Ah, so that's what happened to the surviving Korx. Given that there was a whole scenario about helping refugees escape the fall of their homeworld, it would have been odd if they had been treated as completely extinct.
The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that larger galaxy sizes should only be done if they come with an increased capacity for the AI to pose a challenge on large maps. In my experience it was definitely at its best on Medium and smaller maps in GalCiv II, and as someone who personally prefers the big galaxies, I always found this a little frustrating.
To be honest, I just want a system where my 100% good race doesn't have to, for all intents and purposes, commit genocide every time it invades a planet.
Honestly, I just always mentally revise the dates given for Drengin and Arcean history down to a tenth of what's listed. I know they're not supposed to be that creative, but a hundred thousand years of technological stasis just seems farfetched.
[quote who="Gaslov" reply="3" id="3414783"] So exactly who's perspective are these bios written from? How is something 'not known'?[/quote] From context, I'm assuming the Terrans. Other thoughts: "the Arceans are not a major force in galactic affairs as of 2247 ." "[The Thalan] population is extremely small and their technology seems advanced even by the standards of 2242 " So I'm guessing
What would really help this for me (and some of this is probably a product of the trailer) is a much better sense of what everything looks like. Not sure how exactly to go about doing this in practice.
[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="4" id="3412404"]I would argue against this. You can't always guarantee that a player will be able to play in quite environment where they can hear things clearly. Maybe they like listening the news or the radio while they play. Also, in the event that they miss something, would they get the option to tell the leader to repeat what they said? What about getting everything in text, so they can read instead of listening. Finally, some people are deaf, so speec
Actually, there are quite a few people who wanted real-time micromanagement of units. But I'd think the people "merely" wanting more depth to battles would also be reassured with that quote, as the idea of there being carriers in any meaningful sense implies that there's going to be a system involving actual ship specialization this time.
That looks like concept art, not an actual screenshot. Assuming that design appears in the game, I suspect it will look different. Mind you, I don't actually have a problem with it.
On a related note, and pursuant to some of the discussion that's been going on about random events, does the fact that the Dread Lords have been defeated permanently storyline-wise mean there won't be a Dread Lords event in the sandbox game? I assume there still will, but I'd like some official confirmation as "evil super-race suddenly (re)appears)" is one of the more "classic" random events - and sci-fi plotlines for that matter - and it'd be nice to see the event return.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="16" id="3409531"]But in GalCiv III, the events are XML driven (ala Elemental). Heck, that also means modders can add their own events and it means that events can have a severity scale which means they can be hooked up to a setting UI.[/quote] This is maybe the best thing I've heard about GalCiv III yet. I've literally been waiting my entire life for a game with easily-moddable random events.
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="233" id="3409951"]1) GalCiv is a strategy game. So is Moo2. The tactical combat is only a feature, not the end all of either game. GC2 had tactical combat, although it was more of an illusion because it was always more of an auto-resolve, perhaps one could say a pseudo-auto-resolve. ... 3) Anything SD does about this idea will, most likely, include a toggle to turn it on or off, just as they did with the battle viewer in GC2.[/quote] &nbs
[quote who="18Zulukiller" reply="169" id="3407322"] Quoting qrtxian, reply 168 If GalCiv III includes tactical combat, I will seriously consider not purchasing it. Nothing else needs to be said, really. That's a pretty sad attitude to have.[/quote] Eh, I was trying to avoid projecting my opinions onto anyone else. I don't really care about whether tactical combat is "objectively" the best option, or an
If GalCiv III includes tactical combat, I will seriously consider not purchasing it. Nothing else needs to be said, really.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="5" id="3406626"]However, there are also a few bugs. One mission in the DL campaign can be unwinnable, because the map hasn't been updated (the win condition is set for a race that isn't on the map). The rest are less severe. Mostly some missing text or a planet hasn't been set to be the homeworld. I fixed all of those bugs (plus a lot more in the tech trees, planetary improvements, etc.) in my mod, so you might want to give it a try, if you
About how long do we have to make a decision on whether to sign up for the Alpha Founder deal?