GalCivius

Sigh, still not there. The suspense is killing me ;)

In 5.3 I got extremely laggy gameplay after ca. 100-150 turns on large and huge maps. It hardly ever crashed though. That was with 6GB RAM that are "recommended" in the specs sticky. It became so bad that I invested some bucks to go up to 8GB. Only 2GB more made really a huge difference. If b6 improves/reduces RAM usage as anounced, I might be even able to play bigger maps :)

Sounds awesome. Also the "free future update" note :)

[quote]Also, I can't design ships with equipment i haven't researched yet. Any way around that? [/quote] That's the whole point of research. The only way around would be to research more ;) Edit: there's a cheat mode of course: https://forums.galciv3.com/453079/page/1/#3504038 (see specifically the "unlock" comma

Tried updating gfx card drivers? Is your system overall on the edge - specs-wise? Otherwise I dunno, never had anything like that...

re 2) Other than the specific features related to a certain module type: survey, construction, trade, troops, carrier modules the best orientation IMO are hull sizes. These need construction techs (like in GCII), just watch out for those which unlock "medium" "large" etc hulls. Usually when you are able to research the tech you get the result on the left of the display. Of course it does not tell whether you can build a specifically equipped ship since this depends on the weapons, def

I'd assume modding them another logo would be doable. If the ship icons should be black vs. mostly dark background ... hm ...

The numbers in (1) is also something I'm always wondering about (similar to soldier numbers for invasion). They feel way overdone indeed. But I got used to them since GC II. (2) is not neccessarily absurd, since planets outside our system could be easier to colonize (if you can reach them) if they're are "Earth-like" from the start, which Mars isn't. (3) and (4) are just tributes to gameplay IMO.

Agree, diff colors on resources seem better to me. BTW, colors could also be utilized to indicate whether planets can be colonized immediately or are a certain "extreme" type needing a certain tech. Sure there's the tooltip saying that, but something that allows to give the same info at a quick glance could be nice too IMO. There's only problem I could see - if we get lotsa colored icons things could get a little confusing, esp. with

Those logos are very good indeed!

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="50" id="3540399"] It is gamey in that it is unbalanced as hell in comparison with planetary and station wide sensors... that... and the AI never use the tactic which make it a gamey tactic. A HUGE benefit the players don't need against the AI. [/quote] Of course, if people don't want to build them it's fine - nobody forces them. But then there might be those who simply want to use all the possibilities a game offers them to t

Gamey? In a game? Unbelievable! ;) And in the end it's a trade off. Sure you can build a sensorships from turn one, but it's rather unwise, as you don't even have a survey module at this pont, and it means you put less resources into other fields (like colonization) at this point. Later building a sensorship means you don't build a combat vessel at this point. I agree it would be better the AI was capable of utilizing sensors (and a couple of oth

Re OP, in GC II I never added sensors to combat ships either. However, I built a couple specific sensor ships, that also had long range, and good move rate. These were used to scout ahead of my combat vessels, and withdrew when encountering enemies - those would be dealt with by my strike fleets. They also had survey capability, so during peace times, they were used to hunt anomalies, or as "early warning" ships, guarding my borders. So far I used the same method in GCI

Good news, and congrats Stardock :) About issues the game might still have - we will see what beta6 does in that regard. Beyond that, IIRC Stardock already said there are plans for DLC/expansions etc, so I take it that development does not suddenly stop after May 14.

In GC II you needed to take out the defenders first. I never played that far in GC IIIyet, but if it's the same here, just use a fleet of combat ships, but without TPs to get rid of those defenders, then invade with TPs. Unless they changed it now of course...

My systems' specs are below of those from the OP. But they're almost identical to those given as optimum in the sticky thread; i5 Quadcore 2,8Ghz; 6GB RAM, GeForce GTX 650 gfx, so I thought they were good enough. With the two recent opt-in patches, I get quite serious performance issues after playing ca. 100 turns on large/huge maps too. Mostly frequent lags on turn changes or when calling the

Patch log sounds great, can't wait to play around with the new version.

Thanks guys, great news. :)

Wondering if minors can survive longer in GCIII, or if they will get all eaten up by either the Ai or the player like in GC II. Maybe there should be some condition that needs to be fulfilled to make war against them? So that you need to have another reason than just "I need that planet".

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="17" id="3531437"] I said why : because of the second-long installation that works whether on windows or emulating it on linux. [/quote] Never had FA. If you already had the files when Steam did the "second-long installation" then you must have gotten them before, either from Steam itself, or from another source. Whatever it is, saving time on follow-up installations is a rather weak argument for Steam in my eyes.

[quote who="tatsujb" reply="11" id="3530237"] Quoting JamesM1053, reply 9 I don't like how I need to sign in/start Steam in order to play the game I purchased. you don't. if the game in question is offline DRM-approved you can start steam in offline mode (thus without really

Changelog sounds really cool. Looking forward to try this version :)

Would be a pity if the there's only bnk2 support indeed and no chance for modders to toy around with game vids (or add their own) unless they run a gfx or gaming studio and spend extra money.

While we are at it, pls. someone also tell Stardock that there is no evidence of Drengin or other space aliens and that they better abandon the whole GC III thingie. *ahh, no

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="16" id="3518529"] Hmm... Maybe if we went with drones instead of fighters, we could down size the ships that the carriers spawn. Less hit points, less room for weapons and defenses, make them faster... [/quote] Drones seem more plausible from a tech POV, but IMO using them also takes away a serious amount of coolness.