peregrine23

[quote]Fleet Battles The marketing team is struggling in how to describe the fleet combat in GalCiv III. My suggestion has been to describe it in terms of Hearthstone. Your fleet is your desk and your ships are your minions that you crafted. However, where the analogy fails is that the actual "tactics" of fleet battles are handled AI vs. AI. So your skill is about how you design ships and assemble fleets. Looking closely at what your enemies are design

We’re a few months out from seeing culture and diplomacy at work, but since it sounds like beta 1 is pretty much complete and diplomacy will be a major part of beta 2, now seems like a good time to start talking about it. I’ve been going back to GalCiv II a lot lately and from an RP standpoint culture/economy is my favored play style. From a gameplay perspective though, it feels like it needs some love. I don’t know if the GalCiv III model will be the same as the Gal

Remember we're in alpha, pretty sure there will be tutorial in the the release build, but maybe not before then.

Voice acting can be effective in 4x if it is very limited IMO. The Nimoy stuff in Civ is sort of the perfect example: great voice acting, good quotes, and you only hear any given line once in a game. The problem with doing things like a greeting when you talk to a leader or a battle cry on attack, is that these actions occur repeatedly in a game and often in a short span of time. Even the best voice acting quickly becomes grating when the same line is repeated over and over. While I personall

I'm running GTX 550 Ti with 340.52 and having no problems, so it sounds like it may be isolated to the 600 series cards.

[quote who="trims2u" reply="2" id="3483767"] Frankly, 10 years ago, multi-monitor support was a *much* better idea than it is today. The economics of cheap, very large flatscreen monitors vs CRTs has changed the dynamics, such that virtually everyone goes for the largest single monitor they can afford (which is now hovering around 24" for the typical gameplayer). That is, the gaming population tends to upgrade their main monitor size, rather than add a second monitor to their

From what devs have said. the new combat will have additional attributes like range, rate of fire, and defense piercing. Let's not try to fix anything until we see what combat will look like.

[quote who="thetechangel" reply="14" id="3483782"] 1) the ability to support multiple planetary sponsors[/quote] Already in and has been since they were introduced. [quote] 2) the ability to group together[/quote] What do you mean? You want to make a fleet of starports? Why? [quote] 3) the ability to build starport extenders (flightless constructors) that deploy defensive and offensive (starbase) modules, mining ring modules (for planet ind

[quote who="Z-74" reply="17" id="3483892"] Was there a Dev streaming yesterday? Anyone has a youtube link about it? [/quote] http://www.twitch.tv/stardock/b/553512308

I disagree about orbiting planets. I do think this would look cool, but it would add a level of complexity that I think would be more of a pain than a bonus. Settling the moon is a cool idea though. Having a special double planet type for planets that have a planet-sized moon seems like it has a lot of possibilities.

Just want to go on record as someone who absolutely does not mind the zig-zag movement. I barely ever notice it, and when I do it does not bother me enough to detract from my over-all enjoyment of the game. I hope they don't spend development hours on this, as there are so many things that have a much larger impact on the game-play experience.

[quote who="abiessener" reply="76" id="3481198"] On champ XP sharing -- the problem with having everyone get full XP is that with how limited (easy) XP for heroes is, it becomes the obvious and overbearingly powerful strat to always stack your champs up to maximize the (easy) XP you can farm off of quests/lairs/wildlands. And on a thematic level, LH is more about having heroes lead armies rather than D&D-style bands of adventurers roaming the landscape. [/quote] The prob

[quote who="charon2112" reply="2" id="3478944"] You could adjust this by just including less civs.[/quote] That's a different thing. What I'm thinking is being able to have a huge galaxy, but all the civs start bunched up and you have to choose whether to fight it out or expand away from the other civs. Or the ability to put all the civs at the edges of the map so they have some time to establish themselves relative to the size of map and number of civs.

[quote]I am concerned this will often force a more military-focused game start.[/quote] Shouldn't this be the case when you start next to the Drengin? To me, what you've shown is that if you start on the smallest map crowded with civs and choose the civ designed to have an early military advantage, you have about a 50/50 chance of being able to dominate 1 other civ early. It seems to me that that's working as intended, especially if you have to wait until the next age to a

While using real distance as OP suggests would be awesome, it is much more complicated. As long as we have a grid I much prefer hex to square for all the reasons others have already mentioned. Also, especially in a space strategy game I think the hexes just look so much better.

[quote who="XWerewolfX" reply="8" id="3477700"]I can almost guarantee those of you who did aren't running high resolutions. [/quote] I have no problem reading the text in this game and I run it at max resolution on a 19" monitor. There are isolated instances of very small text like current research on the main screen and production categories on the planet screen, and I agree with trims2u that all-caps is overused; but honestly even those things would have never occurred to m

I didn't read all of every post in this thread because there are many very long ones, so I apologize if I am rehashing something I missed while skimming: I think it is a good thing that starports are defenseless, they don't take that much effort to defend. The are also very cheap to build, so having your starport destroyed shouldn't set you back that much. That said, there are some legitimate concerns about the current design that I have seen raised. One is that defending

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="4" id="3475050"] Hmmm...[/quote] Thought provoking post DARCA. Anyway, this is an interesting idea. Paul has said they have big plans for espionage, which is why it won't be in the base game. I'd be interested to know what they are thinking. I completely agree that espionage is often too passive, and usually doesn't pay off for the resources required. I like the idea of having your spies working toward specific goa

From what has been said in dev streams, it sounds like the current plan is 2 kinds of mine-able planets (gas giants and small, rocky planets similar to Mercury) Paul said this outright last week. I also think some of the things he has said in the past suggest terraforming in the form of unlock-able planet types like we saw in GalCiv 2. I think this is a good move. Habitable plants should be rare, but with some work more should be habitable, and many others should be exploitable. Personally, I

[quote who="EvilSalmon" reply="9" id="3474429"]I have to disagree with your entire premise.[/quote] I'm pretty sure you didn't understand my premise, so here it is: There are many ways future tech could develop, particularly relevant to this discussion, in the areas of targeting vs. evasive capabilities and damage mitigation vs. weapon power. That is one of the fun things about a future setting: we get to write the rules, because we have no idea what the rules will actually be

I like this idea, but think it may be better for an expansion that the vanilla game.

[quote who="bjoe40" reply="104" id="3474641"] Where do you report bugs and let them know what you want to name your star. I finally got the founders addition. the bug I found was on the planets screen. you know those spcial tiles, well the bonuses for research and influence are reversed..[/quote] Directions for name are star is here: https://forums.galciv3.com/453185/page/1/ Report bugs in the Early Access Foru

[quote who="ForesterSOF" reply="6" id="3472831"] This could lead to a GC online [/quote] Shut your mouth. No more great single-player franchises turned into crappy MMOs!

[quote]2. Carriers and tiny craft(aka fighters and bombers) If made like the traditional carriers of today this ship class will more or less change the game. What more or less ruined the gameplay of the last game was nothing matters, in the end bigger is better. This goes against all modern warfare. Giant ships one shooting tiny hulls is like me trying to shoot a fly in my house with a hand gun. There is no way that a giant cannon is going to hit a fast nimble ship. Thi

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="30" id="3473703"]thats the actual cost to max out all three tiers i will admit that i used the +20 buildings in the math which you wouldent have access to until i think the third tier anyway which definately would throw it off the point is ATM the costs to reach max in all three tiers is reletively low and i would expect the average player to complete them all in most games especially since they provide bonus's based on how many perks you