BuckGodot

Not sure if this is worth bothering sending in a ticket (w/save file) or not, but I thought I should at least mention it here. Decided to give the Iridium a shot today, as they are a completely new race (if similar to the Korx) and I haven't played them in GC III yet. After learning my lesson with the Yor, I decided that maybe I should scope out their tech tree a bit before really starting them. One thing I noticed is that they get two separate techs that enable

A couple of weeks ago while I was first playing the Yor, I ran across what was a somewhat nasty, if minor, surprise when I saw that they did not have any tech to extend the coverage range of their starbases. I should have checked their tech tree before planning placement of my starbases, of course. But it still was a something of a surprise that they didn't get any starbase range tech. Especially given that since they are a synthetic race, you'd think that sort of th

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="75" id="3523828"] however its annoying that you cannot remove the building and there is no warning that it is permanant[/quote] They just have to tell you it is a Super Project (1 per civ; permanent), or whatever they are going to call it in GC III. At the moment, the problem is that they don't tell you what is a Build Lots of on a Planet building, Build One per Planet building, Build One per Faction building, and Build One per Game building. &nbs

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="73" id="3523812"] Quoting BuckGodot, reply 72 Unless one cheeses by constantly building and then destroying and then rebuilding flat bonus ideological buildings, of course. But that is pretty cheesy. you cannot destroy a flat bonus ideology building once buil

[quote who="androshalforc" reply="71" id="3523750"]i built one building for each ideology the ones that generate 1-2 points per turn[/quote] And I'm sure that's why. Those are going to add up quick. One of those buildings (and I believe you can build only one per ideological trait will equal one colonization event within 5 to 10 turns. 100 turns will equal 10 to 20 colonization events. On the other hand, some ideological buildings don't gen

Yes, if one is playing on very large maps, with few opponents, frequent events, and abundant stars/abundant planets, then yes it is easier to max out every ideology Less so, if one isn't. ;) === Instead of bringing subjective viewpoints to the table (including mine :p), let's bring some cold hard data. Doing a bit of a test right now, it appears that the Ideology Table follows a simple progression of +3 followed by a +2 followed by a +3 and so on for each

[quote who="Tohron" reply="3" id="3523508"] Rally points can be used to affect the auto-launch direction - ships will launch in the tile closest to the rally location. If you want, you can put a rally point right outside the shipyard and set it to rally there. [/quote] I said as much in the OP. :) But I've been expermenting with it and, as I thought, it's a bit of a pain. First off, yes established Rally Pioints do have their own submenu in the select ral

[quote who="Publius of NV" reply="1" id="3523466"]2) It's not hard to keep morale at 100% if you keep your food supply higher than your population. If the population gets close to the food supply max your approval starts to drop. I expect the developers will do some tuning with this in later stages of the beta. [/quote] Pretty sure as of the last beta, population pressure isn't in the game anymore. It's now tied to "Goods and Services" (as well as

Whine whine whine, moan moan moan, complain complain complain. [e digicons]:P[/e] I say the above in a joking manner because I know it's come up more than once during early access. ;) But I really would like to have the ability to set the direction a shipyard launches, like we could in GC II with starports based on planets. It doesn't matter so much for colony ships, because you can choose not to launch when it is built. But for contructors with limite

[quote who="Island Dog" reply="1" id="3522855"] Thanks for reporting. I'll make a note of it but a support ticket would be useful. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] I sent one in yesterday. :) It is Ticket #FXB-136-33510

I've seen some comments about ideology points not always being deducted from the total available pool, and I found at least one instance of it happening. In the following screenshots, I have 32 points available for Malevolent and the next Malevolent trait is supposed to cost 33 points. However, the game is letting me unlock the next trait, even though I am one point short. When it unlocks the trait, the available amount of points does [b]not[/b] go down. &n

According to a few devstreams, thulium and one other resource whose name escapes me at the moment are (or at least were) planned resources like antimatter, eler ium , and du rantium that haven't been implemented yet. Thulium was tied to "dead worlds" while the other, tied to gas giants. The plan, again according to the devstreams I saw, was for one resourse to help with things like speed and the other things like sensor tech. Or perhaps one was speed and

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="10" id="3522160"] Along with that, whenever you come to such high levels of micromanagement, it's essentially an unfair advantage against the human player. The computer can compare techs with all of its neighbors every turn. Sure humans can do that too, but your game suddenly becomes ridiculously boring.[/quote]Actually in Gal Civ 2, you could only initiate trade talks every eight turns (humans, every four turns). So there was a b

This game simply isn't for you, Emelio. Nothing wrong with that, BTW. But f you can't accept the Space Opera nature of the setting, there's not much the debs can do about it. :)

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="25" id="3521861"] From watching the streams, it seems like the issues raised in this thread are major blind spots for Paul. In at least 80% of streams manufacturing overflow comes up. EVERY TIME Paul says its in the game, when every player knows it's not. Likewise, every time the upgrading issue comes up, Paul doesn't seem to understand the problem. He repeatedly asserts that it is always better to build the smaller versions first because then you

[quote who="charon2112" reply="55" id="3522092"] In one of the 'Brad's feedback's, Brad mentioned the possibility of having anomalies offer ideology choices. If they do this, it would keep ideology points coming in during the later game. [/quote] Paul has mentioned that possibility several times in devstreams (along with possibly having invasion ideological choices). I figure it is still in internal testing at the moment.

Having 100+ major factions is an edge case and not what the game is going to be balanced around, I would think. Still, the obvious solution would be to make the cost of tech be (somewhat) dependent on the number of major factions present. *cue cries of "Now you're forcing me to trade techs* :p The other point is, in the theoretical game with 100 major factions what makes you think each faction will be in contact with each other? OK, fair does on a smaller map,

I've been having a consistent CTD occur when playing on Gigantic and Immense maps. I've sent in quite a few save files to Stardock about the issue. The last I heard from them is that the next patch will hopefully address my (and others) issue regarding this. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. :) And if it doesn't? Well as Paul Boyer says on almost every devstream it seems (love ya Paul :p), "Welcome to the world of game design"

A follow up. For people complaining that ideology is too easy to get on larger maps, just set your planets to Rare. [e digicons]8C[/e] Started up a new game and decided to give the Yor a whirl. Somehow I set everything to random and... well... I'm on turn 101 and I'm about to colonize my ninth and tenth planets. On an Immense map. It's a scattered galaxy, but shouldn't matter [u]that[/u] much when it comes to the total number of

One of the problems here is that ideology in one respect is radically different in GC III than it was in GC II. In GC II, you amassed ideology by colonizing planets (an the occasional mega event) and then finalized it by choosing one of the three ideologies when Xeno Ethics was unlocked (including being able to "buy in" to a radically different ideology that you had been pursuing with the right amount of cash). Once chosen, you were locked in. <span style="text-decoration: u

As I said in the other thread about ideology, I'm a little wary about saying that ideology can't be constrained on larger maps. With the right number of opponents. an Immense map can play just like a Large map. Right now, there are six factions with no minors. So there is a [b]LOT[/b] of open space. How ideology will play with more factions and minors (especially ones that might grab a planet or three) taking planets is yet to be seen. That being said, I'

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="23" id="3520871"] I would like it if you had to openly commit to one tree, then pick a secondary one and the third would be one were you get a penalty with civs that have it. This would keep in place the freedom of choosing any tree while instituting diplomatic order it is currently lacking. So I could be ⅓ of everything but diplomatically id be registered as whatever I chose like in galciv2. [/quote] I [u]think[/u] the way it i

I think increasing a cost to go up one tree if you are far up another is certainly a reasonable choice and helps address the "immersion" complaints. It also helps address concerns about maxing out a tree or three on very large maps. But I am against "locking" out a tree since it can show that empires aren't One Note Ponies but are instead varied and complex. And if one wants to play as a solo ideology for RP purposes, nothing is stopping someone from doing that. :) Getting

What I did was establish a ticket describing my problem without uploading any files and when Stardock got back in touch with me, I sent all my files they needed/wanted via email attachment in my response emails. Seems to have worked out so far.

In a prior devstream (the one on Dec 12th), they talked about the possibility of players being able to construct things similar to Old School Stargates. The caveat being that you have to truck a ship to where the end point of the stargate would be constructed. Just like old times (in universe). ;) One of the ideas Paul threw out was the possibility of having to put the end points of the stargates on the edges of black holes, which might be where this idea of using rifts