Turkwise

[quote who="18Zulukiller" reply="88" id="3610910"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 5 My objection to tactical battles is that in a game as massive as galciv, I might have a dozen battles per turn. I dont' want to fight those battles nor do I trust auto resolve enough. But I don't object to tactical battles if the

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="3609002"] That said, you aren't the community. If you personally are that unhappy with the game, then leave. But don't assume you represent "the community". I've been dealing with guys like you for 20 years. Even in GalCiv II, there were guys posting the same nonsense you're posting abut how the community is angry that don't have this or that and that the game should have this or that. You are better off acce

It is extremely disappointing to me to see Frogboy encouraging naselus to leave the GC3 community. Naselus is one of the few to do any extensive modding of GC3 - modding was a feature that was touted, but hasn't been utilized much. (for reasons I won't get into) A healthy modding community can do great things for a game. Yes, he offers many critiques of the game and that can be frustrating for developers who spend years building a complex and ambitious game. I

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="25" id="3602157"] One, is the obvious cost. Sure, in a 4v4 situation of ships of equal costs, the carriers win every time, but the real question is, if you can build more expensive ships, why would you not? From another point of view, an effective carrier has a price cap of about 4-5K, but just because your opponent is building carriers at 4.8K each does not mean you have to build all your ships at the same price. In real game play,

As naselus suggested, I think it is extremely important that tests be done with "real-world" ship designs. The rationale for that, in my opinion, is that one of the reasons carriers are powerful (it should be and is one of their strengths) is that their fighters don't have to worry about engines or life support or sensors. This

Perhaps the best compromise would be/would have been to keep the wheel but limit what it can do for an individual colony. Instead of max 100%, min 0%, use the focus values of max 50%, min 25%. This might leave some people unhappy, but those values (having min/max that isn't 0/100) are really what has made the most difference in gameplay - more so than the removal of the wheel.

[quote who="alexgorik" reply="107" id="3600968"] you are absolutely right. it take as much time to click on the wheel as it takes to click on one of tick boxes. everybody who argues that wheel is time consuming- talking nonsense! and just playing fools! the wheel is too powerful is true but this issue can be easily sorted. there are a lot of way to sort it out with out need of removing it. one of the ways suggested by frogman - adding cohesion. anothe

As someone who does not frequently reach late-game, (and I haven't got there yet in 1.4 - I have a "new game" habit, okay?) does the AI build balanced ships at that point?

[quote who="alexgorik" reply="102" id="3600783"] Yet I BEG you PLEASE for the sake of thousands of game fans give us back production wheel and social/military slider. do not limit it to certain race! Keep both! Keep new system of tick boxes for simplified production allocation and bring back the "wheel". [/quote] The purpose of the change was not just to "simplify" things but to remove a burdensome game element that very few players used an

This game is, as explicitly stated by the devs, not about battle strategy. It's about civilization-scale strategy. Offering the kind of tactical control (retreat/hit-and-run/etc) you want has been repeatedly rejected as it would change the focus of the game too much. You're the emperor, not the admiral. What we really need is for fleet composition and ship roles to have the kind of impact and strategy that the devs meant for it to have.&nb

"Hmm...where should I put my farm? Eh, close enough."

One thing that might not be obvious is that planet specialization is very important. That is, pick what you want a planet to "be" (manufacturing, research, or economy world) and build the world to be good at just one thing. The governors should do a good job of this, but I haven't tried them (I enjoy planning my planets myself too much) so I don't know firsthand. Little tips: I almost never use the global production slider, unless I really need something do

"Tedious" Yep, that's the right word to describe the planetary wheel. The options for management of a research world, for example, came down to A) Under-utilize the planet and ignore the wheel, or B ) work the wheel whenever I needed to upgrade/build something new, then set it back when I'm done. The focuses remove that choice from me and now I can fully optimize my planets without worrying about upgrades. Now, some people will try to argue that the

I find myself agreeing with the sentiment in this topic: Diplomacy shouldn't directly modify relationships. Instead, I would prefer a system where "skill in diplomacy" would affect your ability to negotiate treaties, trades, etc., which would eventually result in improved relations. But you have to work for it! Instead of the current system of "diplomacy = relationship," the diplomacy skill should modify one's ability to take actions which imp

I'm guessing they put the project with orbital manufacturing in order to slow down the very early game a little bit. I don't mind it being there at all. It's kind of like complaining that "I don't have tourism unlocked from the beginning!" "I can't build defenses on my planet from turn 1!" The only difference being that you've been used to having the option to have 100% military manufacturing from the beginning, now they've moved

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the graphs show how much technology somebody is gaining per turn? Or am I thinking of a different graph?

[quote who="naselus" reply="59" id="3593030"] You could've set your slider to 50/25/25 any time you liked. [/quote] But then my planets wouldn't have been filling their full potential when they weren't building anything. That's the whole point of this. [quote] The only difference now is that you have to. You've gained nothing from this; all that's changed is that you no longer have the choices you had before, and so rath

[quote who="naselus" reply="57" id="3593009"] However, for those who DID micro like that, the focus system makes no difference as they still need to go visit a bunch of worlds after every upgrade; if anything it makes for more micro as they attempt to find just the right world to minimize the lost production rather than being able to subdivide the production of individual worlds most effectively. For those who didn't, it makes no real difference at all, since you're basical

[quote who="CWDIGAMES" reply="18" id="3590517"] I apologize I came across as offensive. I wasn't going for that. I believe the key to beating carriers, if you don't have them, is in ship roles. As those who have been playing for months can see GC3 is not a rock, paper, scissors type of combat. A fleet without a carrier of it's own would have to operate differently to win than if it was fighting only battleships and cruisers. It is expected battleships, and all ships, are at a

CWDIGAMES, sorry, but I have to say you have no idea what you're talking about. In the other thread you said you didn't own GC3, so I assume you have not had much or any experience with the battles. Here's the simple breakdown of why carriers are unbalanced: Carriers' total damage output far outpaces the total damage output of same-sized non-carrier ships. Carriers' total cost does not scale with damage output as

I don't like that sci-fi convention, but most people are used to seeing humans being "Terran" in sci-fi for whatever reason. Another thing I don't care for: When The Sun is called "Sol." The name of our solar system's star is "The Sun" (exo-planets never have a "sun" because our "Sun" is the only "Sun") Still, it is well within the rights of sci-fi writers and creators to assume that nomenclature and language has evolved over tim

One reply = " there's a market for this!" You're always entertaining, marigoldran. [e digicons]:grin:[/e] However, I admit there is a lot about this game I don't like, and it's painful because there's so much about the game I do like. I haven't played very much since 1.0 released. I could deal with silliness and blatant imbalances in beta, but I feel like "release" should have settled the most pressing issues,

I agree with this. This game is so very mod-able yet mod-unfriendly because so few mods will ever be able to coexist with other mods.

You need medium hulls to build the default Survey Ship. However, you can always try building your own Small-hulled survey ship.

[quote who="AU_Armageddon" reply="13" id="3562288"] On to next question - is there a way I can adjust my ship without making a new one each time? Over several games with the one civ I'm really starting to crowd out my ship list with like 30 very similar designs of tiny and small ships. I tried everything I could think of but can't figure out how to just edit a ship instead of making a new one each and every time, and if I keep going like this, sooner or later I'm g