Sounds like a good idea which would be especially useful to newer players and/or players who have not already played GCII.
As far as the realism argument goes, I'm not really seeing it. The game's sensors have ranges measured in the same units as the game's warp drives measure per-turn travel distances in, which means that sensor ranges, in terms of unwarped space distances, are not constant for a given sensor power. This implies that the sensors are at least in part an application of the game's space warping technology, which means we don't really have a good basis of comparison
[quote who="Blaze of Glory" reply="25" id="3538648"] I think multiple sensors are not realistic. If I have a radar set that can see 100 miles, putting a second one on a ship wouldn't make it 200 miles. The limit of the radar is unchanged. That is how it should be here as well IMO. [/quote] Putting multiple telescopes in parallel allows one to create an interferometer that gives greater resolution. Although the visual range is the same it becomes possible to resolve small
In that case we should give a significant nerf to influence. Planet approval should start at a low base level and rise with the total influence potential, being unaffected by the large empire penalty as we know it. This would reduce massively the investment in approval that players have to make, provided that they don't overextend.
I think that there should be an "influence potential" generated by each planet and starbase calculated by the formula a/(1+(x/b )^2), where a would be the influence produced and b would be a scale factor that could increase with technology and buildings, with X the distance between a planet and a given point on the map. Based on its level at a particular planet, the total influence field generated by all planets in your empire would give a bonus to approval on that planet , not large
Will pirates (and other civilizations) be able to commandeer colony ships and constructors in order to build starbases and create colonies? Capture of civilian units was an interesting feature of the Civilization series and it would be excellent to see this mechanic come to Galactic Civilizations III.
[quote who="Spark026" reply="7" id="3536795"] The economy is completely out of whack. Credits only purpose is to cover maintenance cost, so that your treasury stays just above zero. Other than that, you should be somewhere between 100% Manufacturing or Science at all times. And probably at 100% on one or the other of those. Under almost no circumstances would you pay for upgrades. If you even have those kind of credits on hand, you're operating at te
There should be no hard limit on peace treaties but violating them should give significant diplomatic maluses to the civilization that breaks them. Furthermore, it should be possible to hold resources, ships, planets, starbases, etc. exchanged for a peace treaty in escrow for a certain number of turns, payable if the peace treaty remains honored after that many turns.
[quote who="kestlstw" reply="5" id="3536904"] I agree with -rakkus- approval morale is generally not implemented well and usually is just an early get headache and late game afterthought. I've argued that it should be cut or redone as a policy decision issue which could allow for ideology to be removed from colonization. Most of the responses I got to that were its a decision point but generally is isn't really. Right now approval is pointless and even in earlie
[quote who="erischild" reply="7" id="3536750"] The production wheel in empire governance puts the economy into three categories, wealth, research, and manufacturing. Doesn't the wealth portion represent the income in taxes? Would it work for you if they labelled that category as "taxes"? [/quote] The wealth portion doesn't represent income in taxes neatly. The entire production in wealth, research, and manufacturing represents government-di
[quote who="kestlstw" reply="1" id="3536751"] Currently low approval just give penalties to influence, defense against invasion and growth rate. The Yor don't care about growth rate and the rest can be overcome with tech and ideology. I started a thread about the morale system currently but there wasn't much interest, I think mainly because approval doesn't do much at the moment. [/quote] That's true. However, I don't think technology was over
[quote who="Szasta" reply="35" id="3536736"] My suggestion would be to compromise between some of these ideas. Frogboy has said he wants shipyards to be a decision point of resource management for ships, and lots of folks want to improve the "Fun" level of building starbases. What if you combined shipyards and starbases? Might look something like this. 1) You start with 1 starbase in your home system. That starbase has a shipbuilding module to begin with. 
What effect is low approval supposed to have on an empire? Playing as the Terrans, I was at war against a 5x stronger Yor Collective but one whose approval rating, through a series of bad decisions, hovered from 0-1% on the various worlds I encountered. Given that abysmal approval rating I was surprised that the empire functioned at all, let alone had the strongest military, best technology, and highest manufacturing rate. In GCII planets with such low approval would see strikes, death of pop
Unfortunately it doesn't. In GCIII there is no way to set a tax rate although the economic planning system has become more advanced. Hopefully the devs re-introduce tax rates in a patch or expansion.
The suggestions that follow would improve the star base system massively, while not taking away the central reason for the existence of constructors - that, in reflectance of real life, they would cost production to produce and could be intercepted by foreign military ships. Create a pane in the Govern screen specifically for starbases, giving a list of all installations and allowing the player to request constructors of a specific type for each constructor. For example, constr
That's probably a better solution. Why isn't there a central listing of star bases from which one could just request constructors? Better yet, it should be combined with the "States/Regions" idea which recently resurfaced on these forums.
In order to allow for shipyard sponsorship perhaps modules should simply be added to the queue. Or a "govern" screen could be devised for the shipyard allowing one to create an allocation between shipbuilding and starbase construction. Shipbuilding shouldn't cease entirely as a consequence of starbase sponsorship.
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="1" id="3535789"] heres some thoughts on places to look first you would need to create the resource in question by probobly adding it to the strategicresourcedefs file then i would look under ship components and see how it handles removing resources when used and see if you could copy modify and apply the same tags to the buildings you want [/quote] Ideally though, said resource would not be minea
How would one mod in a planetary improvement that would either contribute or consume various resources? I (and several others on this forum) want to make a mod to the game that would fake internal trading in food and consumer goods, and it was suggested that buildings consuming and producing fake resources was the way to go (giving the additional advantage that such goods could also be traded internationally). Adding in this form of trading would add much to the game and I appreciate any help
This is a great idea. Provinces/States, with designated capitals, could figure into the governance structure in some way. Perhaps a designated capital could have a "Regional Capital" improvement instead of the "Initial Colony", with higher flat maintenance costs but higher percentage gains to various aspects throughout the sector. Under a Star Democracy or Star Federation states/regions could even be given latitude to spend a percentage of their net income on social programs that would provid
These are both necessary and important improvements that should be added. Especially on Immense size and above the Idle Colony and Idle Shipyard reports become maddening.
[quote who="Hamilmac" reply="3" id="3534307"] I disagree. This should be based on improvements built on the planet (a trade world just like a production world or a research world). Also, the game should automatically establish advantageous trade routes based on improvements, with the exception of food and maybe production. This would reduce the per-colony management burden on the player and the game co
In order to liven the game it makes sense to introduce more options for trade. The current trading system is one of the weakest links in the Galactic Civilization series: send or receive a ship for trade, and you receive money. There is no trade-off (pun intended) to this exchange, nothing to make it more interesting than gaining credits. In order to make it interesting, trade should be modified in the following ways. For starters, trade should be possible both within and without an e
[quote who="Turkwise" reply="1" id="3527155"] 10x the number of tiles? So you want 400 tile planets? You're basically asking for each planet to be it's own 4X game. [/quote] I've heard that they are implementing ground combat in the game at some point so the addition of more tiles would be a great asset. If they're implementing a new feature they might as well do it fully formed, with enough strategic depth to be interesting. Besides, a 40
In order to harmonize this system a new option should enter the diplomacy screen, International Organizations. A list of existing international organizations should be listed; clicking on a name would allow the player to see the founder, current president, voting system, and enumerated powers of the organization, as well as any requirements for membership (location, ideology, etc.). An option should also exist for players, human or AI, to create their own international organizations as well a