Tyrantissar

Perfect idea, no wonder this was a instant approval. you deserve more thumbs up. Also, fix spelling please, it scares off the logical people.

Have you seen what people are posting on this forum, just take a look and read everything. https://forums.galciv3.com/449479/page/1/#3411135 There is obviously some trolling going on in these forums, I never seen such illogical conversation.

Strategy without tactics? That is like saying cake without icing or Hockey without a puck or Michael Jackson without music or a world without evil. Without tactics, do you really want a game where you don't have to think and whoever blows apart the bigger ship. With logic like that GC is doomed, DOOMED TO NEVER SUCCEED IN STRATEGY, EVER. I don't care what you say or think, the truth is that tactics was in GC II and you know it.

Well, I guess this would benefit the lazy, I am sure it wouldn't hurt them to have such an option, but wasting an entire save file on one feature seems a bit extreme, possibly they should have a save file on everything including the layout, where you want the video screens or information to pop up should be up to the player. We would need more responses to this topic

How the f would a rock paper scissors on top of a rock paper scissors formula would work? I would need to create a new forum topic covering this issue I have with the combat system.

Well, I am just saying it would make more sense if we had fighters as the smallest vessels, lack of maneuverability is probably why I disliked the combat despite rock paper scissors being a good combat formula to start with. Maybe this ship component wasn't the answer to begin with and should be redone... maybe they should introduce a rock paper scissors formula to all ship sizes, swarms fighters are good against big honking space destroyer, the big honking space destroyer is good against

I think what he is trying to offer is a way to make things challenging once you get powerful, if these so called Coalitions should be directed against the powerful, there is a major difference between alliance and coalition. The strong can be part of alliances, but coalitions are against the strong and pointed towards survival of anything that threatens the lives of billions. Perhaps if the requirements are meet when starting a coalition against the invading civilization, others who fear the

good to hear it Lucky Jack... I do find the space combat lacking, that is why I had a thread with hyper drive assisted long range missiles to the table, but that is another thread for another time.

To break the repetition you got to have innovative combat, otherwise you are playing the game of the higher numbers wins all the time. You need secondary factors to keep combat from getting bland, or perhaps some innovative ways of using all planets in the game instead of having useless class 0 planets doing nothing but taking up space. even destroying class 0 planets for resources would be better then serving no purpose but to piss the player off when he/she wants to find a habitable planet.

Like honestly would you just want a a empty space grid or hex grid and have which numbers are better win all the time, space should be interesting and there should be advantages and disadvantages of having fighters. Or are you people so lazy at designing the game that you cannot even add 1 or multiple ship components to take down fighters...

why would you want to shoot this down, the ships would still meet the rock paper scissors formula and you don't want any progression, why does GCII have so many video clips of fighters and yet they are not including those fighters in the 3rd generation. Where is the innovation if you cannot even add simple fighters.

Or maybe we should just give this model up and leave the star base system the way it is, I am just hearing what others have to say, really it wouldn't kill you to have like 3 extra constructors up in the 4 weeks given to you to instantly complete it. That is if you want to remove the time parameter... it is just more realistic to include a construction time, if you don't care about realism, then you can suggest to remove the time parameter and just get 4 constructors to instantly pop

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="21" id="3411042"] Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 15 Quoting wuphonsreach, reply 14 - Starbase tech didn't keep up with ship advances. A starbase (in my mind) should be competitive with even the largest ship hulls if you invest the constructors into upgrading it. In my mind, a military starbase should be able to fend off multiple of the largest ships. Agreed

If you don't want to wait long, why not reduce the amount of time it takes for it to get to the final stages, or cut out stage 3 entirely according this model. <img src="

You know what, screw GCII star base construction system, why not make them customizable by designing them beforehand, like a blueprint and the constructor will spend weeks on end trying to get a portion of it done. Once the portion is done then you keep adding constructors till it is fully complete. This way you don't have to send a million and one constructors for 7 star bases. The limits would be the same as any other ship, you can only fit so many parts on the initial construct

well, DX9 may be no longer supported by the company that made it, but I assure you that most games still does support it. My guess is hell yes it will be supported.

Already discussed, they will cut it off when they cut it off.

perhaps you may ask why would anyone would add a new missile ship component knowing perfectly well that they got so many missile designs. Well, guess your in for a treat the long range missiles are designed to snipe out the weakest ships before they get a chance to battle with you. They differ from your standard missile weapons thus you need a separate research tree to unlock their potential Basically you know in GCII has a sniper ship that can't do shit, well this

Information from IGN http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/15/stardocks-galactic-civilizations-3-revealed "He compares the new customization system to LEGO, but the pieces you’re connecting have an effect that goes beyond the cosmetic effect." -IGN If this is true, then we must start with ship component ideas on this forum, I been reading too many post that says do this better or

guys, its only $100, surely you can pay that off at minimum wage in like 10 hours... assuming you live in a wealthy country that is. Just because you think its a rotten deal to you does not mean its the same deal with someone else. Why would you care what other people would buy anyways, it is their cash and they can use it for toilet paper no matter how stupid or immoral it may seem. If you buy a cake, and it taste like crap, chances are there is somebody on this earth that will appre

I have one very good logical question, WHERE in the entire universe are you going to get enough enough rocks to build a whole new planet, when clearly you have to take apart an entire planet or asteroid field that already exist to do it. Can you imagine how expensive this would be, you might as well say screw planets and make planet sized space stations that has some sort of super ability. Oh, right... I guess you found the flaw with making planets, it would be utterly pointless since

This was the best tech tree ever because it was dead easy to program an entirely new one... screw the rules, when you know how to create things with codes.

Star bases were a pain in the ass to construct and upgrade because it took so much time and resources for them to have any worthy abilities. By mid game they blow up and you have to do the whole process all over again only to discover that no matter how hard you try, that star bases is shit compared to fleets of customizable ships. It was so degrading to put so much effort in getting the modules in the star bases and see them pop like balloons because you couldn't get the tech to keep up

Interesting, seems as if we have mixed opinions of the companies involved in the creation of this game, so this game might turn out really really good or really really bad. I would be interested in how this turns out, because I consider finding out the series was still alive by instinct alone lets off a good vibe to this series and the companies behind it. See you when we get more solid information before we go judging how good/terrible the design process is going.

This series is a TBS game, and it should stay that way... However remember this game is NOT set is stone, I advise you to bring better TBS ideas to the table like cards or whatever you think would be a good idea. Sure cards ain't the greatest idea I could come up with but it fits TBS games better then any 4X RTS game. My point is this entire topic is irrelevant because brainless shooting conflicts with everything GC, strategy and effective marketing stands for. If you don't like TBS o