Just a quick Ui suggestion: with all the sponsors for asteroids, stardocks and starbases the map becomes hard to read due to the many lines that show the sponsors. my suggestion: -make the line a bit thicker and not dashed (better to read) and hidden by default -only show the lines when the appropriate item is selected: -- click/select a stardock: all lines to the sponsoring planets are drawn -- click/select a plane
Great work with the patch Stardock, for the first time i actually enjoyed the game on a larger map. However i still have minor gripes with it: -in the starbase screen there is no shortcut to cycle to the next starbase, you always have to click the buttons at the top to cycle through starbases -some modules are ignored in the autoupgrade queue: fighters/interceptor modules and range extension as well as morale upgrades (this
i agree with the op. economic starbases just add boring passive economic buffs but they are such big hassle to construct and choose optimal placement. galciv2 was better this way as there was no minimum distance required per starbase making the placement much less problematic.
if i remember correctly from the stream it is end of october
I reported this bug now since beta. you can still go over the population synthetic cap making techs/buildings that increase it worthless. Screenshot from a new 1.3 game: [img]http://i62.tinypic.com/15ceyph.png[/img] edit: in case you are wondering how it works: transport ships (colony ships might work too, i got the population via the malevolent ideology point that gives you 4 invasion ships and parked them in orbit
some more points: 4) de-emphasizing production: the officer core i would like to see an officer core with number of officers and their quality. each ship uses a few of them and the better they are trained or gain combat experience the better they are. if you scuttle ships you get your officers back, if you loose it they are lost. if you have lot's of high production worlds that produce ship after ship, but lack a star-fleet academy in san
1) Map infrastructure and fleet gameplay: currently space feels a bit empty. the only infrastructure you build are starbases with most of them being economic ones that just provide boring passive buffs. i would like to build infrastructure on the main map that changes gameplay, e.g. 1.1: Movement infrastructure: warp lanes (basically roads in space), warp gates (teleport from gate to gate), jump gates (accelerate ships to a destination point but they cannot change curse until
[quote]We ARE going to get rid of the per planet spending wheel. I know many of you like it but it is just incredibly tedious to deal with and violates the general spirit of GalCiv (there's a reason we never had this in previous GalCivs, it's not like we hadn't thought of it). In its place will be something different. We'd like to hear what YOU would like to see in there.[/quote] i have been harping about this for ages, so i whol
i listed quite a few things back in the beta ( https://forums.galciv3.com/462788/page/1/#3543975 ) and a lot of them still are not implemented, but named in this thread, like every list should be sortable, starbases are way to micro intensive. but there are also suggestions regarding mouse movement distance that can be heavily reduced, i just quote myself: edit: spoiler tags
any news on the yor and their population cap? is it still possible to go past the cap without any penalties?
[quote who="Goatmeal" reply="5" id="3553762"] Both malevolent tests were with only 1 habitable planet in the home system (my capital). The first colony is always in another system. The distance does not seem to be a factor as other nearby systems do not get this bonus. It is always capital and first colony. [/quote] this is simply not true. i just wrote one post above you that this bug can affect
it not only applies to other planets in your home system, but even to very close planets in other systems as well.
this has nothing to do with the op's question. morale affecting production is one thing that affects all races. being able to go over the population cap with synthetic races is another. imho this is a bug (i reported it quite a few times). there are a few techs and 1 building that increases synthetic population cap, but you can go freely over that cap without any penalties (at least i have observed none).
i just did this according to derek. i can't find his post anymore though. i would assume that it is ship designs or custom races or any other user data that is not compatible between 6.2 opt-in and the 6.2 release version.
i renamed the old galciv3 folder in mygames and disabled cloud saves in steam and so far it seems stable. hope it stays this way
in comparison to earlier 6.x opt-ins i don't get any semi predictable crashes from invasions, but it the seems to crash much more often. it almost always happen when i have something idle (planet/ship etc.) and click at the idle x button in the lower right of the main screen. i never had these problems with the 6.2 opt-in, this was very recently with the 6.2 release version. the 6.2 opt-in was very stable for me. i also made sure to start a new game. <
[quote]The large empire penalty is -0.2 per planet, which seems too severe. On larger maps, any race without Patriotic is at a massive disadvantage. I think lowering the penalty to -0.1 per planet would improve balance greatly.[/quote] i agree with the problem, not with the proposed solution. stardock simply need to put scaling to their gameplay mechanics, mostly research/technology cost and approval (large empire penalty). regarding tech i made a suggest
you can see the population cap in the planets population display (population current/maximum). be aware that the cap was not working with the 6.2 opt-in. i have not tested if they fixed this bug with the 6.2 release version (you could go over cap via transports and assembly projects).
only the tile bonuses are broken. the building in it self is fine (and even a bit weak imho, compared to the other ideology early buildings)
that is good to hear frogboy. can you please elaborate on your last point (the data driven part)? are you sampling meta data that goes back into the ai decision making?
[quote] Things like war weariness or morale penalty for every occupied planet.[/quote] personally i would go with something like this (just a quick draft): 1) Different kinds of war: -War of extermination: every world invaded fights to the death, i.e. much higher casualties on both sides. successful conquered planets are immediately under your control, for declaring such a war you gain heavy diploma
i am not so much against endless war, but would like to see more dimensions to it. something more than: do i have the better military? if yes declare war. to come back to EU4: it is basically a war game, but war has so many dimensions to it, e.g. allying with a big power -> start a war -> give them tons of provinces during peace and watch them break apart from internal turmoil because you gave them too much land [e digicons]}:)[/e] , making them ripe for conquest.
yes, i think i had too much of an advantage: 1) played a custom synthetic race -> population is quickly replaced (1-3 turns) 2) not really, since war was declared on me and i bribed all other civs to join my "defensive" war 3) patriotic trait + malevolent eager 4) imho that is very minor because i always set up manufacturing worlds, the few turns spend to crank out invasion ships instead of combat ships are negligible. <
i don't think it will be as far-reaching as changing the identity of the game, but i get your point (being a traditionalist i assume). i think there is a place for any game between gameplay stagnation and over innovation and broad statements (without naming particular issues) will get us nowhere imho.
[quote]there is only one reason for all of the above: The game is called galactic civilizations 3.[/quote] can you elaborate on this? are you saying you are content with the current diplomacy because this game's predecessor was galciv2? [quote]Brad could elect to implement what you are asking, but then he should also change the name of the game to "milky way universalis".[/quote] i never asked for anything specifically