[quote quoting="post"] Hi, I have a serious problem with the population gap. My first planet has 8 pop cap, all of the other planets has 3/3 population. I cant raise the population cap, even with building farms. My race isn't synthetic. What should I do? Thanks, Robert [/quote] In Retribution, you actually build cities to raise your population cap. So it works like this. 1) A city will raise your cap. Th
[quote who="Franky999" reply="1" id="3746854"] I fully agree about the invasion system. I spent too many hours trying to fix it with my mod. In the end, the only easy thing to do is to add 1 legion to each Capital. But after that the problem still remain: The AI will rarely add legions to it's planets. I don't understand, it seem to me that it should be easy to teach the AI to protect it's most valuable planets! [/quote] I do find
Update: Something was really weird with the presentation of text in my last thread, so hopefully its better now. To start off, the fact that I care enough to post this should be seen as a tribute to the new expansion. I honestly stopped caring about GCIII for a long while, but the expansion has brought it alive for me again, and the fact that these things "bother me" actually showcase that the new expansion has brought the game back to life for me. It would be easy to creat
One for me would be providing a few extra types of ships early game. For example, I almost always custom build a "cheap" version of the constructor and colony ship. Many times you don't need them with a lot of engines and life support, bare bones lets me get them on the field quicker. It would be nice to have those versions already there. On that same note, I'm not sure why supply ships even have life support, considering I'm sending them to another of my worlds.
So the starting planet cap of 3 for most worlds means that if you attempt to use the Torian 50% starting population trait, or the Benevolent +2 pop on a starting colony trait, then you are already over the pop cap and losing population. Seems to be an issue where the new mechanics aren't working quite right with the old stuff.
Edit: So I've realized the tactic is even better because you get starting legions. I've been playing suboptimally, its even crazier than I thought. So removed the citizen note. So a tactic I've been doing is this. 1) Scout out for any neutral forces in my area. 2) Research planetary invasion 3) Load the legions on a transport. 4) Go around and immediately take every neutral planet, suffering 0 resistance. The tactic
Anyone else concerned that we are this far in the game and seriously discussing changing one of the fundamentals of gameplay? This feels like a GCIV discussion, not an "update" to GC3
[quote who="tetleytea" reply="109" id="3686932"] I find it ludicrous that the universe, or even the galaxy is as small as ludicrous. I think of it this way: - There are WAY more dead planets out there than are on the Galciv map. Your Galciv map just included the "interesting" dead planets, whatever that means. - Habitable planets are exceedingly rare. Okay, maybe ther
At the end of the day, I wonder if this added complexity truly adds to the experience of the game. As you pointed out, the engine sizes really don't start making an impact until the very large hulls. At that point, we could just give large hulls a -1 speed and call it a day. The largest hulls have a bias for defenses over attack, again could we just give them a 1 defense all and call it a day. Could we just lower the amount of mass larger ships get, and keep all of the compone
[quote who="jadam" reply="10" id="3684554"] I would be happy to buy expansions if the base game is fixed first. Whats the point of expansions if the base game is not on par. [/quote] This is the fundamental conundrum that the thread talks about. All of the "money" is made in features, not fixes. To pay for fixes, you need DLCs or a Subscription model so that there is financial incentive to continue to work on the project. However, players of course don't want to pay
Ultimately this comes down to our classic debate: Gameplay vs Realism. If you look at history, when it comes to the empire game, bigger is better. That's just the way it is. Now most modern 4x games have built in mechanics to prevent big empires from running away withe the game....to a point. Bigger eventually will win out militarily, but mechanics often weaken that multiplier. Crusade's citizen system serves two purposes: Its both a cool and fun way to
To me the difference between cheats and handicaps. Handicaps are bonuses in things the AI and Player both do. Industry, Science, etc. A cheat would be giving the AI something the player cannot do. Magically creating new units, having knowledge of a place without scouting, allow them to skip techs in the tech tree, etc.
Leaders are great, but don't underestimate the power of specialization. A scientist put on a science hub world can generate more science than 20 other planets if done correctly, probably more. And bonuses early are much stronger than bonuses late.
I agree with most of the things said. One of my biggest issues with weapon types is the "needless diversity". One good example is attack speed. To me, attack speed is a pointless mechanic in a strategic level game as this. At the end of the day, its about how much damage I do. When I look at an enemy fleet I don't get to see their attack speed, I see their damage numbers. So that's the number that should be focused on. If we want missiles to have
Sometimes people need to remember as well that the people that post on message boards are not the core representation of your game buying base. We are the "hard core" of the buyers, so we tend to value polish very highly. But Frogboy has the numbers, and likely has contacts around other 4x game makers that indicate what people actually spend their money on.
This is a good discussion, as if there was one system that feels like a "sore thumb" to me its the ideology system. My general take is the following: 1) Ideology needs to be separated from expansion. It scales poorly both due to player styles (tall vs wide type play) and map size. Its just a bad way to generate such a core mechanic. In its stead I think Taslios' idea is a good one but I would actually mirror it with the citizen system. Every 10 turns give me a situatio
With the current administration system I agree. Starbases are precious commodities, the specialization is simply unnecessary at this point
I like upgradable capitals, but I still want capitals to be placeable when you colonize. It's so frustrating to see a great hub possibility die because the capital happens to be in the middle of nowhere
I think the planet size is ok but maybe increase the connectivity more. Always sucks when a planet's tiles are scattered to the winds
So I think the crux of the argument is this....is there enough approval bonuses to allow a planet to have a city and still have decent approval?
I actually really enjoy the new farm/city/approval system. I think the big things are the following: 1) Unless its your capital or a place where you are getting really large approval bonuses, 1 city is really all you need. 2) You really have to look adjacency for approval buildings, ultimately you have to rethink morale as a major concern instead of a minor setup. 3) Farm worlds are pretty nice. One good one can handle the cities for many other worlds.
Frogboy, I've noted this idea to you in small parts a few times, but thought I would provide the idea in detail here. First note, this idea came from Stardrive 2, it is not my idea. In this version of diplomacy, each race has a "tolerance" number with each other. This represents the races trust and willingness to deal with you. When you go to make a deal, each item on the table adds a value against your tolerance score. If it goes too high the deal cannot be made. Even
The primary suggestion is around Asteroid bases. Right now, if you have an enemy on the ropes the AI will continue to build asteroid bases that you can snuff out with ease. This is pointless waste of money, but its also annoying to have to kill those bases over and over again. On the starbase front, this is more from a realism standpoint. Doesn't make sense to build a huge station while an enemy ship is literally within range. The thought would be that a hostile ship whose in
Right now I really can't think of anything better to do with my money than rush buy the starport and a colony ship. I can usually find a decent planet to put it on which gives me a great start. From there it's not always worth the money to rush more...but it's foolish not to do the first one
I use them very sparingly, but if I can get several planets on one I consider it. havent used any military or inf starbases