[quote who="charon2112" reply="73" id="3486137"] That's another problem with SP's moving, it opens a slippery slope to SB's moving. And that's ridiculous. THEY AREN'T SHIPS. Did Babylon 5 zip around the galaxy? Did Deep Space 9? [/quote] Yes! (actually Babylon 4 did - by tow) and Yes! (first season - once the wormhole was found they moved DS9 closer to mouth of the wormhole) -David S.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="63" id="3486105"] Lobbying for it won't help either. Quoting Frogboy, reply 38 I like tactical battles too but GalCiv isn't the place for them. [/quote] Check out my solution... It wont mean ANY major change in galciv! And if anyone on the design team thinks the concept is too heretical, they don't have participate in the extension dev... At the end of the day, it will mean significant ext
[quote who="FROOKIE" reply="9" id="3485084"] But I notice again that Tactical fleet combat is to be excluded again. This is pretty disappointing. [/quote] Check out the thread "Suggestions re: Tactical Combat". I suggest if you want TC 'in' GC III, lobby for that solution. ('cause I don't think it's going to get done any other way) -David S.
In as much as the beta is coming out in the next week or so, I guess we won't see any change in the alpha but... If Stardock is really intent on realizing a 'ridiculously' sized galaxy (150+ opportunities to lord over other races... mmmmmmmmmm [e digicons]:drool:[/e] )... I really want this mobile starbase thing! I can get my own 'deathstar' - play with others with it - take it to their backyards - take over a planet or two... 'wash, rinse, repeat' (x 150+
[quote who="dmjung" reply="66" id="3486073"] I'd still like to see a planet retain some kind of ship building capability, even if very limited in some way. It could even be as simple as placing "allowed" ships to be built in the planet's build queue just like the stardock. This would help defend a planet as well as avoid the stardock's lack of defense. When I first started play testing I built a stardock at each planet. Eh. The last couple of games I've only bu
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="52" id="3485858"] so what i would suggest scrap the base movement of the star port and create a tug module for medium sized ships [/quote] Tugs are possible in the game... one of the engineering techs along the drive track gives rise to tractor beams, etc... so it would be possible if the devs allow un-anchoring for starbases in addition to starports. -David S.
[quote who="charon2112" reply="42" id="3485705"] Quoting thetechangel, reply 41 Besides, no self respecting emperor bent on galactic domination that I know would pass up the chance to build a 'deathstar', or a 'basestar', or a 'battlestar' (which is, imho, nothing more than a super carrier) Then they should have made death stars part of the game. [/quote] But they are! Check out the tech tree... If you r
Now on to the topic of desirability of movement for starbases As I said before I'm all for it and here are the reasons why... 1) First and foremost is that there is a cap in the number of starbases you can have/support at any one time!!! I found this out when I played game on a large map with no habitable planets... I used starbases to extend my influence/boarders and I also attempted to monopolize the resources... when I attempted to build one starbase too many, I
[quote who="dmjung" reply="18" id="3484825"] That would be nice...even if there's a penalty of some sort in lost modules for moving the star base [/quote] I believe there is, if I remember correctly a starport pauses shipbuilding during movement, something similar should apply if the give starbases movement... [quote who="parrottmath" reply="19" id="3484843"] The stardock moves because of how it was built. It was constructed from the planet and built to move
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="6" id="3485532"] I second the idea as long as I can change the que at any time. What I mean at any time. You can set it to end early when the next research is done so you can account for unexpected changes. [/quote] How that is usually done is to require a confirmation to proceed with the next item in the queue... Better than that I think is interruption with no loss of credit - you can interrupt at anytime, change what you are
[quote who="thetechangel" reply="5" id="3485652"] where you don't micromanage with flexible command and control [/quote] should read - where you don't micromanage and you still have flexible command and control -David S.
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="4" id="3484852"] But ground combat is really harder to do [/quote] Not really... Future Tech ground combat is no worse than ships... individual units are more powerful per unit than earlier times so you need less of them and the unit types are also less - you basically have the following: un-powered infantry, powered infantry, mechs, speeders, tanks, bolos and (atmospheric) fliers [strategic artillery is handled by surface bases and orbital plat
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="1" id="3484745"] if the battle is only processed after moves are done how do you use any remaining moves? As in fight, move, fight again, move, invasion [/quote] I should clarify ... after moves are done for the turn... assume the ship's movement is terminated at the battle's inception (they 'drop out of warp')... at the end the end of the battle, new movement orders can be issued for resolution in future turns. [quo
How about 'games within the game' ('not-so' mini-games)? 1) recognize that there are a few modes for tactical combat, currently: ship v ship, starbase v ship, and planetary combat; ship v surface (orbital bombardment and surface to orbit interdiction) was not fleshed out or animated in gc i or gc ii but could be included. 2) create a battle (resolution) queue for each player - this would deal with synchronicity issues and battle ingress and egress. The battle w
[quote who="perigrine23" reply="15" id="3484010"] Already in and has been since they were introduced. [/quote] I should have indicated simultaneous multiple sponsors... that did not appear to be the case in 3.1... [quote who="perigrine23" reply="15" id="3484010"] What do you mean? You want to make a fleet of starports? Why? [/quote] for parallelism in the queue and transparent fail-over/fall-back for build orders... features that you really do want
As it stands now you can make as many starports as you like, so I don't think falling back to the GC II starport is necessary. I'd like to see the following enhancements to the current starports: 1) the ability to support multiple planetary sponsors 2) the ability to group together 3) the ability to build starport extenders (flightless constructors) that deploy defensive and offensive (starbase) modules, mining ring modules (for planet independent resou
Can we get queuing for research??? For me it allows the development of a long range 'strategic' plan independent of immediate tactical needs... Also, since the research technologies are effectively on 'tracks' - for example: diplomacy is on track D , xeno industrialization & industrial specialization are on track <span style
After playing almost 5 hours ... Good alpha... didn't crash once... even when I had multiple open windows on the other screen/monitor (I had to support a call I had to take while playing)... Faithful to the franchise... Like some of the touches - such as the turn button that automatically shows what is 'unfinished' on the turn and when pressed, directly opens the appropriate window... this could be augmented with some visual (and maybe auditory) indicator o