Reaction movement is kind of messy and that is the reason you tend not to see it in games. People don't really like seeing seeing the enemy acting out of turn. If it's my turn, I don't want the board moving around on me because that messes up my ability to make plans. That example in the OP where a enemy fleet moves into attack you on your turn would be more annoying then exciting I think.
I am going to muse that they might be doing call to power style combat.
I love the sound of expanded ship options. I love it a lot.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="337" id="3419731"] This thread's refusal to die despite it already being said there isn't tactical combat is impressive.[/quote] I think it's because a lot of people see the combat system in GC2 as a flaw that is holding a lot of other aspects back in how much depth they can have.
[quote who="jecy99" reply="2" id="3419491"] yes, exactly.. another thing that crossed my mind was cost.. Shouldn't it cost more to build a colony on an aqua world, all structures being underwater.. verse a normal world, that does not even need terra forming? but onto that side, what about unique buildings, and techs to improve the variety of planets.. Solar farms to improve barren worlds, O
I would love it is planets behaved differently based on what kind they are. Like if barren worlds couldn't support farms, or if ice worlds had trade resources like water that could only be found there. Kind of like how when in civ when you found a city in the desert, it will have a different makeup then if you founded it on the cost. It should be the same thing in GC3. If you found a colony on a desert world, it would behave differently then if you found one on an water world.
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="15" id="3418869"] Quoting Hamshank, reply 11 I disagree, because ultimately 99 planetary building choices that repeats itself every turn is displacing real gameplay, and distracts from the broader picture of whatever is happening Wait... so you disagree with me... but you agree with me?[/quote] No. Their post was right under mine. They where disagreeing with me and agreeing with you. I no doubt disagree
I am kind of thinking they will redesign the tile bonuses completely. Make them actual resources rather then vague bonuses. Like a tile now might be rare tiny partials that increase your mineralization. Maybe resources that have more then one affect. Like a crashed dreadlord vessel that has diffren bonuses based on what you build on it. Build a science lab on it and maybe you unlock a restricted technology. Build a space port over it, and all ships built on this planet now have +1 to ea
[quote who="Arcus2611" reply="12" id="3418841"]be allowing players to select multiple tiles and specify a single build order for all of them. Or having recent events organised into categories, for those rounds after you blow up a lot of ships. There are probably quite a few other simple tools that would help to speed up the game without having to delegate to AI.[/quote] Oh yes a ship queue would be a nice addition. It's so common in strategy games that I forgot that GC2 didn't
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="9" id="3418808"] Quoting nomotog, reply 8 Being able to automate some of theses repetitive tasks would be nice, but another question to ask is why are these tasks repetitive in the first place. If every time you placed a building on a planet, you where making a deep an meaningful choice, I don't think you would be asking to automate it. If planet management is even remotely similar to the way it was in Galactic Civilizations
Being able to automate some of theses repetitive tasks would be nice, but another question to ask is why are these tasks repetitive in the first place. If every time you placed a building on a planet, you where making a deep an meaningful choice, I don't think you would be asking to automate it.
I think I kind of like this idea. Space empires had something like this. It was a component called emergency speed I think. If you used it, then your speed would improve for the turn, but the component would be destroyed and have to be repaired.
Civ 5 could have done something where they spread out the citys over multiple hexes. Kind of like what GC dose with it's planets. You have all the planet facilities each on a different tile. One of the reasons I think that single unit per hex might work better in GC then it did in Civ5. I would also use the distant stars tight clusters set up. For much the same reason. I kind of thought of the space between stars as a space ocean because you needed to design ships with extra
[quote who="1xador" reply="16" id="3408055"] When you research the last espionage tech in the tree, you win an espionage victory. How is this different from a research victory? The espionage victory conditions I have come up with are: Corrupt X% of all production in the galaxy for Y turns or Setup puppet governments for each faction. This would be controlling enough votes to always win a vote. I am not sure how this wou
Yeps. It makes a fair amount of sense. I'm kind of wondering if things might be better if the barrens where more barren.
[quote who="Farplane" reply="9" id="3407932"] I'll have to throw my hat into the keep the micromanagement pool. I personally want to see some refinements geared at the late game, when you have in excess of 25 colonies, the management gets tedious, particularly if you found new colonies or conquer a new planet and you want to get it up to modern tech levels, or more so during war time and you need to continuously purchase ships or structures. id like to b
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="6" id="3407871"] Quoting Wintersong, reply 4Moving from hex to hex? That would be a curious idea. Maybe they'll make a separate map for star systems, like in MoO2 or Ascendancy. Well, maybe not like Ascendancy. That one was in 3D. [/quote] Na. It wouldn't be hard at all to get the planets orbiting on the sun in the normal map. A little easier with hexes because they make such nice circles. We just shouldn't try and make
I'd like some more micro actually. Never complexity for complexity's sake, but the micro is a big part of what I like in a 4xgame.
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="24" id="3407814"] Quoting nomotog, reply 22Why has stardock been resistant? Mainly that they don't do anything you can't do without them. There's nothing a fighter can do that a tiny hull couldn't, the push for carriers is mostly people that want to evade the logistics cap (see reply #19) or just on a mindless "lol carriers are cool" rant. If done correctly they could be a good addition, but combat in the previous two games
[quote who="Alstein" reply="173" id="3407459"] I just don't think TC should anywhere in the scope of the game, and I don't want it being something the human can exploit against the AI like it could in FE. Being able to give orders before a battle is fine, but once is starts, I don't want to be able to influence it. Elemental series made me skittish about Stardock implementing TC in GC3.[/quote] Will the
You know you could do this in sins. I would play through the opening on easy or normal so I could get set up without dieing horribly, but after I get a nice empire I would change the AI up to max so I could have something fun to fight. Cheat codes are just fun you know. It's another toy in the sand box.
I don't need better graphics. It's the gameplay that I care most about. They could animate the whole game with scraps they found in the junk box for all I care. (Actually that might even look kind of neat,)
[quote who="screamingpalm" reply="147" id="3406885"] I like rock, paper, scissors! Napoleonic tactics etc. At least, in a soft-counter way rather than hard-counter... (if that makes sense?). Requires one to use combined arms rather than spamming one unit.[/quote] You know I'm not going to say that the system doesn't work. A lot of a lot of games build themselves around the idea. I'd even say that it works in GC2. One of the fun things in GC2 is hitting the next turn
[quote who="charon2112" reply="9" id="3406864"] quoting post Since war is a huge part of any 4x strategy game, here are some changes to the combat from GalCiv2 that I'd love to see implemented in GalCiv3. -When I first encounter an alien spacecraft, there's no good reason why I should be able to right-click on it and see its exact weapon and armor specifications. This should require some espionage, advanced scanning technology, or first hand experience fig
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="145" id="3406714"] Quoting nomotog, reply 144No it's not promising at all. If they are keeping the rock, paper and scissors of GC2, that suggest to me that they don't intend add any extra depth to combat. I'm assuming that if there was a new aspect of choice then they would have eluded to it. Maybe he should have continued reading, because the next paragraph of the article says this (emphasis mine): Wardell says the c