mattiscool555

Continually moving towards the obtainment of my money.

as per: https://forums.galciv3.com/449479/page/2/#3411697 [quote who="Frogboy" reply="38" id="3411692"] Those who like the idea of designing carriers and seeing carriers in action in fleet battles I think will be happy. Those who imagine fleet battles that play like MOO2 (i.e. where you're micro managing individual units) will be less happy.[/quote]

Like I said I'm sure community input will be there, but I also believe they have a vision for what they are trying to create.

Honestly I can't say. GC2 was so fricken good it's kind of hard to imagine what's in the future.

[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="7" id="3411634"] Quoting GJDriessen, reply 6 Can't we have fuel or something like it in GC3? I find it adds a lot of depth to the game, e.g. as in Distant Worlds. Of course it should not be too tedious. I find this is a bit difficult to envision. After all, we are a long ways from 2178, and we have already discovered and collected antimatter. Do you have any theories on potential new fuel types?[/quote] Wel

I look at it like this, and to be fair I'm basing this off the assumption combat and ships will be be similar to GC2. Rather than creating some over complicated system just add a few alterations to the current one. We already have fighters in the form of tiny hulls. I'm simply proposing changing their mechanics. Basically they would function almost exactly like they currently do, FTL engines and all. Instead I would reduce their maximum range some, to abstract t

It's not a huge deal man and it's cool that you apologize, but just remember I'm sure they already have a pretty good idea of what they're planning to build. I'm sure our input will be taken into account but in the end they'll make the game they feel best represents their vision. Anything anyone says on here is speculation and what he wants isn't any more important or accurate than what anyone else says. Ignore him.

Started playing GalCiv2 again. I hadn't played in a few years but it holds up really well imo.

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="31" id="3411567"] Quoting mattiscool555, reply 29I'd see fighters in space kind of having a reverse history to fighters on earth where they'd make up the bulk of your early navy, but would take more of a secondary scouting/support role as larger and more advanced ships become available. Hard to scout without FTL. Even with FTL small ships like frigates or corvettes would be much better for this because they would have all the things

If tactical combat were implemented I think that would be the best way to do. The only part that makes me nervous is the human element.

It's possible I'm just not being clear, and my last post sounded kind of dickish, so i've found an easier way to explain it: No matter how good tactical AI is it is still going to be one AI vs thousands of players. It's limitations will be found and exploited easily by the community.

[quote who="yarodin" reply="282" id="3411541"] Quoting mattiscool555, reply 280 FDR was really involved in both military and domestic affairs. FDR? To be involved into domestic affairs doesn't mean you tell your people "put the factory at this place over there, it looks nice". Setting tax rates is an domestic affaire.[/quote] Ok. Look. You can continue to keep bitching about the reason I openly admitted was stupid all you like.

Pretty much what they're good for in real life. Cheap power projection. I'd see fighters in space kind of having a reverse history to fighters on earth where they'd make up the bulk of your early navy, but would take more of a secondary scouting/support role as larger and more advanced ships become available.

The part that bothered me most was honestly the choosing of an alignment and then it just stays there.

Like I said, ultimately I don't care, but I believe the single player game will suffer. Multiplayer wouldn't but tactical combat doesn't serve single player TBS games that well.

[quote who="yarodin" reply="279" id="3411520"] No president decides how to develop the new colonie either (where to put your buildings etc.) or where exactly to send ships to. Playing president would restrict you to set the tax rate, maybe decide whether to colonize a planet (but not how) or not and to declare war.[/quote] Actually that's not really true. FDR was really involved in both military and domestic affairs. The fact

Honestly Civ has always handled it well enough so I'd say use their system as much as possible: First you'd no longer build individual fighters but squadrons. So simplify it a bit you could build fighter squadrons(small, fast, good for recon, and fighting other fighter/bomber squadrons) or bomber squadrons (sacrifice speed, range, and sensors for better damage vs. larger ship types). Add a "Hanger" component that allows you to carry a certain number of squadrons per ha

Ok. so here's my two cents on tactical combat: I'm not against it for many of the idiotic reasons people have brought up. My issue is in the "auto-resolve" everyone touts. Auto-resolve never(let me repeat in capitol letters NEVER) works right. In SotSPrime they had auto-resolve which was often a better tactical choice than fighting the actual battle because to make it resolve quickly with no waiting they basically set each fleet up some distance from eac

[quote who="John Falkenberg" reply="16" id="3411332"] Fanboys cant seem to live without there space-fighters can they? Well, GalcivII got by just fine without them and so will GalcivIII. 'Spacecraft' carriers serve no purpose. Tiny one man fighters don't make any sense tactically or strategically. No space-faring empre would invest in them. Too much expense and complexity for way too little bang. Single pilot fighters belong on the small an

In this regard I'm a little lazy. I'll admit it.

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="8" id="3411310"] Excuse me, its me that is trolling for even thinking this was a good idea to bring this up to the forums.[/quote] No. It's not you trolling. You were just stating what you thought. Nothing wrong there.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Literally absolutely.

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="36" id="3411304"] Quoting BritishBlue, reply 4 I personally would prefer they get rid of mining starbases and make ordinary SB's more powerful/useful. Having strategic resourses pop up in the middle of empty space didn't really make much sense and the AI was generally rubbish at defending and weaponising them anyway which tended to swing things firmly in the players' favour. Also, building loads of contructors became tiresome.

The only thing that honestly ever bothered me in GalCivII was that range was either totally or quickly useless on some map sizes. I kind of wish it scaled down better for smaller maps. It just seems like until you get to huge and larger map sizes range really isn't that important as you can still cover most of the map even with basic range extending components. Perhaps this is just me though.

Guy has a right to his opinion. You have a right to disagree with him when he gives it.