It's going to be even more open. All the stuff that was moddable in GC2 will still be available, as well as things that were hard coded in GC2. Random events, additional structures, probably a few other things that I can't think of right now - all were hard coded in GC2 but are going to be moddable via XML in GC3.
[quote who="Achronous" reply="38" id="3429531"] Is this the Nitrous engine, I forgot. Can we name it Loquat instead? It has multiple seeds inside which fits in perfectly with multiple threads [/quote] GC3 is using a custom engine designed specifically for it. The Nitrous engine is still in the early stages of development.
[quote who="satoru1" reply="1" id="3429366"] fire station? [/quote] Clearly his computer combusted.
[quote]I should also point out that this has a major change from the previous 2 GalCiv games: There is no such thing as production waste in GalCiv III. Population provides the base production of a planet and planetary improvements provide % bonuses in particular areas based on that. By contrast, in GalCiv II, a factory might provide 5 IP. In GalCiv III, same factory would provide say a 5% production bonus with the production stemming from the planet's population.[/quote] Interesti
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="140" id="3429083"] word[/quote] Please stop doing this. The topic died. If you have something new to post, by all means post it, but don't post solely to try to revive a dead topic.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="15" id="3428766"] Hotseat is not asynchronous. We have to be playing at basically the same time, in the same location. We can't play hotseat if you're not at my house, and we can't realistically play it if I take my turn at 8am and you take your turn at 4:30pm.[/quote] Under certain circumstances we could. Well, not we specifically, but if you were to play a game with your wife it wouldn't be a barrier at all. [quote who="Tridus
[quote who="Tridus" reply="7" id="3428760"] Quoting Aygis, reply 6 I would rather like automated homing missiles - small self-destruct spaceshipe that I deploy onto one hex and that subsequently attacks fleets that don't have the right transponder-code. A further range-upgrade could allow attacks into neigboring hexes. Point-defense systems or AI-core-hacking would counter this space-defense systems. This would also be some kind of wall because it must not be invisible, just a
[quote who="Tridus" reply="13" id="3428759"] Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard, reply 11 Hotseat is a local form of multiplayer, where each player takes their turn playing the game on the same device. I don't know what StarDock means by asynchronous so I can't answer that. I don't know what Stardock has in mind specifically, but asynchronous multiplayer is any method where players don't have to be playing at the same time. Play By E-Mail (PBEM, mentioned ea
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="7" id="3428581"] I just want to be able to demolish them and rebuild them. If I had a nickle for every time I invade Thala and the Hyperion Matrix made the moral plummet... The AI is really bad at GA placement. Everything else is just fluff to me honestly.[/quote] Really, all buildings need to be upgradable. Things like the Iconian central mine thing - they could be bulldozed and something else built there, but you couldn't just
[quote who="Tridus" reply="44" id="3428529"]Pick a huge map, throw a bunch of AI players in on one of the high difficulties, and see what happens to the game in a couple hours after the mines come out. The entire thing will slow down drastically once they start throwing mines everywhere, including the UI, at 1x speed. It's a known, acknowledged problem that they can't fix due to the game being single threaded, and it's existed since Entrenchment (in vanilla it was still possible t
That wasn't an "option" to be turned off, it was a flaw in the AI that got ruthlessly exploited. The minor races didn't fall for it because they were hard-coded to not trade planets. I never used the Swindle technique, but regular planet trading was pretty exploitive too. The AI based a planet's value mostly on its population, with a bit of adjustment for how the influence environment was around it (i.e a planet was worth more to the AI if it was in their influence, and le
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="7" id="3428165"] Just in case this is a consideration I think it would be a big mistake to remove trade out of the game. More or less you have options I don't use to remove some of the more important trade out of the game. I don't sell influence points. I would like to not be able to trade planets. Like anything there is always for improvement. [/quote] On the other hand, some of us buy planets *with* influence points!
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="4" id="3428115"] Hopefully trading influence points doesn't make me want to slit my wrists this time. *Remembers trading a few hundred points per transaction* *Shudders*[/quote] 991 at a time. Technically 999 was the highest possible to trade, but 991 was fewer clicks/keystrokes. Trading influence is one of only two things that have ever tempted me to get a keyboard macro generator. The other is prospect
How would infinite tech trees possibly affect tech victory? Assuming the trees work pretty much like GC2 (and from what we've seen they are pretty similar), all major lines except for tech victory could have infinite techs at the end without affecting tech victory at all. Or if that line has bonuses on it, have the tree branch so one leads to tech victory and the other to the infinite tech. The only difference between tech victory enabled and not is whether researching the "tech v
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="12" id="3427494"] Honestly, in the era of unlimited interconnection over the internet the whole premise of LAN and Hotseat gaming has taken a backburner role in game development. Very few people use it when they can very easily play simultaneously with each over the internet, without letting some other assho-friend take their chair and desecrate their glorious master race PC with their filthy peasant hands. :3 That being said, it
The biggest problem I can think of is that turns are sequential (at least they are in GC2). The Altarians take their turn, the Drengin take their turn, the Terrans take their turn, the Yor take their turn, the player goes last. At the end of the player turn all the move counters get reset and the cycle starts again. I think it's safe to assume something very similar will happen in GC3. You should immediately see the problem. At the time I take my turn, everyone else's movement
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="2" id="3426818"] So like Master of Orion then? I like the idea. Keep in mind exponential growth in cost with a 5% interest rate would quickly become ridiculously expensive and basically impossible to maintain.[/quote] Yes, but that seems to be the point. It would be ruinously expensive if this was the ONLY way to improve your weapons, but as the infinite option at the end of a tech tree it's a way to keep research spending
[quote quoting="post"] I am looking forward to your comments. [/quote] 1. The constructor spam is going to be reduced, with the module system being changed to a linked-to-a-planet's-production system. We don't have much more information about that, and even that much isn't carved in stone yet. 2. Sounds really interesting. 3. In the previous games, the energy costs were included in the weapon/shield/engine modules. So your laser module had a sepa
[quote who="screamingpalm" reply="45" id="3425956"]Now, having our entire library of games being centralized, controlled and overseen by Dear Leader Gabe and too-big-to-fail Steam is another issue entirely, and perhaps something to think about.[/quote] TBH, I'm not sure which worries me more: overcentralization on a single vendor, or the same game being sold on 4-5 different platforms with exclusive content on each platform. It's usually a console issue, but it's not hard
That's a pretty good idea. Nothing is worse than a dlc pack that you don't really like but can't get rid of. And distributing mods like dlc might lead the high profile modders to get something for it (does steam allow free dlc with a donate option?)
Are influence mechanics going to be similar to GC2? How much calculus will be involved in solving the influence system this time around?
[quote who="heft" reply="11" id="3425705"] Quoting Chibiabos, reply 10 Not just 4X games, but PC gaming is completely dead ... and for that matter, the PC itself is dead! Oh, man... Again? I still never got over the last few times it died. I had to drown my sorrows in new PC games on a new PC. [/quote] PC gaming has died even more often than WoW has been killed.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="31" id="3425623"]Those are extremely rare in TotA, along with PQ 2 worlds. I'm not sure, if they are even supposed to appear in TotA anymore. In DA, on the other hand, they are much more common.[/quote] In DA they were pretty common, but I've never seen anything under 4 in TA. The best part of the PQ1 planets (and why they were cut) is that the AI would not colonize them until every other available planet had been claimed. They frequently terrafor
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="48" id="3425185"] Can't say I would be particularly excited to see a WoM remake, even with new bells and whistles. I'd much rather see E:FE:LH: etc. continue to evolve on its own trajectory.[/quote] Starting a pool: How many expansions will it take to fit the entire alphabet into the acronym?
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="4" id="3424887"] How would we deal with building planetary improvements on planets? We know that planets in Galactic Civilizations 3 have the "class" mechanic, so you can't just que up buildings on a sector-by-sector basis, you would still need to do it planet for planet. If there's a very simple solution to this, then I can't see it.[/quote] It sounds like it would be more of an "delegate control to the AI" system. You still might