Gaslov

It seems the culture of gamers has changed. People don't like challenge. They like progression. They enjoy repetitive, mindless tasks that give the illusion of getting better without actually getting better at the game. In age of wonders 3, for example, it was suggested that in order for AI to be acceptable, it only needs to "present a credible threat". That is setting the bar pretty low, as I would only consider the AI acceptable if I couldn't beat it

I watch movies for awesome effects. I play games for awesome gameplay. The problem with what you're asking for is that it will take away from the gameplay.

What I would love is some sort of game recording. Rewatching a match and deeply analyzing the action is almost more fun than playing the match to begin with. I love reviewing the charts and graphs, seeing how my actions affected the opponent. Thinking of new strategies to dismember my enemy's empire after absorbing copious amounts of data. But alas, such a luxury in a TBS has yet to be seen (in any kind of useful detail).

Ray: Galactic Civilizations III has simultaneous planning (ship design, planetary projects, ship path planning, research and tech tree choices, etc.) and sequential execution (battle, discovering anomalies, colonizing planets, etc.). Currently right now there are no plans for a separate LAN multiplayer; all multiplayer will go through Steam. Thank freakin' Stardock. So I may not have wasted 40 bucks afterall.

I would only want voice chat if it showed the name of the person talking.

I preordered because they said this was a multiplayer turn based strategy game. If it is not any of the following: multiplayer, turn based, or strategy game, I will be pissed.

I want a mechanical mouth that swallows enemy ships.

Definitely voting no on the tactical combat for this type of game. I really liked the way the Deadlock series and Dominions series handled combat.

Hey guys!1 What if I don't have a computer? How am I supposed to play then? If stardock doesn't make a board game version of the game, then I'm canceling my preorder

Just make the game you want to play and stop trying to predict how to make the game that will sell the most copies. I honestly don't think the latter has been figured out yet.

Just do it like Dominions.

To be honest, it would not surprise me if multiplayer were not included at release. If you design a game with single player first and multiplayer as an addon, you're going to have a bad time.

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="5" id="3415676"] .....We are not going to cater to Multi-player at the sacrifice of the Single player game... [/quote] Ugh. Welp, that's all I needed to know.

I prefer the "it's ready when it's ready" stance. I'd rather they release a game a decade from now they're absolutely happy with. Poor launches absolutely ruin great games (Settlers 7 for example). First impressions and all that...

So exactly who's perspective are these bios written from? How is something 'not known'?

A TBS with absolutely zero RTS elements. At no point in the game should faster clicking result in an advantage. That said, I hope multiplayer gets attention. Design multiplayer like you were actually going to compete in multiplayer rather than making it a feature just to appease a certain small group of people. If you build it (right), they will come.

Not sure what I'm failing to communicate, because this isn't an issue. [quote] With queued orders and simultaneous turn processing there is the potential for something not to be where it was by the time you get there. [/quote] What is difficult to understand about attacking units executing first? That means, if a unit attacks you, your unit only moves if it survives the attack. [quote]First, some system is needed to determine who moves firs

Mevnedev. No particular reason.

Why would engagement be a problem? Attack orders execute first. Conquest of the new world uses this sytem and is also open just like gal civ. It does not have any problem. Handling multiple attack orders is simply a die roll (assuming both invading units are equal distance to target; priority given to closest unit), with one order possibly not getting executed: Scenario: A atttacks C, B attacks C C defeats A, thus B attacks C.

1) Everyone plays turn at same time. Orders are saved (build this unit, build this upgrade, unit move to X, unit attack Y, etc). No unit actually moves yet or starts combat yet (needless to say, units/upgrades also do not happen yet). 2) Everyone waits for all players to 'end turn' (or timer runs out) 3) Once all have ended their turn, units become built/upgraded, units that attack do so, then units that move do so. 4) All players get a report on wh

I really feel like the only practical way to handle turnbased games is use a turn processor. Look at games like Conquest of the New World, Deadlock, and Dominion. Everyone plays their turn simultaneously and orders are stored (but not executed). Once everyone hits 'end turn', an order of operations occurs (resource collection, unit build, combat, movement, etc). Next turn. We get a report on what happened and lament at how horribly our empire is goin

So do you want a big exclaimation mark above the head of the alien quest giver, too? Oh, I know. What about ships that level as they gain experience unlocking cool new abilities, with attributes that you can put points into to further distinguish yourself from all the low level noobs? Yeah, no.

I think fighters/bombers make sense from a long range combat stance. Send in fighters/bombers to take out high payload warships before you engage in combat with your more expensive capital ships. The counter would be high manuverability, low damage turret cannons. I feel it adds another layer of strategy, making it a game that requires you to not only capitalize on opportunity economically, but to also build the right tools to defeat your enemies (requiring intel/scouti

[quote who="minijag" reply="34" id="3411739"] Quoting Ellestar, reply 26 Quoting minijag, reply 19 I think you could finish a game in less than a month on average, if you had asynchronous multiplayer, with synchronous turns as well. 4 or 5 turns a day, with 30 turns on a weekend? that would be, around 200 turns. Nothing wrong with those numbers. Other than it's a complete fantasy. Don't expect more than one turn per day even fr

This is a good way to do it.