UnleashedElf

Pretty much the only thing of note is that the Good vs Neutral vs Evil will be more sophisticated than in GC2.

[quote who="Martok" reply="55" id="3420098"] In any case, I don't think you have to worry. Brad has always had his own vision for the GalCiv series, and there's absolutely no way he'll ever allow tactical combat (however it's implemented) to dominate and/or be central to the game. [/quote] Pretty much this. I would imagine that if tactical combat is added, that it won't detract too much f

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="53" id="3420076"] I think you make unwarranted assumptions; I like tactical combat in other games. GalCiv is the go to game when a person wants a strategy game but *doesn't* want a tactical level. There aren't many choices out there that don't have tactical combat; the lack is a selling point for GalCiv, not a weakness to be fixed.[/quote] Assumptions? Given that the debate on tactical combat has spanned several

I am actua[quote who="DsRaider" reply="21" id="3419837"] Good ideas but here are some more. The Yor are inorganic so they don't require food. Instead population is directly tied to manufacturing. Also as machines they are adaptive and can colonize any world. Another idea is a race that prefers living in space and specializes in building colony starbases that increase the population of worlds. Hmm I would give an idea for Alterians but what the heck does cosmic energy

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="45" id="3419349"] That is covered in my post. If auto resolve ends about as well as you could do it yourself, why bother ever doing it yourself? Everyone will do the first few for the novelty factor, then skip them for the rest of the game's lifespan for the sheer convenience of it - i.e. a feature not worth the developer's time to put in.[/quote] Because a very large number of people will fight a la

[quote who="Hamshank" reply="12" id="3419387"] I like the StarCraft 3 race analogy. Having 3 distinct races has a longer replay value than 8 races that border on the same. Conceivably, this could be adapted to Galactic Civilizations 3 by having 3 sets of races that operate on similar mechanics but each race is distinct. No easy solution and not sure if this could translate to this franchise.; [/quote] We could also have a general catego

I mean it would look something like this: 1. Humans would be the most "GC2" like of the races. Strong diplomacy, average at most other things. 2. Altarians would have certain mystical abilities. That and they would be somewhat like the humans, but with their own ideals. 3. The Drengin would be unique in that their economy operated heavily on slaves (maybe from the other worlds too, ex: Torians slaves). Strong weapons and tro

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="43" id="3419301"] Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 42What are you on about we already have auto resolve in game as is. We have auto-resolve that is not optional. My point is about how idiotic it is to think "optional" will ever work out to actually be optional. Read it again until you understand the point.[/quote] As I said, it really comes down to if they put in an auto-resolve, how accurate the auto-reso

I think that it would be ideal if we saw a level of diversity on par with say, Starcraft, which had pretty different races. It would be very hard to balance though.

Probably the biggest issue I have with GC2 is that the races felt too similar. - They all had similar tolerances for planets (ex: ideal for 1 race is ideal for all) - Things like approval were similar (ex: for Drengin, perhaps conquering a planet should increase approval and give "slaves") - Emphasis was similar across the races (ex: culture was doable by all - nobody had a culture penalty) - The tech tree and improvements were a step in the righ

[quote who="12cfoster" reply="35" id="3418695"] Because either the Auto-resolve is better than you at tactical battles, in which case it would be most efficient to always Auto-resolve, or worse than you, in which case you should never auto-resolve.[/quote] Not really. It depends on how accurate the auto-resolve is. If it's within 5%, it's probably "good enough".

Another issue is that we need the AI to take advantage of the tiles.

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="21" id="3418213"] No, it is not that people don't want quality, it is just that they want to stick to their series as much as you would want your enhanced tactical combat. I am suggesting that this game is designers choice, and for the most part the majority apparently doesn't know the difference between quality and shitty games anymore, just look at the popular radio stations, the popular games and the popular movies and the popular TV series. No

Maybe? They seem to destroy strike craft, but also tradeships as well. At least the Replicator one gets destroyed. Edit: It looks like all of the races seem to have issues with black holes and trade ships (including base game).

Barring a new patch, yeah I'm forced to agree that all that has been done may be done improvements wise. What we need is a patch addressing the buggy AI 7 script, and the other AI script that is buggy, plus an AI that manages the bonus tiles.

[quote who="Frostflare" reply="14" id="3412750"] This sounds like a question for either the modding community or the devs. To wit: how the heck DO phase missiles work? I was under the impression that it was sorta binary -- either they bypass shields and do [damage * armor] to hulls, untouched by shield mitigation... or they are treated as any normal weapon.[/quote] Yeah I was under that impression too. Like say if we ha

[quote who="jrdufour" reply="6" id="3411117"] I think the biggest issue in gal civ 2 in regards to fighters, was that you could build you own 'fighters' by using the smallest parts, but there was no point. The combat simulation didn't take ship maneuverability into account. So, a massive battle cruiser with a giant cannon, could blow away a bazillion fighters, despite the fact that in reality, the fighters would move so fast that a large ship would have difficulty hitting th

[quote who="Tridus" reply="65" id="3413234"] Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 63 There's no reason to penalize players who were good at constructor spam because other players either weren't good at it or found it boring. Alternate construction methods like this might be good as an option, but removing the instant construction option would be a severe nerf. It's not "penalizing" players to change how something works in a new game. It's normal. <b

[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="10" id="3412734"] Um, in order to deplete metal, you would have to of had chemical changes to all metals in the galaxy so that they are no longer metals... this is by far the most stupid threads ever, any of you that has taken chem of any level know that there are such things as "physical" change and "chemical" change, ones that are reversible and one that is not. I am sure aliens wouldn't be stupid enough to burn precious metals like o

Linux IMO would be the best second choice. This type of game is likely to attract the Linux demographic the most. Of course, the issue is not so much a full scale port as much as it is making it work well with Wine.

How about we just simplify everything down to 1 constructor? 1. Build constructor, send to location. 2. Choose type of starbase. 3. From there, buy needed upgrade modules. No more constructors after. Construction time takes place by being added to queue of a planet assigned by the user. 1 starbase needs 1 constructor. Modules are then upgraded by cash afterwards and maybe production from a nearby planet.

I just want to say that I very STRONGLY support the addition of tactical combat. I would argue that the game is not even complete without a good tactical combat system (and I mean a real time system, as present in Sins or SOTS 1). I think that the system should split ships into tiers: 1. Light ship 2. Medium sized ships (probably the main workhorse of the fleet) 3. Capital ships Maybe 4. Super sized ships, which are kind of