Empress_Fujiko

[quote quoting="post"]It feels all ..aimless [/quote] Hmmmm, the aim are the victory conditions, the fun part is supposed to be figuring out how to get there.

I agree that the interface is not very ergonomic, especially when it comes to the long lists that have no filters or groupings. However, the open nature of the techs and ships is part of the concept. There are no goals or aims to build certain ship types or improvements, because the player is supposed to explore the possibilities and find out what works and what not. It is up to you, to research technologies, design ships and find out what is good. Of course this is somewhat c

My guess would be because it causes a lot of problems with calculating the correct ship movement, which are not outweight by the benefits the feature brings to the game.

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="29" id="3574783"]To those who claim there can't be borders in space...you do realize this is not the main point right? The point is that if another faction does something that is blatantly against your own best interests such as colonizing a planet in a system that already has another planet you own, then it makes sense that the player would see this as an aggressive act and respond accordingly. Nations defend their own interest. It doesn't make sens

[quote who="erischild" reply="21" id="3574512"]What I do want is a UP proposition that says declaring war while within the opponent's borders makes you an enemy of the UP and all members declare war on you for it. Get your ships out of there yourself or be in trouble. You will probably want to exempt unarmed ships from all this. Many players will hate it. They may be right and it may be one of the good reasons for implementing it. It can seriously affec

I bet if "real borders" were introduced into the game, there would be tons of threads of the theme "Why can't I go there? Why do my ships travel such weird routes?" Keep in mind, the freedom of movement is a key part of GalCiv. With any kind of impenetrable borders there could be situations - especially in mid-game - where the galaxy would be a mosaic of open and closed space. Ships would have to fly a zig-zag-path like the pilot is drunk. There also could be situations where some

I'm sorry VladelMC but this seems whiny to me . Than just wait till you can talk to someone, what's the problem? Or better yet, use the planets as a foothold. Develop them, acquire more planets in the neighbourhood. After all, expanding the empire is the game. What? It is too difficult to develop small planets that are far away? Hm, funny, it seems every second thread here is a complaint about h

[quote quoting="post"] I can't plan under these conditions. [/quote] Why not? You know the AI will colonize everything they can get their dirty hands on. It is a known fact, so you can plan with it. For me, it is part of the challenge.

A thought comes to mind: Maybe turning a percentage of the surrendering planets into minors (maybe even multi-planet minors like the jagged knife in GalCiv2) would also be an option to adress the feeling that surrenders break the game. It could be explained as minorities within the failing empire cease the opportunity to declare independence.

Personally I will not stop playing, however I am a causal gamer with maybe ten hours a month anyway. However, I have to admit that the bad ergonomics causing cklickfest bugs me too. [quote who="Bellack" reply="4" id="3573137"]I don't mind micromanagement personally. In fact I would not play the game if they took this away. At least allow the option. [/quote] Of course micromanagement should be an option - but so should be macromanagement! Peo

Surrendes as an option would be nice, but it would not adress the real problem. The real problem is, that GalCiv still lacks convenient tools for macromangament - meaning handling lots of stuff (planets, ships, starbases ...) in way that does not give you tendinitis or make you go insane with the boredom of a massive clickfest. I bet if AU_Armageddon had a convenient way to handle all the ships and planets so he would need only minutes to incorporat

I meant the concept of political borders between the space faring civilizations that are respected by all. Of course they all know what borders are, but how should the Drengin know how many hexes the Terrans consider to be their political border the Drengin should not cross? This needs to be discussed in detail in lengthy negotiations. If it is an option I obviously would not care. However, I argue against making the implementation of that option a priority. There are other things tha

[quote who="Christian_Akacro" reply="33" id="3563453"]While you state that not having PBs is a core mechanic the fact that other TBS games use this proves that false. I love GalCiv, and I'm not going to stop playing because one mechanic frustrates me mercilessly.[/quote] No, I'm saying competing for resources is a core mechanic. And so far all advantages of PB brought to table are just advantages that make the game easier, because you don't need to do anything to secure re

Well, Christian Akacro,we have a claim to Mars, but we can not enforce it yet. The aliens also have a claim and if they colonize Mars, they also enforce it. The whole point of GalCiv is that every faction claims every planet and every resource. Every faction claims galactic dominance. That is why only the power to enforce a claim turns something into property. If you are not really there, it is just a hollow boast. That is true even for the minors! If you meet them, the

... Sorry, doublepost by mistake.

[quote who="Reianor3" reply="8" id="3562337"]The point I'm trying to get across with this part of my post - there are so many things wrong with the interface as it stands that it's problematic and nearly pointless to list them all. It needs MAJOR fixing and, no offence, but whoever is supposed to be working on it has to have a better approach to it than whatever approach was being taken when the current iteration was being made. [/quote] I wouldn't go as fa

[quote who="Christian_Akacro" reply="22" id="3563297"]The point is for some realism. If I'm a race with faster than light travel it seems utterly reasonable to me to set up a political boundary that encompasses some space around my planets, empty or not. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that anyone else should be able to colonize Mars, for example, when I'm the Terrans because I ignore it. That's within my home system but that's totally ok and my only recourse is to declar

Personally I like the freedom of movement that GalCiv offers. That's how it was in GalCiv2 (and maybe before, but I don't now) and that's how it is in GalCiv3. At the moment, I really can't see any convincing argument to restrict this movement by introducing political borders that cannot be crossed without being at war. An argument that convinces me would need to show how the game really proftis from it. So far every argument I heard was basically just a complaint that

Yes please, I support this!

[quote who="Reianor3" reply="47" id="3563035"]It's not a "greener grass, higher trees, younger gals" effect. It is in fact how that happened. Most of the games "at release" nowadays, even the good ones, can't hold a candle to "your average junk" of old on the subject of completion.[/quote] One of the reasons for this is the much higher complexity of the game. Look at the complexity of GalCiv3, the hundreds of options and mechanics that are at work and that need to work togethe

[quote who="NightshadeXL" reply="42" id="3562897"]The game is supposed to be about resource management. If someone wants to sacrifice other aspects to enhance their military power, they should be able to. Someone who wants to win by only military shouldn't be forced to build only big ships, and shouldn't be forced to have production spent on anything else.[/quote] Yes, someone who wants to have a strong military shouldn't be forced to build up a strong military. The United

[quote who="Elucidus" reply="37" id="3561753"]For GalCiv3 I think it is important for two reasons. One if I want to build smaller ships for any reason, one at a time is silly, when i can build larger ones one at a time, smaller should come in batches.[/quote] I think that is a somehow limited view. You narrow down the game to the numbers of ships you produce per turn. But there is more to it. Yes, it is possible to build up so much production that you can build a large s

[quote who="GalCivius" reply="3" id="3559605"] Forgive my ignorance, but I thought I could always edit user created designs? I mean, like those I made myself? Or is this referring to something completely different? [/quote] I don't get it either.

[quote who="TurielD" reply="3" id="3559538"] it turns out if I order a ship to attack the pirate shipyard, it works OK, but if I hit cancel I become unable to attack the shipyard anymore.[/quote] Being unable to attack after canceling the first try happened to me too. However, I was able to attack after reloading the saved game.

I think you never will be able to get a realistic time scale on a turn in a turn based game. If a turn is long enough to explain population growth, than there will be the question why it takes so long to build a small ship. However, I agree the short time span breaks immersion. Maybe they should go with something unclear like the stardate in Star Trek.