kestlstw

I'm withholding until combat is in but I definitely want more than the rock paper scissors of GC2. I'm hoping that is the plan since carriers are included in this edition.

It was mentioned in the dev stream a few weeks ago that SD is overhauling the station system. Personally I would love to be able to send only a few constructors to build a station, like 1 module to build the basic station and another for each specialization and then each addition to that specialization costs money rather than another constructor. I would especially like that if I could put 2 or more modules on each constructor ship. So how this would work is

Paul has talked about how IA races will be controlled by attributes, one of them being how aggressively expansionist they are. Thus GC2 minors are not at all expansionist, GC1 minors were just as aggressively expansionist as majors. What everyone is arguing for here is the ability to set the level of expansionism for minors. I would love that option. Having the option to have minors not expand in one game, timidly expand in another and aggressively exp

[quote who="Thuf1r" reply="75" id="3505472"] Hi everybody. After reading this thread, I have an idea that might add options to the "colony rush phase" and help with limited planet space. Idea: - Planets below 10 quality cost upkeap. Lower quality = more upkeap.. - Planets have lower starting quality in general (average around 6). - Planets can be terraforemd without ANY terraforming tech, from the start of the game.<

Will there be another pass on things like colony management to give more meaningful choices to the player? Also in the balance pass are things like population caps on planets or reworking farms possibilities?

I think most of this will be addressed later in the development cycle, extreme worlds, real AI, larger maps, race special abilities and diversity. Right now the AI is pretty simple and gets large bonuses to give any sort of challenge. This is only beta 2.

That's the issue most of us are talking about, GC2 was good for its time despite its issues. Leaving those issues in game for GC3 with multiplayer and much larger maps compounds those issues and makes them more prominent and the game less fun. We want GC3 to be fun so we are bringing these issues up in hopes that those issues will be addressed. Charon2112, is it possible that if the issues we have with the game could be addressed in a way that you

[quote who="Gilmoy" reply="43" id="3503083"] If you want to, say, replace Ages with a web of more explicit tech dependencies, then maybe we should start with a graph UI . That would actually be kind of ground-breaking. [/quote] I love this idea, but I would assume you would need to replace the graphic for the ages with one for the web. I think you would still have to fairly simple just so its readable. Or I may be thinking too small in that,

First I want to say I've decided to stick it out with GalCiv3 as some of the people arguing against my suggestions have made some good points and the potential for modding the game is enormous so even if I'm not thrilled with the end result likely someone will mod it so I will like it much better or I might try my hand at modding myself. So it seems based on this thread that there is consensus that multiplayer needs simultaneous turns hope the devs agree. <

[quote who="charon2112" reply="17" id="3502702"] Quoting kestlstw, reply 16 ... It seems most players love GalCiv2 and just want GalCiv2 64 bit edition which is what 3 seems to be heading toward to me. That's nuts, there's a ton of new ideas and co

Just realized that my wanting factories to be independent from population and worlds like Mars being fully usable might be a modable possibility. Not sure what the limits of modding are at the moment but it does seem like the game is being designed to allow a lot of freedom. Anyone know if that would be possible?

[quote who="Derracs" reply="14" id="3502678"] Quoting charon2112, reply 13 I'm sorry but adjacency bonuses add a great deal to colony management, and are one of those 'why didn't I think of this before' game improvements. The game doesn't force you to lay out your planets a certain way, you still

Edit 12/21/14 Since this thread has gotten more attention than I expected and has been revived several times I thought I should update with my thoughts on how the game has progressed. When I preordered this game I was hoping for improvements to the gameplay of GalCiv2 not just GalCiv2 with larger maps which is what it seems to be at this point but I did pay to get into the beta and give feedback so here goes. Edit:

[quote who="eviator" reply="4" id="3501742"] Their main goal is to balance for player vs. AI gameplay, not player vs. player. In the former case, sometimes you get screwed but your ally can pick up the slack. In the later case, one of you is going to get stomped. [/quote] Maybe I'm strange like it so many other areas of the development of this game but why is the balance aimed at cooperative play for multiplayer? This makes no sense to me, the reason

Also discovered with the no colonizing in other's zoc treaty when using star bases to stake claims the turn that the star base comes up you still can't colonize.

I was outvoted on the ban on colonizing within the zone of control of other powers and now can only colonize within my own. I plan on putting up starbases next to the planets I mean to claim. Still annoying and assume its a bug.

I don't see why you wouldn't send the basis of the technology you plan on using when you start the colony with the colony ship. You're sending 2 million people why not include the tools to mine and a small robotic factory along with the seeds and farming equipment to start feeding them. Or at least the plans and tools to build the factory and tools to build the colony quickly rather than waiting years to build up to space faring level.

Regarding building factories on the planet and pretending they are in orbit, I already do. The whole the tile system is an abstraction thing that's been rehashed a million times. However it can be a change that adds, add a graphic of a ring around the planet and build your factories, laboratories and ports there and add a bit of code that allows space based weapons to damage it and now you can destroy your enemies manufacturing, research and trade without having to invade or b

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="37" id="3498071"] Quoting kestlstw, reply 36 Cropland in the US is about 1/5 of total use but food Farms aren't just cropland, and <a style="font-size: 10px;" href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-econo

Am I crazy? I don't think so. I have reason and logic behind my thinking that farms and most of the farming tech is poor game design. Honestly the tile systems is bad mechanic too. So let's look at why you want to keep farms in the game and as they are. Currently farms provide higher population and population drives everything. In my last game, which was about a month ago, to have a planet be really worth colonizing it had to

The core of this argument is that manufacturing should not be tied to directly tied to population. The rest, military, economic, research, and influence, should be directly tied to population because in those areas human has a greater role than machines. The issues with this as far as game play is concerned can be overcome. First, population caps should not be tied to how much food can be produced but on type and size of planet, type of government and enviro

Brokering should be, like Gilmoy said, you don't have the tech but know someone who does and know someone who wants it, you set up the deal and take a cut in some form. I didn't pay close attention to the stream to say this is the way it will work. I would love to be able to do that in large maps get to the middle and trade techs with everyone. I wouldn't be surprised it works like trading techs you have vs techs you researched.

Are there plans to exploit asteroids and gas giants? Currently population is what makes an industrial world productive, are there plans to add automation to industrialization? Are the current tile sizes set in stone? As they are currently small worlds aren't really worth colonizing until late game when you can add several tiles but even they they are generally pretty limited. I realize the tile system is an abstractio

I think they are working but at very poor efficiency, like you need 3 to 1 or more to not take damage. My first game I went very heavy on defensive ships and was running ships 2 sizes larger. If I attacked a single ship I took no damage but if I attacked a fleet of 3 I lost my ship and killed one of their's. Loosing a 100 hp ship to 3 20 hp ships made me balance out my ships. I didn't see much difference in results and just started using fleets, still lost ship

More savings has that effect, in other words increase the wealth allocation and you get more money. This has been discussed in one of the economy threads but I don't remember which one.