eviator

I think they still have no idea about this one. In the meantime I'm enjoying my double constructor buildable before researching any miniaturization.

It has always been this way. As far as I know it's this way in all games with tech trees, any genre. I do not know the answer to your question.

I found creating additional military ships to be a complete waste. I just took out all their fleets, starbases, and defended planets with the initial fleet, then sent over some transports. I believe this is what was intended. The Drengin ships were very powerful compared to anything I could produce. I'd have to go through the entire research tree for weapons, shields, and hull size, plus some prototype weapons, just to make a huge ship that was on par with the power of one of the

I couldn't disagree more with Lightstar. The same people who distrust corporations and greedy CEOs are the same people who put undeserved trust into our government "leaders". Do you know the fine print of every law and regulation that has been put in place? Because ample evidence suggests every adult American unknowingly commits crimes every day. If the government were to decide to enforce those laws using their warrantless searches, you could very well find yourself with a fine, perhaps

[quote who="charon2112" reply="19" id="3548913"] It's not one comment taken out of context, I quoted your entire post. You said that without prior knowledge of your enemies fleet, then fleet composition is not a strategic part of the game. That's incorrect. When you design and build a fleet, you have a strategy in mind. The question is how well your enemy does or does not counter it. It just seems like a strange complaint to me. I

[quote who="charon2112" reply="15" id="3548652"] This doesn't make much sense. Just because you don't know in advance what the enemy's fleet composition is, doesn't mean you don't employ strategy when you design your own fleets. The result of the battle is decided by seeing whose strategy was stronger, yours or your opponent. In most strategy games, you don't know exactly what the enemy is doing, does that mean there's no str

[quote who="TheBirthdayParty" reply="10" id="3548594"] In my experience you can not, nor can the AI, change its fleet 'on a dime.' I have older fleets that need replacing, but the cost of upgrading each ship is a lot. So I have to build new fleets with the newer techs. As well the AI does not immediately upgrade. If I destroy its fleets it has to rebuild them. I've never experienced the AI or myself able to change our fleets instantly. You can change the composition of hull s

[quote who="charon2112" reply="8" id="3548582"] You don't know. That's the perils of combat, if you knew in advance exactly what to build, every battle would be too easy. [/quote] If true, that means fleet composition is not a strategic aspect of the game. Combat is then highly influenced by hope and luck instead of planning and strategy.

[quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3548563"] Don't forget the ship role plays a major difference. I've illustrated a few times on my stream that a battle where I had better values ended in defeat the enemy had Escorts that destroyed all my assault ships first then escorts. Had I brought a better fleet composition I could have easily won the battle. [/quote] Yes, this is what I was getting at. So assuming ship role makes a difference, how could you have known pr

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="3" id="3548556"] It changes, depends who I'm fighting and what race I'm playing as, I try and produce ships for specific opponents where I can, though obviously I have to tailor tech picks too. I like to use thrusters for improved combat speed and long range weapons to get in the first Volley. I actually think they could do more to make the combat more complex, such has having ship with long range weapons try and keep out of their oppone

[quote who="econundrum1" reply="1" id="3548546"] I don't think it is over engineered, but them my favorite part of the game is designing ships putting them into fleets and letting them battle it out with my enemies, I'm a real conquest victory fan. On the other hand I think they really need to give planetary invasion more love in the future. [/quote] And what factors do you use to decide how to equip your ships and put them into fleets? If nobody can

It seemed to me the development focus on ship combat lasted many months, perhaps to the detriment of other gameplay aspects. While making combat visually appealing helps sell the game, it's not the visuals that concern me. It's the math behind the combat. Compared to GC2 we have new stats like weapon range, fire rate, and accuracy. We also have ship classes which affects the tactics of individual ships in fleet battles. These new aspects represent a large step up in combat com

I'm glad it crossed the 80% threshold, and I'm glad I did not have to give a positive review to get there. Giving it a positive review at this point would have been disingenuous. So would giving it a negative review. There's so much they said they wanted to do by release that they didn't get to. My perception is they wasted way too much time on combat. Maybe they'll get a lot done after the first few patches, at which point I will give a positive review. I'm also willi

[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="7" id="3547970"] Since you know this when planning your planet infrastructure, it just means you need to adjust your thinking. Now generalizing has some advantages. Specializing means more production but is less flexible. Trade off. That's a good thing, IMO. [/quote] I find this acceptable, as long as that is what the devs deem a desirable design choice.

[quote who="Theeannon" reply="9" id="3547799"] Nobody interested in immediatly getting displayed in how many turns a ship is actually completed while changing the manu/research/wealth and/or social/military settings in the planet screen? Same for updating the remaining turn in the manu queue? [/quote] One of my biggest beefs that tells me the game is still beta. Should update turns to completion of the planet queue, shipyard queue, and research in real time. I sus

How come the tooltips don't tell us we are getting production approval boosts? Last I saw approval was only giving us more influence, growth, and resistance.

It's been a long road, surely much longer for you than us. At times I've been a fan boy, at others a harsh critic. I'm happy to see the tremendous progress you've made on this game, even if some things didn't go the way I wanted. I'm looking forward to the additional progress to come. Congratulations!

For enterprise networks, it might not be so simple. In reality patches sometimes break things. Unmanaged patching creates headaches for those tasked with ensuring availability of corporate network resources. So companies may opt to create artificial patch cycles so patches can be managed.

It seems to me their new method caters to those who generalize planets and do not use planetary sliders, i.e. the dev team and the AI. Manufacturing-specialized planets are obviously hit hardest by this. Now such planets are useless if you find yourself not building anything. It also means your civilization is now much less flexible if you specialize. You cannot rush extra research or income as needed. The system was supposed to replace the specialization system in GC2 where you would click o

I wonder if this is the reason, from the 6.1 patch notes: Resistance now modifies how much outside culture effects you. So if your planet has 50% resistance then only 50% of the outside culture will be compared to your planets culture for determining if your planet begins to rebel or flip. Maybe be somehow they are boosting their resistance quickly?

I start with the empire-wide govern screen until I've gotten some planets more specialized. Then those specialized planets will be set accordingly in the planet govern screen, and micro-managed whenever a tech upgrade requires manufacturing to build the upgrades. That's the part I wish they would address: streamlined management of specialized planets. https://forums.galciv3.com/464058

[quote who="torklan" reply="121" id="3544119"] I watched the Dev;s stream posted on their YouTube channel. It confirmed three sad points. 1. The change to how specialization work is something they always intended on doing and from the sounds of it some point of the campaign. 2. The Dev's have no interest in rebalancing the tech trees now that we are forced to only select on option. I believe their comment was along the lines of just trade for the other techs.<br

They've said they want to. They've also said "not at release".

How come nobody said "dacty4491 you are right"? There is some RNG that affects how powerful you can be in the early game. Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes not. I prefer to think of the times it's not in my favor as a challenge. Those games tend to be more fun and certainly more rewarding when I win.

I really think this is blown out of proportion by a vocal minority. They made the game the way they thought it would be fun. They also made it moddable so that those who wanted a slightly different play style could also have fun. It's not like exclusive specializations is a core mechanic of the game that is hard wired into the code. I see the potential for a few different mods 1. No specialization exclusivity (e.g. from Neidzielan) 2. Partial specialization exclusi