It seems like what was happening was when you press end turn, it went through various autopilot turns... and some or other ship on autopilot reaches its destination with moves remaining, so it feels like the turn has moved on but it actually hasn't (sorry for the delay, I've had stuff going on in my life)
[quote who="Aedaric" reply="1" id="3518148"] I haven't been experiencing this issue, do you have any specifics regarding your situation? Ship? Game type? System specifications? [/quote] Playing as humans in the largest galaxy size with tight clusters (I think? That's what I set it as, but it looks more like loose clusters) and all available AIs. 3.5ghz 6-core, 16gb RAM, 64-bit Win7, Geforce GTX 650 TI [quote who="Seilore" repl
On the other hand, I just found another one and it does seem to have a working survey module :/ Or at least it has an automated survey option, which the first one didn't
I've found that a really large amount of the time, when you end your turn the last ship you moved manually on the previous turn doesn't get any moves for the new turn
I've found that when you zoom out quickly or move the camera from the minimap there's a tendency for uncharted territory to be revealed for about half a second. I wouldn't bother mentioning it but it encourages the player to spend their time trying to see what's behind the curtain instead of actually having fun
Yeah, I've found that too. They're still really useful for charting new territory (and mebby as strategic combat scouts too actually), cos their sensor range is massive . But if they're not meant to survey anomalies (and that might make them a bit unbalanced tbh, given the incredible sensor range), they should be renamed scouts. I wasted several turns worth of moves when I found one before I realised the survey module didn't work
"decision to spread [hyperdrive tech] to [humanity's] neighbours" sounds clunky IMO. I suggest share with instead of spread to
I'm by no means a coder, but am I right in saying that means the AI doesn't take any strategic or tactical factors into account when deciding what planets to attack when? It's always just the closest enemy planet?
The sound effects don't actually get quieter when you adjust the slider. (note, the music volume settings work fine)
If there's no combat viewer yet in Beta 3 (and if the player chooses to auto-resolve, after it does get implemented), does that mean the interface still doesn't draw the player's attention to what combat is taking place where and involving what ships, like currently? Or will there be something like in Galciv 1?
Also, the new art is preeeeeeeetty @_@ I would like to see race-specific techs become tradeable. Maybe with the race a race-specific tech is traded to having moderate penalties to buildings/ships/modules/bonuses/etc allowed by that tech but with them then able to spend research points teaching the tech to scientists/engineers/operators/etc, after which those penalties would be reduced and the race would then be able to reverse-engineer race-specific techs l
Added the Sentient Machines faction ability for the Yor. The Yor have no need for food and traditional growth. Growth bonuses or penalties on planets do not affect them. They don’t need to use tiles for farms. Conversely they don’t have any natural growth. Instead the Yor have a planetary project that allows them to create new Yor, which they have to do in place of building planetary improvements. So rather than relying on natural growth the player has to decide betw
Re ~18 min about bug reporting. I never figured out a mechanism for doing it like that, I assumed we were just meant to be describing bugs on the forum? Where do you find the bug report feature? I'd quite like a hotseat option, not taking priority over other things but maybe as DLC sometime in the future? Or even just make sure it's implementable as a mod and I'm sure someone will do it Throwing useless planets at ships (and starbases, and maybe other planets?)&nbs
"I don't like the fog, I think we're gonna re-render the fog" - one of the devs, paraphrased Please tell me you're not gonna make it brown with a fuzzy boundary between it and uncharted space like the Galciv 2 fog? I thought that was a real eyesore, to the extent that it contributed to me hardly having played the game. I rarely use the word "eyesore" and mean it literally but it describes the Galciv 2 fog perfectly lol
3) pirates -> I really don't like the CIVs system for pirates, so for GC3 I'd like to have them as a minor race without planets, wandering and salvaging around the galaxy - we could talk with them, buy them, bribe them to attack other civs (guerilla), etc I really like this concept. And maybe there could be a customisation option in game setup for piracy level, so you could set them to be either equivalent to a minor race or equivalent to a majo
I'm watching last week's dev stream now, and specifically the black holes section. I would kinda like to see them pull ships (but not starbases because antimatter) in, because it would add an interesting tactical element to the game. I've had some thoughts about how. It could be made in such a way as to make the autopilot still consider the vortex impassable like currently, so the player is no more likely to stray into it by accident than the AI (or than a ship's navigation co
[quote who="Blue_Oyster" reply="20" id="3501372"] Malevolent means "to wish ill", to "wish evil". [/quote] That's part of the problem. Nobody's driving political motivation is to do evil for evil's sake, except in Saturday morning cartoons. Sure, people might feel spiteful from time to time, but that's a passing thing.
Technically, you could argue that the Entente started WW2 with the punitive terms of the Treaty of Versailles, but that doesn't make the Nazis any less evil or responsible for their own actions. Although admittedly lumping all of the Nazis' atrocities under "WW2" is intensely problematic, considering almost everything else they did was far worse than waging war against foreign powers :/
[quote who="joeball123" reply="18" id="3501363"]The problem with assigning a moral judgment to any game actions is that it carries assumptions about why I'm doing something. [/quote] Yup. That's partly why I suggested Internationalist, Mercantilist, Militarist - an attempt to describe actions and strategic trends rather than ethics
[quote who="Vivisector9999" reply="12" id="3501319"] That annoyed me how in GalCiv 2, I could wipe out one race after another, yet still be officially "good". This time, I think that would be neat if you could win Malevolence points for declaring an unjustified war against a innocent neighbor and conquering their planets. That would give evil races even more of a reason to start wars of aggression and be a threat to the galaxy, which would be appropriate. Or, on the other side, maybe get
Imperialism/Militarism? Mercilessness also works Pragmatism could also do with being renamed. If we're assuming Pragmatism is the effective pursuit of a particular goal (personal wealth? expansion of the species?) without regard for other things which might conflict, then any and all of the three could be argued to fit the description, and depending on the goal, the pragmatism of things like "free trade" are also highly debatable. Maybe a better name would be Mercantilism? <p
Does Nvidia include Palit (which is mostly-identical Nvidia hardware that for some reason Nvidia sell cheaper without the Nvidia name) for this purpose?
I've had one crash (and also an incident where the computer restarted itself while I was on the game, but I assumed that was unrelated), was gonna report it but by the time I got round to coming on the forum I couldn't remember what was going on that might have triggered it so there didn't seem to be much point
I assume it's a mistake that the tech tree describes slave brokering as a "research treaty"?
The minimap always zooms in on the centre of the galaxy (ie, not where you want it - suggest zooming in on either where the camera is on the big map, or where on the minimap itself the cursor is), and then can't be moved