I couldn't agree more. Subtle issues like this - while minor - are nonetheless very important to having an enjoyable polished game (in my opinion), and I fear that because they are so subtle, they will never be fixed :(.
[quote]Would you like this option for even longer epic games like the ability to change tech speed?[/quote] Yes. Very much so. Please, Stardock? A little tickbox in game setup to turn off any scaling of ship/sensor range, and instead have it remain as what would be used in a 'normal' sized map.
360p? :(
What immediately came to my mind when first seeing that screenshot was the Caldari Hornet . But then comparing the two, they really look nothing alike.
No you're not being difficult. You're being stupid. Plus, communism is not fundamentally "sinister", as you put it.
[quote quoting="post"] Simplified game, easier AI, less complexity... [/quote] [quote quoting="post"] ...let children and women learn to play... [/quote] (Emphasis mine) Wow.
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="1" id="3492359"] I think you mean 9/12 [/quote] I think you mean 12/9 [e digicons]:P[/e]
Regarding my only suggestion so far: Use nebulae to provide shape to the map Asteroids, nebulae and dust clouds currently offer very little in terms of affecting the terrain and shape of the map. Are there any plans to improve the terrain and how it affects the map, to avoid an essentially empty and shapeless one each game?
I really hope ALL of the improvement icons are just placeholders.
Hi, I don't usually post on any forum, but I'd like to throw in my two cents regarding the map terrain and how I think it could be improved to make the map feel less empty. As far as I'm aware, dust clouds and nebula (not sure why there are two different things in game for the same thing) only affect ships that travel within them. If they were to block sensor line of sight regardless of the ships being in them or not, they would offer a greater impact to the
[quote who="Gilmoy" reply="4" id="3490830"] K = kilo := 10^3 [/quote] Kilo is actually lower case k. It is the exception to the rule of upper case for greater than 10^0.
4X can absolutely be fun multiplayer. People should stop dismissing it - any game (especially 4X) is much more fun to play with a friend along for the ride. Teaming up against the AI is the only way I play Civ5. I find it empty without another human in the same world.
[quote who="Zydor" reply="4" id="3417966"]GalCiv is a Strategy Game not a Tactical shoot-em-up, the latter will never happen.[/quote] Can you PLEASE stop referring to anything to do with tactical combat a "shoot-em-up". There are a plethora of things between these extremes.
[quote who="Seilore" reply="2" id="3416376"]150 km/ 91 miles away on average.[/quote] I think you missed six zeros there.
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="11" id="3411401"]Anything that doesn't fit his list of "This is GalCiv" will turn the game into a FPS? Really? Being "hostile" to open discussion/suggestions about a game about which the closest thing we know about gameplay is that it'll be like GalCiv II with improvements but nothing else or tangible facts?[/quote] Thank you for someone finally having some reading comprehension. To everyone else, it was never a matter of d
I think Zydor might be guilty of this. He just keeps repeating his "it's not a shoot-them-up" and "hell freezes over first" lines when people discuss more involved combat, yet not once has anyone ever suggested anything of the like.
Paradox do this with their Grand Strategy games. It's pretty cool.
Civ 5 is only a click war if you fail to take into account what could happen next turn if your opponent is able to act before you. You should keep that in consideration when actually developing and playing out your strategy.
[quote who="The_Biz" reply="29" id="3409329"]fails miserably (civ5 simultaneous turns)[/quote] In what way does Civ 5 fail miserably with simultaneous turns? I think it works so much better than Civ 4.
[quote who="chaverinou" reply="23" id="3409253"]If there is concurrency between players it's no longer a turn base strategy[/quote] This is nonsense. It is still a turn based strategy. If it comes down to who can click the fastest to get a particular goal, or making the difference between the loss of a fleet and a crippling blow to your enemy, then I consider that as a strategical mistake on your part for allowing yourself to get into that pos
Providing there is an option for simultaneous turns, it's almost like any other long strategy game (that you need to play over several sessions).
[quote who="Gaslov" reply="20" id="3406113"]With the exception of close friends, no one is going to play this game with you for 2 months. [/quote] I only ever see multiplayer 4X games as an option with friends. Random pick up games are never a thought that crosses my mind as they just don't suit. I am so incredibly happy to hear that GalCiv3 will have multiplayer though, just for the option to play it with close friends.
[quote who="Zydor" reply="3" id="3407517"] This is a Strategy Game - not a tedious shoot-em-up. [/quote] So is the only acceptable form of combat for a strategy game to you 'unit A with strength X moving on to unit B with strength Y, roll the dice and do a little bit of maths to see who wins'? Having more involved combat mechanics than what the Civ or Galciv games offer takes NOTHING away from the strategy part of the a 'str
I'd be happy if it was as simple as Civilizations simultaneous turns (Humans take turns at the same time, then AI go sequentially). Of course a slight improvement to that is Civ 5's 'Hybrid turn mode' that was introduced in the Brave New World expansion.
Thank you so soooooo much for bothering with Multiplayer now [e digicons] I absolutely love Galciv II, but never really bother with it because of a lack of an ability to play it with a friend or two over a weekend. Multiplayer is currently the best news coming from this announcement so far, and I really don't see it being beaten by anything. [e digicons]:grin:[/e] Yaay multiplayer Galciv!