chepelink

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="20" id="3457967"]Some of you are over thinking this. We could babble for days about ideologies, and still not realize this isn't real. Real ideologies are as complex as the relations between the worlds super powers. In the game it's supposed to be fun and not have paradox situations that don't really contribute to game flow.[/quote] I love to over-think things, that is why I work where I do [e digicons]^_^[/e] . At the end of the game, as lik

I do not try to persuade you, it does not make any sense trying to persuade you in that regard because the decision does not lies in me or you at the end. Is more that I don't see the conflict of pursuing more than one ideology. Right now it feels odd because the way you obtain those points is or by events or by buildings and I think is the last one is what makes you feel unpleasant. I feel odd also to have a building that give me idealogical points, I rather prefer to obtain such p

[quote who="Achronous" reply="16" id="3457930"]The Pragrmatism I seems a bit overpowered to me. Some strategies depend on attacking early on and this completely bypasses it.[/quote] As they are right now, the bonuses and planed bonuses are unbalanced and they haven't seen how they are going to work in the long run. If you wish to see a little analysis I did to that regard you can read it in this post. https://forums.galciv3.com/453353/page/1/#3457737

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="15" id="3457914"]What I'd actually like to see is the ability to switch ideology through the way you play e.g. you can only have points in one ideology at once if you make a decision aligned with another ideology the points buy you back down you current ideology tree e.g. subtract from points earned. When you reach zero you again start to earn points in another ideology. Any improvements and bonuses get lost as you descend back down a tree. What

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="12" id="3457869"]Of course blending ideologies would not be an issue if they where a bit less polar and cartoonish, but frankly building some of the improvements from the extreme ideolgies on the same planet looks really odd if you look at there descriptions and what they both do given that planet has a unified government and social ideology anyway.[/quote] I agree with you that ideologies does not need to be that polar opposite with a warm and cosy mid

Well, yeah, I haven't had a single declaration of war from them or them to other civilization in many games, so I labelled as pacifist. Most time they're the the one being assaulted.

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="7" id="3457847"] Good, Evil, Order and Chaos as to axis sounds a bit too D&D to me. [/quote] Yea, I know. [quote who="econundrum1" reply="7" id="3457847"]Personally I would like to see more complex realistic ideologies represented but I don't think that's in keeping with the slightly tongue in cheek nature of GalCiv[/quote] Read the OP, in that regard you "create" your ideology as a result of a position in a

So, I guess shipyards are going to be the first target when you are at war, eh? Are there any plans to add auto defense, repair bots and upgrades to the shipyard? If not, poor, poor shipyards, I'll pity them.

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="30" id="3457751"] Ask SD not me, they make our ideas real...but. I imagine the black hole scaling with the galaxy size. [/quote] You are evil, DARCA. Poor SD, make their life a little easier [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] . I asked about the stress on cpu/gpu because of scaling, specially in a 64x64 that they are planing [e digicons]:omg:[/e] .

[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="5" id="3457815"] I actually disagree across the board; players should be encouraged to specialize as much as possible, to make individual planets and shipyards important targets, rather than having every planet be equally-valid as a target.[/quote] If all planets have the same PQ this would hold true in most cases, but your targets usually are high PQ planets because it is a big hit on your enemy if you get one of his and a great bonus to your

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="6" id="3457818"]In GalCiv II mixed planets were actually a valid approach. You still needed to have many specialized planets but It was a good thing to have some mixed planets ( I could build as much as 50%) as they were flexible and they were not that much less cost effective that fully specialized ones[/quote] I agree with this, but also that depend on the overall quality of planets and the race you're playing. E.g., Yor was ideal for a galax

I read the document regarding ideologies in the vault and I can say that seems balanced in most parts, and I found some of them useless or unbalance depending on implementation. In general: - Setting numbers are the worst thing to do with an ever-changing size galaxy. The first 3 planets or 50% in your home planet it's too nice in tiny galaxies and too useless on larger. On the other hand using % are better because the number adjusted by the size and number of planets in t

[quote who="Wetballs" reply="44" id="3457720"]Everyone has their own preferences, and I personally prefer the sliders because I think they're easier[/quote] With this kind of opinions the developers only have one option: make a nice option that change between a slider or a wheel on preference. This is not one of those things that you can only have one type, right?

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="25" id="3457625"] its early for senario's but I had a idea I don't want to forget. 1. A senario with a huge black hole taking up much of the map and stars only on the rim (one sector) tightly bordered by the black hole. There would only be two ways in or out of every empire. DARCA. [/quote] Really nice, but, how it is going to work around sizes (tiny and ultra-big? What about not only big ones but small

[quote who="Iggore" reply="5" id="3457703"] Maybe ideologies could be declined by two ethical axis, the axis of good and evil, and the axis of order and chaos. Like some sort of ethical alignments, if you will. [/quote] Although I said activeness and passiveness as ideologies (there should be much better names for those, by the way) It does not mean that it should stick into those. The only thing is, chaos and order are quite complicated to fit in a c

Although I know that tying social production and military production is like a rule in most 4x games, a possible solution to the double queue is to dissolve that love-hate union between those two. You see, in almost any 4x game you can buy almost magically a building with the correct amount of $$$, and galciv is not different. If we can use $$$ to rush a building, why don't we use the same idea just in another direction? Like, for example: Social production=planet o

I did not say that pragmatic is not an ideology. What I wanted to say about pragmatism is that how it is now it seems like a middle point between two opposites; benevolence and malevolence and that is just a recook of the evil/neutral/good vision (not that is wrong). Pragmatism, in a really simplified way, is to do what it seems that could yield the best results without being worried it is right or wrong, they just focus in the results. In that regard, a "pragmatic" player is going to choose

Behavior is an outcome of the ideology, if you are benevolent you are going to treat people nice and you are going to help them whenever you can. Malevolent people help you if that helps their plans (they are malevolent, no airheads) and their alliances serve no bigger purpose than reaching specifics goals (galaxy dominance, monetary gain, making an army of killer bunnies, as you seem fit). The problem right now with benevolence and malevolence is that they lack of substance, think of Darksei

Production wheel +1, but with a minor tweak: add text boxes to set(type) the values "manually".

I just have one question, how does SD see pragmatism? Do they see it as a middle point between malevolence and benevolence, or how? Because, well, if they see it as a middle point advancing between benevolence ( B ) and malevolence (M) in more or less the same proportion, does not it mean that you are more or less pragmatic (P)? In that case, advancing between B and M should give you P, instead of B and M, at least in some proportion, or reducing the cost of P and increasing the cost in B and

[quote who="EvilMaxWar" reply="29" id="3456977"] Quoting mamfelt, reply 28 ... So what type of information about the planet would surveying provide that cannot be found otherwise by colonists? [/quote] Old civilizations that lived on artificial island but, due to an occurrence they ended in the bottom of the ocean, proofs that can be obtained via spectra analysis of the sea that can only be done in outer space (maybe using satellites,

I know that this WIP and that some things might change in the future, with that in mind: 1. The zigzag movement is killing me and with the slow movement and calm music is even worse. I hope this doesn't reach the end game. A magic warp/teleportation option (skip movement as it is now) is not a bad idea but I like to see how my ship moves (I like how it is in galciv2) 2. The "birthing subsides project" should be logarithmic instead of percentages. It would really give a boo

There are a lot of things that you can do with PQ=0 (and other planets as well) that make them useful in the long run without making them another thing to manage. For instance: gravity pull, the bigger the planet/solar system the bigger the bonus, if your ship pass through a big planet you can save some fuel (movement points) making a way to improve the movement of a ship and searching for the ideal path (and making it a tactical movement in some ways). Another would be tourism income from th

In a sense, pragmatism, benevolence and malice is in the eye of the beholder. You can have a bunch of slaves because of your race policy and you can do benevolent things like giving slaves better food and medicine so they can last longer. In that regard your people see you as a benevolent ruler because you improved the production from slaves in a "benevolent" way, although the end is not "benevolent" in the eyes of some other civilizations. The thing in galciv2 (and maybe 3) is that the good/

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="18" id="3456252"] ... 5. I don't like wealth bonus tiles spawning next to my colonial capital. I want to put a starport/factories there for the +1 to military but it's there ALOT. ... DARCA. [/quote] Would not be better if you are able to choose where to land/build you capital? I say this because, well, sometimes I land in a really good tile and wanted to get ride of my capital [e digicons]:annoyed: