This podcast begs the question...can a ship be too shiny? Also, do I see a proper mini map now? Or is it still like Civ V where it starts close up? I'd rather be able to control the mini map zoom.
[quote who="satoru1" reply="86" id="3481953"] I'm not sure what the fuss is about? I mean Civ games have always had 'eras' and that's worked out fairly ok for that series. [/quote] The eras in Civ are different. They aren't hard blocks that prevent you from researching a tech because you haven't built up enough "era points" or what have you, by researching other techs. In Civ, once you get to a certain point, the era just ch
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="4" id="3481934"] Quoting Xabulba, reply 3 I like the mobility of star-bases but they do need to be heavily armed and armored from the start otherwise the camp and blast approach will determine who wins. The camp and blast approach works in Gal Civ 2. The b
Any plans to smooth out cultural borders? Or will they stay sharp lines...?
GC2 would shrink your ships to a preset size no matter how big you built them. Will GC3 do this?
[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="19" id="3481847"] Quoting Wetballs, reply 18 Quoting charon2112, reply 1 Personal
There was just a thread created about innovation, and now *bam* here's a dev stream about it.
[quote who="aLap" reply="9" id="3481687"] For sure that GC2 was a good game, and that all the good stuff should be included in the new one. But instead of hexes for squares there could have been a full 3D map - it would've been a greater impact taking the idea from SINS or SOTSII than CIV V - which would fit more nicely in a next generation 4x in space (but still being turn based). [/quote] Sins was a 2D game. The ships moved a little up and down off of t
Remember everybody, you can't really "race" up the tech tree, so hard barriers aren't that necessary. If you try to run up one tech path, suddenly you'll see 70 weeks plus to complete. So the idea of quickly running up any tech path isn't reality. TBS strat games are all about choice, if you dedicate everything to trying to quickly move up a tech path, then you aren't doing other things that may be equally important.
Personally that's what I want. Galciv2 with more content and better graphics. They don't have to re-invent the wheel.
Destroying stars doesn't necessarily create black holes.
[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="33" id="3481029"] If it bugs you, then mod it and see what happens. [/quote] Obviously it can be modded out, but the point of these alpha discussions is to see what works and what doesn't work and what should be in the finished game.
[quote who="Caveat_deErinyes" reply="8" id="3481078"] OK, here's one for the request list: User able to Pick Launch Direction from Shipyard / Planet / Starbase [/quote] I believe they covered launch direction in one of the latest podcasts.
bee-lining is a valid strategy and should be available to the player if they want. Remember, it comes at a cost. If you head straight for one certain tech, then you aren't advancing in any other area. It certainly isn't something that's overpowered and needs to be done away with.
It would be nice to know (in detail) what's planned, so I don't complain about missing features that are on the way. For instance, is 'huge' going to be the largest galaxy size in the release game? It's the largest I see listed in galaxy setup. Also, will there be many more options for game setup in general? There's seem to be many more options overall in GC2...
[quote who="Grathocke" reply="11" id="3480668"] but when it comes down to it, why are we researching the same techs we did in GC1 and GC2? Even if technical know how was lost in a dark age as civilizations crumbled, many techs from the earlier age would still be known and available, even if on a more limited scale.[/quote] Well, it's not like GC3 starts at the end of GC2 (at least in sandbox mode). In GC3 you're still starting your civ at the beginnin
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="21" id="3480978"] I wonder if we remove the ages whether in a multiplayer game the only strategy for the player would be to bee-line to planetary invasion and start taking away all their planets. [/quote] This is the problem with multiplayer in general. The games all devolve into a race for military techs and conquest.
I believe this kind of management can be done through the production wheel.
Does Stardock have a list of what's planned to be in the game, but isn't yet? That way I won't list things that are on the way.
[quote who="MarvinKosh" reply="18" id="3480920"] Remember, this is an alpha. [/quote] Discussing how new mechanics are working is part of the alpha process. We're just talking about pros and cons of the new system, is all.
I keep getting these '+25% sensor range to all ships in fleet 'anomalies but none of my ships sensor ranges seem to get any bigger. I don't know if this is known or not.
*To other SD employees* -soooo when's the party start?
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="1" id="3480681"] I worry about the 1000 hex distance that would have to be covered in a extra large game without the mobile star ports, shrinking the gap. [/quote] You could just send constructors and build them, constructors move faster anyway, they SP's themselves wouldn't have to actually fly to where you want them. And if your empire grows larger and you want a new SP on the edge of it, you can just de-commissi
I would like to see the opacity of the hexes turned down. Right now they're pretty bright and distracting.
In my current game, I'm the Iridium, with the Altarians right next to me. In the very early game I sent two unfleeted fighters into Altarian space and destroyed their starbase. I've parked the two fighters next to each of their worlds in their home system. Every few turns they build a new starbase, and in the same turn I destroy it with one of my fighters. Because of this, I have completely crippled their civilization, they can't do anything. They can't build a single ship to