Rincewind57

Maybe this is partly due to the US / EU divide as I know many Americans resent and distrust government but I've always been happy to pay tax . I'm proud to know that I'm giving something back to a society that has helped me, paying it forward and providing education and healthcare etc to others. I was perfectly happy when my tax bill recently went up. I appreciate all politics in games will be naturally guided by the perspectives of the development team and I'm not complaining, just pointing

" I don't think you need a dev to come here and tell you their design philosophy. I think it shows pretty clearly in their product." I´m not so sure of that. I´m a software engineer myself and I know there are often many aspects to a product you´d like to improve but they just aren´t high enough priority to ever really make it into scope. My instinct is that the game is balanced for one or two map sizes (standard/large probably) and the rest i

Add a 'max starbases per planet' option, hidden away if need be. I'd have it permanently set to 1. Boom, problem solved. (Actually the starbase system is still one of my biggest hates with GalCiv3 but that's a discussion that's been had 1000 times and will be had 1000 times more elsewhere :P)

As a player who almost always plays on small maps, I'm often curious about how map size seems to be ignored during balancing and I'm curious if this is intentional or not. For example, the ideology trees have very different impacts based upon map size. On an insane galaxy one extra class 10 planet is a very small boost, on a small or tiny map it is a significant increase in power. The building that gives you 1 ideology point? On a tiny map you have

Their economic buildings are also broken upgrade-wise (Unless this has been fixed in patch 1.01 or 1.02, which I haven't tried yet). I mentioned this in a post bringing up this bug during beta :-(

Great game but I still think, despite reviews, unpolished. Synthetic planet events. Sensor issues. The Iridum have a useless economy due to tech tree problems. Some glitches in Altarian tech tree. The UP peace resolution not working. It's a great game but trying to play on higher difficulties is a nightmare, not because of strategic concerns but because those bugs present enough of an issue. For example I had to abandon my first non-beta game as the Iridium as I could only progress to the

Bug still present in release! This means the Iridum currently have the worst economy unless you destroy all of your tech level 1 economic buildings. They're meant to be the economic powerhouse. Please address this, it's ruined the game I was very much enjoying :-(.

Most colonisation events also don't work for the Yor, which was known at beta...

On default settings (again from lots of GC2) my picks are: Small: 3 AI players. Medium: 5 AI players.

Korx? Em, I meant Iridium Corporation of course. Hah :-)

"1) The way buildings are right now, its almost always better to build rather than wait. 2) To the question of "soften" vs "kill", again its almost always better to kill than soften in the game right now." Also agreed. I didn't realise the vast majority play on beginner. In that case release seems fair enough. Curse my too great love of 4x games! :P Here are some further thoughts on the AI: 1. Multiple wars could use work. If I

I tend to agree. I'm worried that the AI has lots of fancy features whilst struggling to play the basic game. There are lots of nice touches, conversations, attention to trade, etc. But, as you say, planet specialisation for manufacturing/research is a problem. Trade is a major problem... sure it's getting better but, one example is open borders. Open borders = 1 trade good + 1 gp. Works for me every single time. At least have some randomisation or something. Als

Several bugs. Features still need thought out. AI needs work. Yor are broken. Many features 'coming soon'. Not ready i think.

One worry I have. Can we have an option somewhere to change AI based on map size, or have this implemented automatically? I'm wondering what percentage of players will play (and more importantly finish) an insane 128-player map. I tend to favour small maps and I'm worried that trade-offs will be chosen to suit a small percentage of players on insane maps, where more complex AI would work fine on the smaller maps. In general map size worries me. I've posted before that t

Very strongly agreed indeed. At least remove the Yor then patch them in. Releasing with broken features is a way to get very bad press.

I'll add my name here just to increase the numbers complaining about constructor spam. What I find most interesting is the lack of posters defending it. Fingers crossed on persuading the devs :-) :P

Thanks :-), will do.

Will send my save game once i've read how to :-)

So, 200 turns in, I can't declare war on anybody. I've checked United Planets and I think it might be linked to the pragmatic 'nobody declares war on me for fifty turns'. Also, despite numerous niggles, it's finally becoming an absorbing 4x for me :-). One of those games where i'll complain about 100 things whilst playing for too many hours... :P On another note, Pillars of Eternity is ridiculously good. Glad GalCiv3 is still

Humans?! The Vindaloovian Empire has pledged to exterminate them all... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSZbzIHGj8U

Yeah, in Galciv 2 I always found the minors to be rather a waste. I was hoping for something more in 3. Maybe give them colonisers but a 75% limit to production, research and economy or something like that. A sizable handicap but not pushovers. Haven't heard anything about such plans though... :-(

Will there be better 'map size scaling' implemented? By this I mainly refer to research. For example there are many techs relating to the max range ships can travel. On a small map, which I mainly play, you quickly reach the point where this exceeds map size. Yet the AI still likes to waste research points... Also other techs could use power changes based on map size. My classic example is the wonder in Galciv2 that increased the perceived power of ships on a planet. On a h