peregrine23

I loved the GalCiv II ship editor, but there was always one minor annoyance: Because the components leveled up incrementally, each time I developed a new level of weapon, engine, miniaturization, etc. I would need to go in and see if I could slightly upgrade my ships. This would result in a lot of very small variations on ship designs and a lot of clutter in the building window. Do you have any ideas to help make fewer iterations of ships make more sense? One idea: Players can

[quote who="joeball123" reply="23" id="3461003"]That's more akin to what Russia is doing in Ukraine than to a reasonable political stance.[/quote] I love the idea that those unmarked soldiers and tanks that invading Ukraine are just Russia's Influence starbases. But you bring up a really good point, which is that the borders of this game aren't political borders in the same sense as most 4x games. They grand you no rights to the territory. Others can

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="12" id="3459630"] What is the point of having the supply line, if you can go outside of it. I found when I set my ships to explore randomly, I got a ship 4-6 hexes away from their supply line. That is a huge difference. I don't mind they leave the supply range, but they should end in the supply range when finished with the turn, otherwise it should be a failed path. I would say this is NOT working as intended, but a very low priority issue.[/quote

Don't see any downside to this. Although if they don't, you could always bind space to guard or sleep couldn't you? /signed

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="62" id="3460681"]Thanks perigrine23 for the constructive suggestion and ideas![/quote] You are very welcome

Transports can be as fast as you want them to be. If you use the cargo hulls, there is plenty of room for troop modules and engines. Then put them in a fleet and the fleet will protect them. I'm sure there would be room on a transport for a carrier mod or other weapons, but because transports are consumed when they invade, it's usually not a wise use of you resources. With the roles that have been talked about for fleets, I'm guessing that any ships you set to the support role wil

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="58" id="3460284"] We have carriers and shipyards* all shortening the distance to enemy territory. I imagine this all to be useless unless the transports can be in carriers too. If they aren't then there will be lag between fleets and transports still. (that's bad.) [/quote] As I understand it, only constructors will be able to be built on planet, meaning transports will also be build on the shipyards so there shouldn't be lag betwee

I like the way you're thinking, though I think I disagree on many of the specifics. 1) Seems like a lot of what you (and many others) have suggested for dead planets are either covered by asteroids or starbases. I personally like the useless planets. For me it helps the feel of the game because it makes the habitable planets seem that much more special when you find them. That being said, I think that some dead planets will be incorporated into the strategic resource system they w

[quote who="DarkLunaPhantom" reply="4" id="3459422"] Why is the limit for human players so low?[/quote] Not speaking out of any knowledge, but I'm guessing the limit is there because waiting for more than 3 other players to take their turns makes the game too slow. Even with three, you could easily be talking 30min or more between turns. Maybe a warning rather than a hard cap would be a better approach though, so those that are willing to deal with that kind of pacing can.</

[quote]I would like to repair ships faster, preferably having a "repair" button that can fix individual ships or fleets for a price. After a few battles ships lose effectiveness and waiting for them to heal is the only option. EvilMaxWar had suggested that it should only be available in orbit of a planet or a space station/shipyard. I believe so too.[/quote] This might be a useful function of military starbases as well.

[quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3459490"]I don't expect 30 races from the outset of the game, but 8 would be a nice happy number. [/quote] Wish Granted, there will be 8 at release (and hopefully during beta) [quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3459490"]We need to be able to reorder the Manufacturing Queue. I might have already mentioned this.[/quote] Allready in the game just click and drag. [quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3459490"]Right

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="7" id="3459494"]the idea was somewhat along the fact that a culture base amplifies the culture of the race (race a) that built it however if another race (race b ) still manages to flip the immediate surroundings and can push back the culture to the point where it would be acceptable to say that it is in fact the citizens of race b that are manning and operating the star base why should it not flip to race b[/quote] Wait so are you saying that i

I really agree that one of the big pluses for GalCiv 2 is that it felt almost more like a sim than a 4x. It was enjoyable just to play, and I never felt like I had to be trying to win. As to star names, there's no accounting for taste and I think anybody should be able to get their name in, but I do think the star names should be able to be edited, so if there are names you hate you can take then out, and if you want to make your own custom list of hundreds of star names you can.<

[quote quoting="post"] Like the +15% ship range from adventuresome. The movement system works and should always speak in hexes. So instead of +15% I would say +1 range per module. [/quote] This would severely screw with game balance as it would strongly incentivise many small modules over a few large ones. I think 15% is pretty clear personally. [quote]A more visual way to display a social or economic abilities could be by showing a time line that spread ov

There are some good suggestions in this thread, I especially like the idea of surveying uninhabitable worlds, but I want to disagree with the sentiment of the OP that worlds that you can't do anything with are wasted resources. I strongly feel that having useless planets adds to the feel of the game. One of the things I love about this game is the feeling of wide open space with only a few scattered useful resources. It makes it extra special when you do find that asteroid or habi

Parrot, you have a point, but there are much simpler ways to do this than keeping track of every single population. For instance: Every planet in addition to having an owner has a "native species" tag. When you colonize a planet you get tagged as natives. When you conquer a planet, its new population is split between the owner species and the native species. As the planet grows, the owner species will see more growth than the native species, and if the owner goes over 50% they

I think what you are describing OP, is a great political simulator, but a game unto itself. Dealing with internal politics in that level of detail would really distract from the core gameplay of GalCiv III. I would totally play the game you are describing though, as long as that was the focus of the game.

You have many great ideas here. I think there is a real concern though, about information overload, especially on the main game screen. I think it's better to have only the most important info on the main screen, or you risk a.) making the game feel like a spreadsheet, and b.) making it harder to find the actual info you want because there is too much there. One example of this to me is having planet class prominently displayed on the planet screen. That number isn't nearly as useful

[quote quoting="post"] Catch it at 12pm Pacific time (3pm Eastern, 9pm CET for our friends across the ocean) on the official Stardock Twitch channel. [/quote] Pretty sure 12pm IS noon.

Edit: screwed up and double posted, sorry

As stated above, this is intentional. When you zoom out to a certain point, you aren't seeing your ship, you are seeing an icon representing the kind of ship. When you zoom in enough to see your ship, it will be facing the correct way.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="37" id="3457993"] Yes, Paul Boyer said so in this podcast. It's been a while since I listened to it, but, from what I remember, he said, that they have a idea which coincides with their plans for espionage. However, they don't have the time to implement it, so they'll have to wait for an expansion before they can add both.[/quote] Thanks for linking this podcast, it was a great listen. Especially interesting to listen to him address the c

Malevolent is the direct opposite of benevolent, so I like the symmetry there. Also it seems a gross perversion of Darwin or Nietzche to attribute the philosophies of conquest and domination to either of them. I am guessing you are trying to find a term that removes the value judgement that malevolent brings, but I think the value judgement is part of the point. These are civs that wish to do harm to others, which is the exact definition of malevolent.

I haven’t seen much id100 yet, so I thought I’d start a thread. At first I wasn’t keen on the new trees, as I had been having fun with the ones in Alpha, but the more I look at them the more I like them. They do seem to reinforce certain play-styles, which is good. So here are my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing what you guys think: Benevolence: Overview: Happiness and bui

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="3" id="3457563"] Not sure i can see why you would need to lock it just move the dot up until you get the number of credits you want then laterally to splitt between research and production...or am I missing something?[/quote] It's not really laterally, you have to move in curves like Darca noted. It isn't difficult without the ability to lock, but adding the lock would be a bit of a time saver, especially if you want t