erischild

Thanks for the update. I thought I heard that general FOW was in effect on all levels of GC3, and it does seem that way in my games, but I wasn't sure enough to respond to the thread. Interesting point on performance considerations as well as game mechanics. I hadn't thought of that, but it does make a lot of sense. Good job on trimming the FOW reveal down to the present status. Thinking about it as a performance issue makes that gain somewhat impressiv

It gives you the planets that can load the transport/colony ship, but I have also had confusion during ship loads. The best I have been able to arrange is that colony ships will be set up to load 3 billion colonists and transports will load 6 billion soldiers. When it shows the load ship dialogue I can tell whether the default 2.5 value is against a max of 3 or 6. I have recently done transports with 9 billion soldiers and that works, too. I have never had a desire to

This is not my experience. When I hit TURN, any ships with partial moves do those partial moves, and then I get IDLE SHIP prompts until I deal with all ships that have partial moves left. Then I get a second TURN button that actually advances the calendar, production, diplomacy, etc.

There have been teasers about maybe dev streams. But I am tired of being teased. :) As a long time attendant, I will be there and if nothing else, will attempt to chat with anyone else who shows up. If someone knew how to start up a multiplayer or something and we asked Stardock real nice, maybe we could twitch that or something, but I miss hearing from Paul. He loves the game as much as I do. Or maybe I love the game as much as he does. It is h

[quote who="spanargoman" reply="24" id="3599184"] h So if you're playing to win (as people who usually play games intend) then why choose to handicap yourself by hopping around on one foot? [/quote] First off, I am playing to have fun. So there is a significant difference in initial assumptions that you do not seem to want to recognize. Secondly, I do not min-maximize with OCD intensity. [That is indeed a subjective opinion,

[quote who="spanargoman" reply="22" id="3599176"] Also, it creates some improbable situations. Do they not adjust their planet's manufacturing after completing all the buildings? How do they let their research planet focus on researching instead of wasting points on credit generation or spare manufacturing (regardless of your opinion on whether that's wastage or 'unrealistic coercion')? Or do these players just not specialise their planets and build an assorte

[quote who="maniakos" reply="19" id="3598982"] Analytics can be useless, misleading or even entrap you: if the % of the people that used the wheel was in the single digit value, say 9% then you should consider the fact that the rest 91% doesn't have a clue what they are doing when playing your game. But you don't come out and say that do you? [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Analytics is also easy to dismiss when it disagrees with your previous as

I have this issue and play on Immense maps. I do have music disabled. Does anyone from Stardock need a ticket or files for this issue?

[quote who="maniakos" reply="38" id="3598515"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 29 Your solution asks the player to play in a bad way and that's not good. Once the player learns about the mechanics and the math behind it, he's left with an inefficiency he can't deal with. [/quote]<

I am not sure where you get the idea that not having 100% allocation affects specialization. GalCiv 2 had a focus based economy management and is known to respond well to planet specialization. Why would that change? Planets send their manufacturing resources to their sponsored shipyards. Why do you think that changed? There are now limitations to what you can accomplish and micromanage. However, there is still much you can accomplish. It requires

Brad, you are just too nice to people. Seriously. Taking the planetary wheel out was a good game design idea. A better idea would have been to never let it be there in the first place and people would have never known to miss it. But, that is irrelevant now and you are just being way too accommodating. Ah well, I guess that is why Stardock has such a customer centric reputation/history and I don't. But when you talk about a moddable game, you get seri

I have to add a detail. One of the random factions is actually me. I have a custom faction I created for my style of play. I polished it up a bit and posted it on the workshop. I kept the old copy to tinker with traits a bit. The workshop version showed up as an opponent. I had forgotten that it was also in my files and could come up as a choice. It is interesting to see how well it is doing in the standings. It is third out of seven over

I have a game going that has taken quite a turn as well. It is turn 130 and six factions have declared war on me because I was my usual lazy self about military. Only this time, they were not going to let me get away with it. I have three factions wandering around in my territory blowing up ships and starbases, and two factions have taken a couple border planets. It started with a couple early participants, but a couple of turns later, I had the "Troublemaker" achievem

I end up flipping several minor planets through the Benevolent Ideology trait that flips everybody in your influence. They all seem to be set up for an extremely manufacturing focused specialization, which would explain poor research performance.

Another possibility is abundant anomalies. I find those can greatly accelerate research, which compounds itself quickly. If you turn them down or off, you might change the overall experience that way.

Steam will ask you to authenticate your second machine for game play, so fire up your games before you take off anywhere, just to keep it convenient. Otherwise, I have found it easy to use this way.

[quote who="Darkscis" reply="13" id="3596359"] I'm just saying, everyone whinged about the wheel when it was there because they felt they just HAD to micro because it was there. Then this argument is presented and they change tracks and say "well, you can choose to ignore it". Just amusing to me [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] You confuse the word "everyone" with the reality "the group of voices talking loudest on a given subject at the moment". O

The question becomes "Is three planets, even great ones, enough to guarantee a win or otherwise change the outcome of the game?" I don't think it is. I think the event, as it worked out this time, makes that faction a tempting target for invasion, really. This illustrates that there are different reactions available from different players. Therefore, unless it can be shown that it actually breaks the game over and over, I am not ready to accept OP impression of th

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="3" id="3596213"] LOVE IT>.....dont change a thing..Exploit... [/quote] Well, that is certainly another choice of reaction. Gotta love it! :) :)

Stardock did not create this micromanagement. You did. You do not "have to" do anything. You choose to. If you find it important enough to game the outcome of an artifact, go ahead and do so. But own your decisions; don't blame them on others. Also, do not blame Stardock for letting you restart games to get an optimum map, since I assume you do that as well, unless you use the map editor and get rid of that pesky non-optimum randomness in the first plac

I can see where nebulae casting sensor shadows would be a chore to code, but the rest of these ideas strike me as wonderful opportunities for flavor of all sorts. My real problem with the map is finding landmarks on big maps. I have resorted to marking a location with a cluster of three rally points just to find a key location in a scattered map where everything looks pretty much the same. I have key patterns of economic starbases I end up forming that also act as identifi

I will pipe up enough to agree with OP. I can see and feel the progress and I appreciate all the work that it must have entailed. Good stuff getting better. Makes me hungry for more, but I am struggling to not seem impatient. Anyway, back to the game...

Ever play a game like poker or bridge, one where you get dealt an arbitrary, random, and imperfect hand of cards, but get to overcome the challenge of what you were dealt? That feeling is the best, and I am sure the devs know that as well as I do. All that aside, the point has come up multiple times before and it doesn't sound like the devs think it is needed and it may be more of a pain to implement than we realize. So, I do not think you will get to see this one, eve

[quote who="trims2u" reply="13" id="3595580"] And your "solution" doesn't work if I want to build BOTH a building and a ship on a planet, but only build ships on another. [/quote] As the song says, you can't always get what you want, even in a space 4X game. We disagree on whether it is good game design, but that is cool, too.

You claim to have finished building out planet 1, but you have not. Otherwise, you would not be getting a prompt to build something on planet 1. Worst case, you should line up a Culture Festival if you have nothing better to do with that planet. That's what I do until I get the projects I really want.