switch to hexes makes for messy sector boundaries - the boundary between sectors wouldn't neatly follow the edges of the indi

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="69" id="3435692"]They are from the pocket universe, where they have been hiding since the end of the campaign in GalCiv 2: DL. It's all explained in the Databanks, if you don't want to play the campaign again.[/quote] It's a pocket universe solely populated by the crews of the Terran fleet - who spent the entire time they were there preparing to come back and kick Drengin asses (and any other asses that may present themselves). Plus, I'm g

[quote who="Seilore" reply="14" id="3435977"] Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 13Borderlands let you mod stiff why not them. Not saying they don't let you mod, there is a difference if you actually read the posts you'll see... GCII Metaverse games = no modding (this is where I'd like the customization to go further in assuming simular to GCII) GCII regular non Megaverse game = modding (do whatever you want)[/quote] I doubt they would

The best part about the alpha launch will be to finally bury this dead horse. Of course, people will still try to dig it up and beat on it some more, but at least we'll have concrete proof to shut them up with.

In the same time, I don't mind GC "spin-offs", dedicated to lower level of command, where we could don admiral's hat and command our glorious fleet from our flagship "pwner". Even lower level of command-game, natural tactical level, Nexus scale, or, I don't know, Blitzkrieg - something within captain/company level of responsibility would be nice, maximum up to colonel/regimental levels. But not in GC. That's the game of different scale - it's galactic civilizations, not bo

[quote who="Tridus" reply="1" id="3435440"]There should be an easy UI to do upgrades, but upgrades aren't free and I don't want the game spending all my money upgrading old ships automatically.[/quote] What we need is a way to do mass upgrades in a flexible manner. GC2 suffered from the choices of "upgrade one ship" or "upgrade all ships of this class". Those are fine for small numbers of ships. If you have 100 ships of the same class to upgrade, but you can only afford 20 eac

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="40" id="3434139"]Well, in simplest solution it won't - if researching techs in parallel will require same amount of time, as researching them sequentially or individually, then parallel study will give same results as queue study - simple reduce of micro control.[/quote] This is quantitatively untrue. To take simple assumptions: you have 50 RP output each turn, and each tech costs 200 RP. Sequential research would put 50 RP per turn int

[quote who="Tharios" reply="31" id="3431563"]Such a space-faring civilization cannot exist in reality, period.[/quote] This sort of statement was part of the basis for Niven's Man-Kzin wars. The assumption ended poorly, as the name might imply.

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="106" id="3430824"]That's not an intrinsic problem of tactical combat in a game, it's a problem with AI coding. [/quote] You're wrong about that. How much advantage the battle control gives you is partially an AI problem, but it giving you one is an intentional design decision. If you lost horribly to the AI every time you played out a tactical battle, but broke even or won when using auto resolve, how often would you control a battle? <p

[quote who="Tharios" reply="94" id="3430569"]Tactical combat can be turn-based, and have zero disruption on the strategic element of the game.[/quote] Good joke. I admit I laughed out loud. No one would be pushing for tactical combat of any sort if it didn't change the strategic elements of the game. Generally, that change is to slant all combat in the game to the advantage of the human player over the AI. Tactical combat, at least in most games, allows the playe

[quote who="00zau" reply="87" id="3430526"]Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.[/quote] Ahh, the old "just make it optional" argument. No one has ever used that before. It's a really silly argument to mak

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="36" id="3430446"] Wait I was talking about the version on Civilization where you are playing with multiple people playing on the same computer.[/quote] Earlier I made a post about that. The point is that you can use a PBEM system to make a pseudo-hotseat mode. The infrastructure and game design needed for those two modes is very similar, assuming people are willing to use an online system to run it. If we have PBEM, hotseat would

[quote who="Tharios" reply="68" id="3430063"]First, once again...if drives can cheat physics, then other forms of the same technology can prevent that cheat. I don't need mines for that purpose...just 6 solar-powered stations, at most. But as a result, I can force every fleet incoming to a few, or only one, point that I determine, and can position a fleet or mines or whatever I want there to intercept them. In such a case, when the technology is clearly viable, anyone who would not use it

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="62" id="3430025"] Why you don't like my beautiful mines? Have you ever tried them? Have you followed Jamie Oliver advice and add a bit of parmesan, little drizzle of lemon juice, and tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil?[/quote] It led to explosive diarrhea. Literally explosive. I had to replace the toilet.

[quote who="Tharios" reply="58" id="3429971"]1) I can agree in principle. WIllythemailboy pointed out that supposedly the constructor spam and such will be reduced, but he neglected to give any indication of how, or cite the article where it was seen. In any case, reusable ships that have to be "reloaded" for each use of each appropriate module, would seem to be the best course.[/quote] It's possible colony/transport/constructor ships will be reusable, but I wouldn't bet much

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="15" id="3429894"] SINS 2 anyone? That would make a wicked game. Just saying.[/quote] I'm really hoping they hold off making Sins 2 until they can build it around a fully functional Nitrous engine.

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="2" id="3429810"] As with any forum, you are going to see people making statements in such absolute terms in ways that make them sound like they are StarDock employees that you have to take their statements with a grain (or more) of salt. This time, since StarDock has told us that GC3 is being re-written from the ground up with a brand new custom engine, and has mentioned that some of the things that were hard coded in GC2 are going to be in XML in GC3 (inc