nomotog

[quote who="yarodin" reply="142" id="3406603"] “Some types of weapons are better against some kinds of defenses,” says Wardell. “You can’t just scattershot. You have to focus. If you’re going to war with the Drengin Empire and they’re focused on, let’s say, shields, then you are going to want to go after them with mass drivers.” Now, that's no news, It sounds exactly like in GalCiv2. Not very promising.[/quote]</

[quote who="TweetyLeaf" reply="134" id="3406414"] Quoting nomotog, reply 132 Rather then having to divide fleets into squads, maybe just have fleets from adjacent tiles be involved in the battle. Like if you have two fleets flanking one fleet on the gal map, you could set both fleets to attack at the same time. (Maybe even get a flanking bonus.) Then you could have other things like a fleet with a long range bombardment ability, so you can bombard a fleet before you attack an

[quote who="tjashen" reply="4" id="3406391"] Quoting Gaunathor, reply 2 Demanding logic from Kaiju Eiga? Where is the logic in that? I'm all for movies, that make you think (2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner are among my favourites), but expecting this from Kaiju Eiga is misplaced. They are primarily about the visual spectacle (the fights and the destruction). Only a few go beyond this and raise some issues (like my favourite movie, the original Gojira).

[quote who="TweetyLeaf" reply="131" id="3406365"] Action points might actually rock. Just an idea that i haven't thinked trough, i think it while i write it now, so bash it if its crap. In fleet's you could create squadron's. If fleet size would be 20 ships (not speaking about max fleet size, just for the purpose of this example). You could have X number of squadrons in there, 20 if you like (your really not wanna do that). So

[quote who="charon2112" reply="2" id="3406229"] Are hexes confirmed? I thought Brad had said in the past that he didn't like hexes for 4X games.[/quote] They are confirmed to be in. https://forums.galciv3.com/449010/page/1/#3405279

Has anyone noticed this. https://www.galciv3.com/game The icon for the media section looks like a screen shot. (I can't figure out how to get the image alone.) At first I thought it might be a place holder from GC2, but it has a hex grid. It still could be an image concept and not a screen shot, but I don't know. Looks nice though.

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="5" id="3406163"] After seeing the video, I have the (maybe wrong) idea that we are getting carriers and spacefighters (and more) in game. I'd like to think that after working with Ironclad, they got some nice ideas about stuff for our GalCiv III fleets. In GalCiv II i'd build smaller fighters to go along capital ships for easy extra power and laser fodder. But they weren't really needed so anything that improves it, like the dieas of

I like it. You would need to change the combat system for something like this to work, but that is a small price to pay.

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="4" id="3406064"] I didn't like how you developed your world in GalCiv 2. It wasn't the best system for figuring out what your planet had, and it also wasn't the best system to for keeping things organized. If I wanted to know that my world had 1 Starport, 1 Counter Espionage Center, 1 Advanced Navigation Center, 1 Power Plant, etc, I would need to find them on my planet map. Likewise, if I wanted to know how many factories a world had, I would

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="18" id="3405813"] The "colony rush" is a main core of Galactic Civilizations. It's even part of the story.[/quote] Do we like it though? I don't much myself.

They could be removing the planet maps. I hope not because I like them and think you could do a lot with them. I think if they keep them, then they will be hexes so they match at the very least.

I am currently unsure if I will buy a founders pack. On one hand. I have objections to buying any game before it's released. On the other, boy that is a nice shiny badge.

One thing I liked in SoSE was the emissary vessels. I like having a diplomatic unit I could deploy to help improve relations and I liked how they came with the ability to basically buff the people I was trying to be friends with. It might be neat to have something like that in GC3.

[quote who="Murrdox" reply="84" id="3405600"] Quoting nomotog, reply 83 But isn't want we want is better combat. Not just tactical combat. Yes there are many ways to do tactical combat, but might there also be way to do better combat that wouldn't even be called tactical combat. Example civ5. That game's combat has a lot of elements like flanking and units with different range and even carriers. It has a fair amount of tactical depth, but it's not what you wou

I was musing about this too, but I was more thinking maybe just not including a date?

[quote who="Murrdox" reply="77" id="3405506"] I definitely want to see some kind of tactical combat from Galciv3. That doesn't mean I want GalCiv3 to be like MOO or SotS or any other game. I think there is a lot of different ways that you can take tactical combat. I'd just like to see GalCiv3 delve a little deeper than GalCiv2's "movie combat". There are lots of different ways you could implement tactical combat: 1) Full Tactical turn

I think I get what you mean about ship building getting being tedious. The first time you make a ship it's fun. When you have to redesign a ship to deal with a new threat or a new problem, that is also fun. When you have to go through and replace all your type 3 lasers with type 4 lasers only to replace them all again 5 terns latter without them ever evening have been used. That is the tedium. You could fix that maybe with an auto upgrade feature that keeps your ships up to date w

[quote who="RonLugge" reply="8" id="3405006"] Sounds like Space Empires, nomotog. They had ship-based 'construction' components, and starbases were just ship types that couldn't mount engines (and had some base-specific bonuses like better attack)[/quote] Yep. I was thinking of Space empires when I wrote that. (I wish SE was as playable as GC is.) I believe other games have done it in similar ways though.

[quote who="exogeologist" reply="3" id="3404987"] Quoting nomotog, reply 1 I think starbases need a complete overhaul from the what they had in GC2. How so? I'd love to hear your thoughts.[/quote] I'm not game dev, but I'd start with putting starbases in the shipyard as their own hull type that can't mount engines, but can mount some components that ships can't. (Economic components and the like.) You would still

I think starbases need a complete overhaul from the what they had in GC2.

[quote who="Tenton" reply="41" id="3404934"] must i once again +1 both !?! well i just did. Ofc it would be a work-load for the guys at stardock, to offer some realtime battle mechanics, but the addition would bring the game to a whole new level. Hell, even if "just" some fleet realtime battle. I know as mentioned by some, "planetary-battle-take-over" as real time strategy would be heavenly, but i have no doubt everyone here who types that knows; the massive amou

I'd like to see more depth to the combat. If it means adding a tactical element then I am OK with that. Civ v managed to add a lot of tactics elements to strategic combat (flanks, range, ect ect) without adding tactical sub battles, but that system had it's own down sides. Most 4x games have tactical sub battles for a reason. It allows for more depth in the combat and that allows more depth in ship building. The lack of depth in designing ships was one of the things I found lacking in

I think you could do something really neat with having your ground units moving about on the planet map. I think star drive dose something like that.