I agree that this is an interesting Idea. Something else I would like to see would be the ability to build some sort of military outpost on class 0 planets, even if there is nothing to mine. These would basically provide no income, but allow you to have additional shipyards/repair yard at the front lines; or in systems with no habitable planets.
[citation needed]
I honestly don't care that much about how 'accurate' certain star colors are. if you want realism go play some simulator game. Still, there is the argument that stars unlike our own exist in a different galactic super-cluster beyond the (current) visible range of telescopes. Or that Galciv3 takes place in a different universe where the laws of physics are close, but different enough from ours to allow such things to exist. (Technically multiverse
Sweet! [e digicons]:D[/e] I hope to see some more stuff out here soon though, those 4 files look kinda lonely in there..... all by themselves...... locked behind a door [e digicons]:P[/e] [quote who="Stringer2" reply="5" id="3412617"] Maybe some kind alpha or in-house tools for creating (mod) content when the alpha is available? I don't care personally, but just a thought. Who knows, maybe those even work better if th
oops, wrong button, cant figure out how to delete it
[quote who="Aeraellien" reply="24" id="3411805"] There are far better ways to cool something down than by running air over it, and even so I think you've got things backwards. In space its more difficult to heat things up. There is nothing in which to insulate heat in (like air or water) as such heat (energy) radiates off very effectively. Otherwise the heat (energy) given off by the sun would have vaporized us billions of years ago. It would be likely that any space fairing civiliz
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="98" id="3411801"] im curious if the e-mails or w/e system their using to submit star names have gone out yet just realized that the e-mail acct i have linked has been inactive[/quote] I haven't seen anything, I think it will be a while before the system goes out. You should probably contact stardock support about your e-mail; or maybe you can change it logged into the website, I don't know.
[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="21" id="3411788"] Actually, light does bend from gravity. Nuclear explosions do very little in the vacuum of space with no atmosphere to carry a shockwave. A railgun or mass driver would both be quite devastating.[/quote] I also though of that, but I don't know that gravity will play a huge roll in the distances that a space battle will take place. Also, the gravity effect is fairly easy to calculate and compensate for. Any ex
Yea, I couldn't help but fork over the money for the elite-version either.... I've managed to have a ton of fun with GC2, wasted a TON of time too :P Honestly, I think GC3 is going to be eptic, guess we'll wait and see.... Still, doing the math, I think if I were to buy the base game and all expansions (at least 2 or 3) on release day at full price, the elite version might be cheaper in the long run. Wondering if we'll get some other bonus stuff too.... maybe I'm j
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="18" id="3411693"] I think you're going to like what we're doing. [/quote] oh you're such a tease! [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [quote who="Aeraellien" reply="19" id="3411698"] Oversized gun is quite the disparaging way to look at it. Keep in mind that meteors and asteroids are mass drivers. The projectile doesn't even have to be large it just has to be dense. A teaspoon of mat
Personally, I think that micro is good. In an RTS, too much detail can kill it, because you don't have enough time to do everything. But in a TBS, you cab really take as long as you need for a turn (although maybe not in this new multiplayer mode, but we don't know anything about it yet so, we'll see). That said, I found that I did use one of the automated features. I forget what it was (I think it may have been the planetary governor, not sure), I set it up with the start
I believe (I might be wrong) that the change to x64 engine will allow the map size to be significantly larger, because the game can now use more RAM.
There isn't really any way to know yet. Other then x64 bit and direct X 10/11. I can almost guarantee that it will be somewhere in between the requirements for GC2 and the best gaming PC money can buy.... Still, unless GC3 adds some extremely different game elements, it will probably have some fairly low settings. If you turned GC2 down all the way, it basically ran like a board game with icons, and no graphics whatsoever.
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="12" id="3411264"] Quoting Tyrantissar, reply 11 I am kind of wondering why he would say mass drivers would do the most damage. apparently I would say the missiles would do the most damage too. Maybe it is best we leave this discussion for another time. Information is so scarce right now on the actual game that it hasn't even made the alpha yet. Perhaps reflecting back to GC2 will help. Weapons were divided into three classes, 1)
I don't think we need anything as crazy as a rock-paper-scissors squared system. All you would need is a hit to miss function with the attacking ship size, and defending ship size as inputs, or possibly use the size of the firing gun, as large ships can have small fighter defence weapons (again, Sins of a solar empire: rebellion does this) For example: Defender_Size/(attacker_size and/or gun_size)=CTH With that formula, the larger the defender, the larger the
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3404488"] I can't speak for certainty but it's unlikely that there will be Terror Stars available at the start of the GalCiv III campaign. The Drath homeworld was wiped out. But the Drath aren't necessarily extinct. As for the Terrans, that'll be explained in the campaign. Suffice to say, the humans are pretty angry with the Drengin.[/quote] Makes sense that Terror stars won't
I think the biggest issue in gal civ 2 in regards to fighters, was that you could build you own 'fighters' by using the smallest parts, but there was no point. The combat simulation didn't take ship maneuverability into account. So, a massive battle cruiser with a giant cannon, could blow away a bazillion fighters, despite the fact that in reality, the fighters would move so fast that a large ship would have difficulty hitting them with a gun the size of an asteroid. <p
[quote who="BaneTheBrawler" reply="31" id="3410927"] It's been a long time since I've played galciv2, so I don't remember the editor that well, but one of the things I found wanting in Kerbal Space Program's original editor was a sub-assembly function, which they recently added. You build part of a ship, save it, and can re-use it whenever you want. In KSP it's useful for designing sub-ships and universal docking configurations and the like, but it could be useful in
[quote who="Achronous" reply="27" id="3410291"] In my case, whenever I thought any of the modules interfered with the design I would just make them as small as possible and hide them somewhere they could not be seen. [/quote] [quote who="InquisitorFelix" reply="28" id="3410601"] Same thing I did.[/quote] I also found myself doing that, almost all the time. Hopefully this will be f
I like what I see so far [e digicons]^_^[/e] I can't wait to find out more about the ship builder! Sounds like there is going to be an 'easy' mode and an advanced designer?
Assuming that the galaxy is a spiral/sombrero yes. you could possibly represent a 3d universe in 2d, when you consider that the map (at least in galciv 2) is in relative units based on hyperdrive speed. The closer you are to stars or other strong gravitational forces, the slower your FTL drives are. So in effect, the 3d portion of the map would be in areas you could travel faster in anyway.... so you could easily create a flat map that realistically represents the 3d one. Regardless T