Stalker0

I actually think being able to trade ships is a bad idea to begin with...too many potential abusers where you buy an AI's fleet and then beat them with it.

Gal Civ 2 had a lot of stats. Gal Civ 3 continues in that tradition. I would like to take a moment to consider: would the game ultimately play better with a more streamlined set of stats? If we look at the current stats, we have the following: Primary Manufacturing Research Income Food Secondary Growth Influence Approval Tourism Diplomacy Soldiering Planetary De

Background: I played Gal Civ III in Alpha, then only briefly in early Beta. So its been a while since I've seen what you are doing. Player Notes: Generally hate war, builder type player. Focuses on function over form. A few points of praise 1) I finally understand how Approval, Growth, and Food work....which I never really understood in Gal Civ 2. 2) I really like the centra

For me, it was having to choose the Independence tree when I was one more choice away from getting benevolence...and I wanted to go down that tree. Was annoyed I had to commit at just that moment.

The balance is off I agree, but I will say that I love it UI wise. It is extremely clear to use compared to GalCiv 2 imo. I can look at the drop down, know exactly what is affecting my morale, and what to do to effect it.

[quote who="perigrine23" reply="5" id="3486633"] Not sure that I agree about getting rid of specialization, but I do wish they'd give you a construction point when you initially build the starbase. Needing 2 constructors to get a starbase that does anything useful is kind of a bummer. [/quote] The one nice thing now is the give Starbases some initial weaponry and defense...so you are getting a bit more free than you did in GalCiv 2. That said I would be fine to get a spe

The primary driver with the current population pressure mechanic...is to ensure I always add another farm to a Planet and keep it growing, at least through the early and mid game. Thing is...I don't know if such a driver is necessary. I don't know if anyone was done a full crunch on the numbers but Food/Growth seem very strong right now, growing my planets is very important in its own right. I don't need someone in the back shouting "keep adding food!"

So far it doesn't look like asteroids do anything unless they have a special resource. Is that right?

On the one hand, I like how pop pressure makes early farms very useful. On the other...it gets a bit ridiculous when your planet hits a max number and its approval drops like a stone.

I do normally rush the first 2 factories...but I agree races play a factor. I was playing altarians, which have a big research bump but no production. When I played as humans the pace was more balanced.

A few other feedback points: 1) The early game feels very very sluggish right now. I feel like it takes a large number of turns before I can do anything reasonable with my civ. 2) I feel that production falls woefully behind science. I am cranking out techs that give me building structures much quicker than I could hope to build them. I think this comes down to a planet's base production is too low. It takes a too much production infrastructure to ge

Just trying out the beta for the first time (played Alpha as well). Two UI issues that immediately hit me: 1) In the planet screen, there is a button to buy the thing you are currently working on (near the bottom right) and another buy button for the thing you are highlighting (near the right middle). I found myself constantly going to the middle button...seeing it was grayed out...then realized I meant to hit the button the bottom. <

So in general, where should new posts go now? Gal III Founders, Early Access, or Gal 3 general?

I'm going price is right style on this one....$1

I just wanted to note that I absolutely love the new music in GCIII, and for me music is a big part of the experience!

The problem with just scaling up the AI is that it feels very artificial. That said, its better than nothing. There has been a lot of talk about the idea of Asynchronous Win Conditions in 4x games. In effect, is there a way to either: 1) Introduce a difficulty element that affects the "winner" much more than the losers. OR 2) Provide the "losers" an alternative way to win the game that bypasses the elements the "winner" is domi

My take: I don't want a scientific explanation of SciIF to deny me a good mechanic:) If mining dead planets makes the game better, then someone can come up with a SCIFI reason that mining it is as good or better than mining asteroids.

I guarantee that before the game is released the mechanics will change. I'm sure the devs will have to do some major tweaking to the mechanics for balance. I like the idea of creating a starport near your enemy so I would like it to stay in. But lets factor in that there will be a loss of resources to build ships that far away from your planets. They may even add in a penalty if the starport is not in your territory. I'm sure once its done, the longrange

[quote quoting="post"] Guessing that some of this is in-train. But my big bug-bear from the GalCiv2 was the amount of time wasted trying to upgrade Starbases and the time wasted in constructors going from one SB to another cause I got confused and had too many going to one and not the other (the problem really shows up when you have 10 plus bases). [/quote] I know currently that you will be able to put multiple constructor modules on the same bas

This is exactly the kind of feedback I think they are looking for in Alpha so they can optimize their engines, keep the feedback flowing!

[quote who="FenrisLokison" reply="27" id="3469046"] Same thing about mining, why only asteroids fields? i mean it's nice, but wouldn't it make more sense to install structures on a rocky planet and dig it just the way we do on earth instead of drifting asteroids most of them probably covered in a unstable dusty soil? [/quote] I agree with this. I think the easiest way would be to treat dead worlds like asteroids. It could be a higher asteroid mining tech perha

[quote who="tjashen" reply="43" id="3468583"] What would be more interesting is if attack strength didn't scale 1 to 1 with squad size. Essentially, not everyone can get into the front rank to fight in larger units, so there should be a scalar on attack strength at least. Essentailly 1-3 in unit = 100% attack strength (attack *1-3). 4 or more in unit = +.5 to attack multiple per additional member, i.e. 5 members in unit adds 3 + .5 +.5 = 4x to attack.<br

[quote who="joeball123" reply="16" id="3468004"] To be perfectly honest, I tend to find that most espionage systems, particularly ones which include one or more forms of sabotage, in games are more annoying than useful or fun, at least for me. [/quote] I will agree with that. Its one of those subsystems that is often clumsy in many 4x games.

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="3" id="3467113"] You might be grouping galciv in with other games with spam units due to your experiences, but the Ai is supposed to be really smart and learns your stuff*(?). So I am not expecting trash units attacking me in this game...OR I WILL COMPLAIN! [/quote] I can say that I had this experience pretty commonly in Gal Civ 2. I could make fleets that were invincible to my opponents fleets either through a large tech advantage, or b

When I design ships in Gal Civ 2, I don't care a lick about art. I don't care how many doodads the ship has, what is looks like, etc. The only thing I care about is how quickly can I put the stats on the ship that I want and then get back to my empire. So my feedback for the shipyard is from a purely functionalist approach 1) The art is fine enough for me. Again as a person who doesn't care that much, the ships look good, I can make out everyth