I love Doctor Who, but I'm not sure I would want a Whovian mod to GCIII unless it was a major overhaul of the game. It just doesn't seem like like the objectives of the game match the dynamics of the show very well. Galactic Conquest just has almost nothing to do with why I enjoy that show. That said, I hope someone proves me wrong.
[quote who="ozgunguner_99" reply="30" id="3517146"] I played endless space last week, i isolated an ai planet from other ai planets . Then what happened ? That planet produced a big fleet in one turn . [/quote] I really enjoy Amplitude's games. Endless Legend was the best 4x I've played in a long time, and I bought Endless Space on the basis and thought it was very solid. That said, AI is probably the biggest weakness of those games. Using Endless Space as an example
[quote]The kick here would be that let the Wealth be only dependent on Population factors, and Tourism be only affected by a planet's Influence [/quote] This is how it already works, so basically you just want to be able to build multiple tourism improvements on one planet? And you think this will make it less cheap?
[quote who="rhys2k" reply="9" id="3516273"] Be nice if you read the rest of the posts before just saying No. [/quote] Just so you know, the reason many of these responses are so brief is that this issue has been hashed and rehashed on this forum. From the side against an RTS or any tactical combat option, here are some of the major points: 1) It is a lot to ask to create a great turn-based 4x AND an RTS that is at least good. 2) It divides the players' ti
[quote who="Turkwise" reply="76" id="3517051"] Starbases do literally nothing to ships. [/quote] I've seen bases kill small fleets. That said, if there is something really wrong with starbases in combat, the battle viewer will make it obvious.
I'm totally jumping the gun on Beta 4, but I've been thinking a lot about combat since the stream on Friday. I think the way they were struggling to put together a good looking battle pointed to one thing that needs to be improved to take advantage of the new battle viewer and ship roles: we need larger fleets. A few ships ramming into each other will not be that interesting either visually or strategically. I don't know the technical roadblocks, but I think that it is clear that
Very good post, here are my thoughts on some of your points: 2) Couldn't agree more. UP is really underdeveloped and few turns between an issue being proposed and the vote in which you can influence people's vote through diplomacy would be a HUGE improvement. 3) There is a tech tree (get to it through a button on the default research screen), and if you found it, it would have answered your question about tech ages. Basically tech ages are a hard lock on certain techs
[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="3" id="3516758"] My understanding is that ship roles will be assigned automatically by the program, so that one cannot assign an inappropriate role to a ship in hopes of some tactical advantage. (Based on a recent dev stream.) The principal problem for the player will be deciding how many of each type is a good mix. [/quote] I remember Paul mentioning that on a stream, but it doesn't se
Some thoughts: Ships are currently targeting defensive ships before they target what those ships are protecting. Maybe this should be reversed so interceptors are targeting the support ships and the guardians are trying to wipe them out before they can destroy the support. This seems more interesting to me than the interceptors having to eliminate the guardians before moving on to what should be their primary target. Starbases are currently at the bottom of everyone’s ta
Summary: Assault: These ships will take out your opponents’ damage dealers first. They go after Capital ships and their Escorts, then other Assaults and Interceptors before moving on to Support and their Guardians. Interceptor: These ships will race to the back lines to take out Support and their Guardians First, then move on to taking out the largest threats. Capital and E
With the battle viewer coming soon, we will all be thinking more about combat. With that in mind I'd thought I'd take a look at the ship roles* so we could all better understand what we are doing when we build our fleets. *This information comes from the BattleBehaviorDefs.xml for Beta 3 and may be different in Beta 4 Attack Ships Assault Position: Front Maneuver:</em
The good thing about the lack of tactical interaction in combat is that it will add another major layer of strategy. They've mentioned this a couple of times, but fleet composition and ship roles will be very important. Because of this I hope they raise the logistics levels to allow for more interesting fleet compositions earlier in the game.
It looks very good at this early point. The one thing I think it could really use, and Paul mentioned this, is to have the ships arranged in a more 3 dimensional way.
In the GalCiv universe, political boundaries do not extend past planets. No one owns or controls space. This can admittedly be frustrating, but there are UP resolutions that can make your influence border more enforceable.
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="6" id="3516183"] playing the faction how you should [/quote] This phrase belongs nowhere near this game.
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="5" id="3516463"] I hope this time around they eliminate planet trading from the ai. [/quote] I think the solution should be to make sure the AI correctly values planets rather than eliminating it entirely. Another solution that can be interesting is that planets can only be traded in a deal that ends a war. The ages have been controversial since they were implemented. I personally like them and think that it is po
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="21" id="3516150"] I'm not talking about resources, but I'm talking about building one of the three non resource star base, and all I could findis bonuses for trade not base economic bonuses to planets. [/quote] They are there if you research them, though if I remember correctly they have a weird thing where you have to build a tier of the morale modules before you can build the next tier of economic modules. <img src="ht
I like this is idea, but for for dlc or expansion rather than the base game for a few reasons: 1) You will be able to achieve this in effect through custom factions. 2) It would require many more art assets which it seems from comments on the stream are a major bottleneck for Stardock. 3) Currently factions are defined by traits, bonuses, and tech trees. I'm not sure that any of these make a ton of sense to attribute to a leader. The racial bonuses make the most se
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="19" id="3516008"] and the economic star bases didn't have an economic bonus [/quote] I am confused about this statement as economic bases give a base production boost as well as having economy and trade modules. And that is all granting that manufacturing, research, and morale bonuses aren't economic bonuses, which I don't agree with.
From what has been said on streams, they will definitely have a role, but what that role will be is still under discussion.
[quote who="Soronarr" reply="32" id="3516087"] Pray tell, where am I being angry or hostile? [/quote] When someone disagrees with you you accuse them of being a "fan boy," instead of actually addressing their arguments. Also, you just asked me to define constructive feedback, which I did. The problems with your feedback are much more #2 then #1 or #3.
[e digicons]:no:[/e] [e digicons]:no:[/e] [e digicons]:no:[/e]
Hopefully at some point the AI will be able to tell the difference between civilian and military ships/starbases. Freighters, colony ships, constructors, scout ships, and economy amining starbases should at least cause less of diplomatic issue than armed ships and starbases.
I really disagree with OP here and I think it would make long range much too easy to achieve. That being said I think a support treaty that allowed you to use another races planets/starbases to determine range and/or doing the same with alliances would be interesting.
[quote who="Soronarr" reply="21" id="3515924"] Apparently, anything that isn't praise, or isn't a a bug report, isn't proper feedback [/quote] Wow you are angry and make a lot of assumptions. [quote who="Soronarr" reply="21" id="3515924"] So define constructive feedback then. [/quote] 1. Not hostile. 2. Informed about the state of game including what features are planned but not in yet. 3. Explaining clearly why you don&#