joeball123

I personally don't like the monochromatic portion of the image, especially over the oceans - it just looks like there's nothing at all there, and that the continents are just kind of floating in space, especially since the monochromatic portions are somewhat transparent. I feel that having the hex grid show only on the improvable tiles is sufficient for showing where you can and cannot build things, though I suppose a highlighting option wouldn't be terrible. I count 13 ti

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="50" id="3457745"]I actually ran several rounds of test using a stop watch and symmetrical values are faster to set precisely on the wheel than with the sliders, Despite being on the interior of the disc. Took about 6sec in average to set an exact symmetrical value set on the wheel Vs. 9sec for the sliders. [/quote] And I would bet that most of that improvement came from being able to get all three values to the approximate set of values you wa

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="46" id="3457727"]1.Sliders are faster and easier to precisely dial arbitrary sets of asymmetrical values. ( ex: 22%, 34%, 44% ) [/quote] This is only particularly true if the sliders can be locked. Otherwise, you're stuck fighting to get it to about the right area to start with, and the fine-tuning can be a bit of a pain. [quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="46" id="3457727"]2.Wheel is faster ( and arguably easier ) to dial Symmetrical sets of valu

If the game were to start tracking population by species rather than simply total population, I could see having 'forbidden' world-types as in 'species 8472 cannot colonize Earth-like worlds, but thrives on Venus-like worlds, while species 5618 thrives on Earth-like worlds but cannot colonize Venus-like worlds'. However, without species-level population tracking, I cannot see why my faction could not colonize a world which is habitable for at least one species found within the

[quote who="trims2u" reply="6" id="3456216"]Also, I'd like to have terrain PENALTIES, too. It think that would be nice - you might have a nice Class 10 world, but if half of the tiles are penalty tiles, it adds a big additional dimension.[/quote] I'd really rather not have this. It's already a pain to click through every last tile on a planet to figure out what the planet is best for, since the terrain type is only visible when the tile is selected. Having tiles that could

The number beside the population icon in the sidebar is actually the research output of your planet, not its population. For some reason, it's using the wrong icon.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="7" id="3455832"]Yeah, the Terror Stars in GalCiv 1 were so much better. I really miss my Happy Fun-Time Base of Ultimate Doom (Terror Star fitted out with all culture modules).[/quote] Don't forget the mining modules for whatever resource you built it over. After all, who wouldn't want to be visited by the Cultural Embassy and Mining Base of Stellar Destruction? We're just trying to provide employment opportunities for all those layabouts in a

Well, if you really want to get pedantic about using game-terms, then the game interface never actually refers to the group of ships containing my survey ship as a fleet because I never group my survey ship up with any other ships. Since my survey ship is never part of a specific fleet, any upgrade found by the survey ship which gets applied to 'the fleet' can only be referring to my entire Navy, since there is no other 'fleet' to which my survey ship belongs. I don&#3

"The Fleet" can also refer to all the ships in the Navy, not just e.g. the Home Fleet or some smaller collection of ships. Also, any upgrade simple enough to apply to a ship in deep space with only its crew available to perform the work is simple enough to get applied to every ship in the Navy, and if it's "+2 speed units" then it's also worth applying to every ship in the Navy. It's also difficult to argue that this stuff is supply-limited, since the only such limit is that all t

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that extra bit on the bottom of the tool-tip. I think it really ought to update the stats in the portion of the tool-tip that describe what the improvement actually does, though, rather than having an additional bonus listed at the very bottom. It would also be nice, even if the base stats weren't updated to reflect changes due to level, if the tool-tip would tell you somewhere what bonuses it gets from gaining levels. I also think that it might be nice if the

Feedback: I don't like the way the tech tree is set up. It's too easy to click around in it and accidentally change your research project, because the last project highlighted is the one that gets researched and any time you switch branches of the tech tree you select the top item in the currently selected branch. It'd be nice if the bonuses from e.g. Mountainous showed up somehow on the planet tiles without me having to inspect each tile individually. I have no in

What does +N levels to improvement type Y do? I can see a little number up in the corner of the improvement types that changes depending on what kinds of bonuses to the correct improvement type are available, but I don't see any change in the actual bonus provided. Also, is there a way to turn off that stupid beeping noise at the end of the turn?

I personally greatly prefer sequential turns to simultaneous turns in any game where pieces can take more than one action per turn. Also, I don't understand how it is that you go from the description of sequential turns to 'the player who clicks faster wins.' 'The player who clicks faster wins' is an issue of simultaneous turns, not sequential turns. Or are you arguing that a game which operates on sequential turns in single-player would become a simultaneous-turn

I cannot say that I'm sorry to see the three interdependent sliders go. I am a bit sorry to see the tax slider go, because I rather like the ability to increase my empire's income without directly reducing manufacturing and research, although since I feel that your actual approval rating had probably too little impact on you I cannot say that I'm extremely disappointed to see that approval and variable taxes are gone. The issue with approval and the tax slider was more tha

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="15" id="3449613"]Well, it seems they removed the Tax slider, it no longer exists. Instead you have Work. Citizens provide work. Hence why you have no tax revenue. [/quote] Regardless of what you think it represents, 'savings' is an inappropriate name for it. 'Savings' are what's left over from income (or income + bank balance) after expenses, not a part of my actual income. If I have an income of X, and expenses equal to Y, then my sa

Shouldn't there be some kind of basic tax revenue (not the trade, tourism, or treaty revenue, but something population-related) listed under the income? I mean, 'Saving' isn't exactly income, unless you mean 'interest on my savings account'; rather, it's the portion of my net income that I decided not to spend and now have sitting in my savings account (or treasury, since we're a galactic empire in the game). I just feel that if there's a 'Savings'

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="34" id="3449451"]Pacifistic (penalties for being at war): Sounds bad, if you want to go for a Conquest victory, but it depends on the penalties.[/quote] It isn't just the Conquest victory that this is bad for. You can't seriously believe me to expect that every game that you've won by any method other than the conquest victory involved no warfare whatsoever, and this is going to make it worse for you if someone picks a fight. [quote wh

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="21" id="3449261"]As far as I understood it, those are ideas as for what mechanics each ideology could affect, not what they currently do.[/quote] Those ideas are also our only current indication of what it'll mean in-game to have the Benevolent/Pragmatic/Malevolent alignment, or, if you prefer, ideology, at least outside of the one event notice that we've seen. Anyways, it would seem to me that it wouldn't be terribly far out of line f

[quote who="Tridus" reply="13" id="3449198"]Haven't they already said that this is all changed in 3?[/quote] The stuff in the Founder's Vault (like Brad.pdf) suggests that at least part of the change is just cosmetic. For example, page 7 of Brad.pdf includes an image of a colonization event involving research that I'm fairly certain that any who played GCII will be familiar with, but with Good/Neutral/Evil relabeled Benevolent/Pragmatic/Merciless. For the event in question

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="68" id="3448507"]That is why I also mention the Dyson swarm, circle, I usual don't mention the bubble option because I can't fathom it. Something else I can't fathom is why it has to be an Au in size.[/quote] 1. It doesn't have to be 1 AU in diameter. However, that number is often chosen on the assumption that you might want the inner surface of the shell to be inhabitable. If built around a Sol-like star with the intent of having

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="61" id="3448336"]2. The reason for this is the energy requirements for space travel which could probably be answered with a lot less materials around a gas giant instead of a star.[/quote] Again, why? If WIllythemailboy's energy balance statement is correct, then a power station around Jupiter is going to need to be roughly 12.5 times larger than one around Earth in order to absorb the same amount of energy, because the intensity of solar rad

[quote who="Tergon" reply="59" id="3448094"]Well, could you first tell how to make a force field? Would make it easier to explain how to shape it.[/quote] A force field is a region of space in which an object will experience an applied force, the magnitude and direction of which can be determined from field properties (this is not to say that the only force experienced by the object while within the field will be that due to the field) and certain characteristics of the object. The gr

SoaSE gave you a percentile penalty to your entire empire's income each time you increased your fleet cap. So while you maintained the minimum fleet cap, your economy provided you with 100% of its earnings. At the next level of fleet cap, the economy provided you with, say, 90% of its earnings, and each subsequent increase in the fleet cap increased the penalty. Note that the economic cost was not related to current fleet size, only to the current fleet cap, and if I recall correctly ship

There is an old thread that asked more or less this same question; it can be found here: https://forums.galciv3.com/449004 An economics-based perspective on how to determine whether or not it's worthwhile: This depends on what criteria you use for "worthwhile". If we ignore interest and inflation, $60 is worth 6-12 DLC packs at $5-$10 each, or three expansions at $20 each, or

[quote who="Iggore" reply="79" id="3447606"]Would it conceivable to toggle the option to switch between a map with limits and a circular map? I think it was possible in Civ 4, but I havent played in so long.[/quote] I don't know about Civ IV, but Civ II had the option during map generation to switch between a flat map (no wrapping) and a cylindrical (East-West wrapping) map. Whichever you chose was what you'd get for the entire game on that map. [quote who="Rudy_102" r