Schaefespeare

DARCA1213 is your avatar's name. I won't tell you my name for you although you might be able to guess. You have a very weird concept of sticking up for someone and if anyone deserves to be banned from the forums, guess who I would lobby for. What could 3-d add to the game? well, I think and believe it could add some realism, for example you could then program the planets surrounding a sun to move on their orbits around their sun, rather than the dullness of h

"July 16, 2014 13:12:53 from Stardock Forums <a class="top g

On my screen the first event section seems blank other than for the xml headers above. Whereas in the 1 game I've played since Version0.03 was patched, there is only one event on colonizing all planets, exactly the same event always "pod-like creatures that enhance intelligence but cause pain" prettty much exactly as in GC2 but without the variety.

And by-the-way, when I see an attractive female, unless she is lying on a bed or reclining on a couch, I have to look her up and down to appreciate her attractiveness; however unpolitically correct this may be, it's the way the world functions, and how we view it is entirely circumstantial and not dogmatically a 'horizontal' attitude. Someone's never used his printer and had to choose between "portrait" and "landscape" orientations.

I'll repeat my preference for GC3 being developed as a 3-dimensional universe, but would admit it stretches current multi-threaded multi-processor technology capacity of even i7-grade processors to solve adjacency issues with six-faced cubes;it is a considerable programming challenge but that shouldn't be any excuse to avoid tackling the issue. The Hex-based community trolls really seem to come out in force when anyone dare question their preferences. Well just because s

You could report it to the support site : https://esupport.stardock.com/index.php?/Default/Tickets/Submit/Index

Patrol points are something I first came across in Alpha Centauri, my first space-gaming love. They should be implemented.

Can't remember which tech gave "upgrade to impartments" rather than 'improvements'. Also glad to see that Stardock hasn't lost it's sense of humour when it comes to tech descriptions.

This upgrade/patch hasn't stopped my games C-T-D. Already posted to support with the Stardock Reporting Tool.

And while I agree with you Charon2112 on why should we change when the "if it's not broke" rule should apply. I suppose that because Stardock's leading competitor, Firaxis, did it with CIV-5, then it's the new standard for all 4X-games. I just hope they don't similarly impose a 1-unit per tile/hex rigidity [that really didn't need hexes to work]. But then again because the GC-series has always had Fleets, I maybe shouldn't worry.

Thanks for the info Rulestormer; wasn't quite thinking that big though, maybe 100x50x20 perhaps or probably in widescreen format more like say 160x90x20 [the latter a mere 288,000 tiles, although I do see the problem for programming where such a grid would be a contiguous array of 20 arrays that were 160x90-arrays whereas any 2-d map would just be One 160x90 array or 14,400 tiles]. However we all have our preferences, and while I am used to the Square Tile Format [that was always

I was happily playing Version0.03Alpha when it crashed for no apparent reason. trying to find support to whom to send Err.file

Nice demo charon2112 [reply #23] more or less what I was thinking except for the revolving effect.

Personally I would really like the game to be in 3-Dimensions [4 if you count time] so that you have a framework of 6-sided Cubes with Objects [stars/planets/dust/whatever] inside each cube, although you would need empty Cubes to travel between with starships or accomodate your starport/starbase. Would this ramp up the memory useage almost astronomically ? I'm sure this happened in one of the Beta versions of GC1 or GC2 although it disappeared after just one trial.

Why not try Octagons ? They are more visually appealing and to my way of thinking offer much improved "tile" movement although I've not tried to form an octagonal grid to see if it actually is build-able.

Wer900 it may be fairly easy to do, but it just doesn't sound Fun. I accept that it is somewhat illogical to have production capacity from a planet full of banking and service [Entertainment/Diplomatic/etc.] facilities and virtually no manufacturing capacity except for the justification that all improvements provide employment and so economic activity is thus provided implicitly. Thus GC2 rationalized Economic activity as based on population (a real world causal phenomen

Salivating Sensations ! A week in objective time is a long purgatory of subjective waiting. [e digicons]:'([/e] [e digicons]:time:[/e] [e digicons]4*[/e]

Sorry WER900 but I don't think your ideas here add anything to game-play, I still think the way to improve game-play and the Economics of the game is through an enhanced Trading system as we've discussed in other threads. If you want an economics simulation game I suggest you try the "Patrician" series of games to see how well it does it. I don't want to seem bullying but I think everyone should realise that we are all after a game that plays even better than "Twil

Gaunathor [reply#30] : it wasn't until the "Twilight" expansion that the starport-range mechanic was scrapped, it was definitely there in "Dread Lords". It was also in "Dread Lords" that Starbases were weak. In "Twilight" once you'd completed the tech-tree branches for Weapons and for Defense, then you had some quite powerful weaponry to defend your starbase although the Constructor cost was high. Sorry, can't resist trying to have the last word on this, althou

I don't disagree with having an updated version of resources in space and these being more prominent in game-play, perhaps what I was struggling to identify as an idea was making at least some planets be more valuable because of a Tile/Hex bonus, and now I think about it further, I think these planetary bonus resources should be something Tradeable if the Space-resources are going to enhance things like a speed boost from using them in a more powerful fusion/warp/hyperwarp drive as was st

In Gal-Civs so far Planet Class has only been about the number of useable Tiles [/hexes] available on any planet, plus in "twilight", other info on whether the world was habitable or which Terraforming Tech was needed to make it become habitable. If GC3 takes Planet-attributes further, by having mineable ores/minerals/jewels or a valuable commodity on hexes not just Tile production bonuses, then all well and good, especially if this will give you some sort of bonus in the later game.&

Okay, there's enough of you that like *Influence* as it is in GC2, so I accept that it won't disappear in GC3 but I will always turn it off when I play however much it's improved. That is unless it becomes Trade based as espoused in the other thread [and this one?]. Think I'll have to start another thread for my ideas and those collected from other contributors & threads that I agree with before this thread gets too off-topic from the original post, sorry abo

An idea I posted in another thread Which also belongs in this thread : . . . starbases were frequently used just to expand the travel distance for discovery and trade benefits. Personally I'd like to see the whole Influence mechanic scrapped and the Trading system overhauled and enhanced, at least enough so that the above objective could be achieved with a *Trading Starbase* [built from constructors of course). Then you could , say, trade with plan

Having read all the above, I still think this area of the game, "Influence", and its corresponding Influence Victory, is inevitably badly implemented in the Game and should be completely scrapped wholesale. The whole political versus cultural borders dispute is then resolved in favour of political borders being based on a specific number of Hexes around the planet you colonize. yes I'm canvassing for support of this idea and trying to Influence the way the game develops with

From Gaunathor's reply#23 ref. Quoting Schaefespeare, reply 22 yet you're gonna want to add all the defensive Military modules to protect this investment, so it becomes a very costly investment for a very limited payback. Why would you do that? From mid-game on, starbase defences in GalCiv 2 were a complete waste of resources. You&#