Have you actually tried climbing up multiple trees? Because I did and it became impractical fast . The game mechanic is balanced as it is. There is no real advantage in pursuing multiple trees. It becomes cost-prohibitive fast and you won't be able to reach the higher tiers without spending all your production building and destroying improvements that grant ideology on completion.
From a game-play perspective, I don't like stargates or jumpdrives because they remove the need for a balanced military presence and increase the incentive for maintaining just a few super-powerful fleets.
I think you want a different game. This is not an economy simulation.
joeball, you make a convincing case in theory, but I'm at a loss as to how this would play in practice. There are no real benchmark techs in the GalCiv2 tree or what we have seen of the GalCiv3 tree. Also, the parallel trees mean there is no tech that everyone is guaranteed to research. One possibility may be that the age could be named after the first tech you research in an age or the last tech you researched in a previous age. This ends up making as little sense as the age of war becau
I think most people in this thread are taking these names a little too literally. In game terms these are just gates to compensate for the fact that GalCiv's tech tree is a bunch of parallel branches instead of a web. They do not dictate player or AI behavior. The current names do a good job of describing typical behavior in the early, mid, and late game. Age of Expansion - In the early game most players will be settling their near-by planets and building up the inf
[quote who="WarfishExile" reply="47" id="3470573"]I think a lot of this goes with the "realism factor". Ships should have to refuel and re-arm. In war, overextending supply lines is a real thing, and that concept should really be introduced here. I understand the support ranges, but those ranges should be attached to something. I think this has to do with GC3 "growing" up into a mature 4X title, as opposed to a hilariously corny 4X title. XD[/quote] Couldn't disagree more. First,
[quote who="Rik811" reply="2" id="3470579"]but never had GC II (not sure how I missed that.)[/quote] Go back and get it. Not only is it a fantastic game that absolutely stands up, but it will also help you make sense of the Alpha of GalCiv III which has no tutorial and inconsistent tool-tips.
From what they have said, it sounds like you will mount carrier modules onto a ship much like a constructor or colony module. There has been some discussion as to whether you will be able to load your tiny-sized ships onto the carrier modules, or whether the fighters on carriers will be separate; and if separate, if they will be able to be designed in the shipyard. As Gaunathor says, it sounds like they are still experimenting with carriers and anything they've said so far might c
[quote]Stardock is interested in game consoles for the first time in its history, thanks to the power and ease of development on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One[/quote] My heart sank on this one. As a primarily PC gamer ( I bought a PS3 fairly early on, but never ended up getting more than like 6 games for it, my Steam library, on the other hand, is ridiculous) I have seen a number of PC franchises that have been ruined by an effort to port to consoles. So on behalf of others like me, I as
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="3" id="3470130"]As stated on page 16 of the original manual: "Influence is not the same as the borders of one's civilization. In Galactic Civilizations II, borders go only as far as ones planet."[/quote] This is interesting and I had never seen it or never noticed it before. If this indeed is Stardock's vision of how borders work in GalCiv, I think they should make it more explicit, as the way area's of influence are depicted on the game scree
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="14" id="3470603"]a insulting quote for something that 6 out of the 8 people that have posted like. [/quote] Looking at the posts that preceded this one I see 3 posters in favor of the idea (john1979, Rand Johnson, and DARCA1213), 4 against (myself, econundrum1, Trims2u, and erischild), and one neutral (Alstein). This kind of disregard for what is actually going on in the conversation is why some people don't try to engage you in logical
I'd like to suggest a different way of looking at the fundamental problem which is that in most 4x games, winning becomes inevitable, so the game becomes significantly less fun. They way most people have addressed the issue is to try to make winning harder in order to keep the challenge high and thus keep the game more fun, What if, in stead of concentrating on how to make winning harder we concentrated on making playing more fun, regardless of whether you are winning or losing or
[quote who="econundrum1" reply="9" id="3467917"] I too like the concept, but it enormously increases scope for the developers particularly in terms of art assets, always expensive and time consuming probably beyond the scope of DLC and into expansion territory but expansions normally significantly impact actual gameplay so I think there would have to be some elements that actually impacted gameplay built into it to make an expansion worthwhile.[/quote] I fundamentally agre
I have conflicting responses to this: On the one hand, none of the sci-fi universes I happen to be a fan of include Mecha, so I have no particular emotional attachment to them. Because of that my first instinct is to say that they haven't been a part of the GalCiv universe so far and so I'd rather not see them introduced now and they would feel out of place. Mecha have always felt to me a little more fantasy set in space, while GalCiv is more of a hard sci-fi universe. <p
I recently started a thread about building starports outside of your own zone of control and it raised another question that I want to address without derailing the original thread: What does zone of control mean in your eyes? To me there are 2 possibilities and conflating them causes some problems. 1) The represent political boundaries and function basically like national boundaries in present day society. This means that the controlling entity h
[quote who="Stalker0" reply="6" id="3470004"]They may even add in a penalty if the starport is not in your territory.[/quote] I think this is a good idea: a penalty above and beyond the distance penalty for not in your territory/in enemy territory, especially given the precedent of being able to build starbases is enemy territory. I guess I can see being able to build a fleet in enemy territory as long as it is inefficient.
[quote]Overall, I'd like to see these events be MUCH more common - one every few dozen turns or so. They introduce a real sense of chance into the game which I find a real significant add to the enjoyment.[/quote] While I completely disagree with you about the frequency with which I would like to see random events, more choice is almost always better, so putting a setting for super high frequency of random events on the slider in game setup would be great, especially of the
In the stream on Friday Paul talked about building a starport in another civ's territory (11:34 in this video ). I know the team is still learning how these mobile starports are going to effect the game, but this seems like a bad idea to me. I think civs should only be able to build starports in their own territory, or maybe only be able to channel production to starports that are in their own zone o
[quote]maybe the govern could tell the ship to launch with so many people???.[/quote] I am confused by your OP in that governors don't launch ships, you have to do it manually. When you do you get a dialogue box labelled "Load Ship" which does exactly what you are talking about. It has a slider where you can load your ship with anywhere to .5 bil your colony ship's max capacity. [quote]Also maybe the govern could target the next available Planet? [/quote]</p
I think this type of rubber-banding sounds really interesting, especially if the AI difficulty is determined primarily by how the AI plays rather than by cheats and bonuses. That being said, When you hit that tipping-point where you know you are going to win, it may be tough to raise the difficulty enough without it feeling really unfair to the player.
Thanks for the update, it's great to be kept in the loop as plans change.
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="9" id="3460095"]I typically write like I am doing now, half in the shower[/quote] [quote who="DARCA1213" reply="11" id="3460100"]My doctor visits are worthy to put on YouTube[/quote] DARCA don't change a thing, these forums would be much duller without you. To the OP: They have made a commitment to increasing the ease of modding. That being said, your premise is flawed, The base game is what will determine the success of this game. Mod
[quote]I wish there was some possibility to spend unused production from the beginning.[/quote] There is no reason for wasted production. You have economic stimulus, research project, cultural festival, and birthing subsidies without any research. You can also hit the "govern planet" button an move your the wheel so you are not putting out any production. Finally, you can always build ships.
It's a game, not a model. The point is to be fun, not accurate.
/sadface, was looking forward to watching today, thanks for all you guys do. Can't wait to get my hands on that designer.