nomotog

If they do keep moral, I have doubts they will leave the math the same. The math was just bogglingly awkward.

[quote who="jirkaesch" reply="36" id="3443903"] Quoting nomotog, reply 28If moral is gone, I see it having being rolled up into influence. Morale being part of the influence? That is interesting idea. But removing it completely and pretending that in the future everybody is happy, content and there is no dissent would be not worthy Stardock grand strategy BTW I did like some randomness in the approval in Galciv II. I think it well corresponded with the

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="29" id="3443814"] You kind of described why I think it's something of a Fun system. If you build stuff randomly without knowing what you are doing you will naturally end up with a badly functioning empire. Part of my fun in GalCiv2 is have my empire work optimally. For this you need just the right amount of everything. Over do something and it will end up unbalanced. [/quote] You like the gangly bit.... That

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="25" id="3443786"] I think moral in Galvic2 serves a gameplay value. It forces you to limit your population unless you have proper infrastructure, tech or ressources. If food was the only factor that would make it a lot less interesting Imho. All of this is directly related to the amount of taxes you can collect. Furthermore, planet level approval allowed for some conquest strategy where you could use your enemies low moral against th

[quote who="jirkaesch" reply="23" id="3443771"] Quoting nomotog, reply 22I thought I heard them talking about replacing per planet approval with empire approval to make it more flexible and interesting. Did they? Well, I checked the Vault and was not able to find any signs of approval in the latest (pre-alpha) screenshots... Only empire wide approval? Is that it then?[/quote] "I thought I heard them talking about" is by no means a hard or firm statement. It

[quote who="jirkaesch" reply="21" id="3443671"] Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 20 Glad to hear the approval system is not gone. Well my friend, I am afraid that they said it IS gone. Which I would consider a major drawback, unless they substitute it with something even better. Even city management in FE (much simplier) had approval in form of Unrest. The Galciv system was more sophisticated and I liked it a lot. I hope they have not

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="5" id="3443254"] ^I really marvel at how some users of Stardock forums are statistically very likely to go around plastering convoluted wall of text consisting of pure guess-work. [/quote] Don't knock it till you try it. It's fun as heck. :P

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="44" id="3443178"] deep breaths...deep breaths... I've gotten over Xcom and even found some enjoyment when I let myself come to terms that it wasn't an X-com game. No need to murderize nomotog... deep breaths...deeeeeeeep breaths...[/quote] Oh please, You wouldn't be the first to try. I am kind of use to fans on old games wanting to murder me. :P (I did love original X-com though. Nice game.) What I talked

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3443150"] Yea, there are a number of areas that if you start with GalCiv II as the base, you can take it up to the next level. For examples: The UI in GalCiv II is pretty dated, GalCiv III has a really good tool tip system that gives you a lot of helpful information. We were able to expand the economics and diplomacy via an ideology system and a new United Planets system. We've been able to make the warf

The XCOM reboot is kind of a neat place to look at in terms of complexity because they originally started out with what I imagine a lot of old fans would have wanted. It was x-com only with 3D graphics and some new features like taking cover. They eventually found that it was practically unplayable though. All they did was layer complexity on to complexity and they found it wasn't fun. It prompted a complete redesign of the system from the ground up.

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="22" id="3442139"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 18 GalCiv III is substantially more complex the GalIv II. Three quick examples: 1. united Planets now involves proposing bills rather than voting on random items. Great to hear that! This is awesome!!![/quote] Oh yes this excites me too. Particularly if they manage to make it work a little smoother

This is kind of funny because I always thought that GC's biggest advantage was that it was kind of streamlined and dumbed down in relation to other 4X games. A lot of times 4x games are practically shrines to bloated complexity, but GC has done a very good job keeping it's complexity very trim.

Playing dress-up. I'll be honest. The thing I like most about LH is having my sovereign try on different outfits. Same goes with my heroes and my troops. I spend a lot of time in the unit creation screen trying on different outfits. It really feeds the creative part of me.

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="25" id="3434199"] Internal trading could be additional boost of our economy and industry, and could help with migration, say from very well developed planet with population cap, to borderline, less populated worlds. Yes, I do think there should be additional mechanism of pop. growth.[/quote] That was something they worked into Civ 5. You could establish a trade route within your own cites for population or production bonuses. (It also spread religion

Well yes we want the ability to shift focus on a per planet basis. It's the idea of only 3 sliders that I muse might not be enough. What slider do you slide on your influence planets?

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="11" id="3429130"] Quoting nomotog, reply 5Queues would be a better way for people to zone out tech. I don't dislike the idea of studying multiple techs, but I would want the choice to be deep and meaningful. I tossed in a few ideas in my first post. Being able to study more then on tech at once might actually be a better way to handle high tech civs. A lot of 4x games have a thing where civs with high science just blow past techs way too

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="4" id="3429006"] Quoting nomotog, reply 3 The question is why though. Studying two techs at half speed is actually less effective then studying one then the other one at full speed. A little worse is that most of your new players will want to study as much as they can so they will effectively gimp themselves for no gain. The question is "why not?" . Usability, maybe, you don't to jump through different branches, a

[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="2" id="3428998"] Or when you simply want to got for parallel study in completely different areas, even at cost of reduced rate. Of course, all will depend on research model we'll have.[/quote] The question is why though. Studying two techs at half speed is actually less effective then studying one then the other one at full speed. A little worse is that most of your new players will want to study as much as they can so they will effectively gimp

My thought is why. Why would someone study engines and shields at the same time when they could just study engines then shields or shields then engines. It's a neat thing to be able to spread out your recherche, but you also need a reason why you would want to. I guess you could do something where studying two techs at the same time gives you some kind of cross pollination bonus. Like if you study shields and engines then at the same time you unlock slightly different shields. You

[quote who="Darvist" reply="4" id="3428460"] Remember its not necessarily just making the players interest more enjoyable. The AI has to be able to understand and use the tech tree to. The more complicated it gets the more Computing power needed put into make it think and more likely to error or make bad choices. All in all its not a bad idea and its one approach to the tech tree. [/quote] Well they keep bragging about all the cool things their multi core

Hmm. I don't think so actually. Mines are rather annoying from players point of view. Invisible balls of damage aren't that fun to fight in a turn based game. I'd rather see something like giant space walls then mines. At least from a gameplay prospective that is. Walls function about the same as mines being a hex denial system, but because you can see them they enter into your tactical planing.

[quote who="Tridus" reply="4" id="3428554"] It's a gameplay thing, they're legendary things that can't be duplicated so they create a race to build thrm/planets to capture for theM. Its based on Civ of course, where you can't duplicate the Pyramids in significance even if you can build the same thing today. [/quote] GC 2 isn't that good on the race aspect. You tend to be the only one building a particular wonder at a ti

[quote who="antibor" reply="2" id="3428548"] I hope there will only be a very few. Most of them I do not understand why could not be replicated by other civilizations or are just too unreasonable.[/quote] I was wondering about that too in my OP. It seems to be a primary gameplay thing. There isn't a lot of logic in why one civ can make the eyes of the universe, but no other can. It's something to muse about maybe we should be able to repeat galactic wonders?

Lets see if anyone else has been thinking about this. I'm going to assume that they will be returning in GC3, but I wonder what improvements they will be making to them. The change I think needs to be made is that they need to be put in their own section of the build menu. Mostly so we can tell what ones are galactic wonders and what ones are just buildings. Something I want to see added is more steps to building a wonder. Right now you just build or simply buy them. (Who thought

[quote who="sjaminei" reply="2" id="3428053"] It would be great to have a complex trade system on the side, so you are not only building banks and stock exchanges everywhere... but I guess implementing complexity like that makes it harder for both AI's and casual players alike. DLC maybe? Something similar to good ol' Colonization that is optional could maybe be fun. Especially if they made moons etc. have valuable resources, so you had to search for them. [/quot