leiavoia

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="9" id="3587359"] Mileage may, and apparently does, vary, of course. [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] Yes, GC is a weird game that seems to attract seemingly opposed types of players: high-level strategy gamers, tactics-level micro-managery war gamers, and economic simulatorists; And they all want different things!

One of my gripes is the ability to "rush buy" various things in a single turn (true of other games as well). Similarly, being able to swing an entire galactic economy into full reverse by fiddling with some sliders feels too gamey. I feel like high-level decisions about which direction to take the economy should require some kind of commitment; either time to build, lag time to change directions, or some kind of penulty for going too fast or too hard in one direction. Th

[quote who="CEOMorgan" reply="2" id="3587283"] one global one and one for each base to fine tune) as needed. One can argue that is extra micro, but it's a far cry from moving constructors all over the place. [/quote] No, please, no micro-sliders. That just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Then players will feel compelled to micromanage each starbase slider every turn. Let's say you have a global "starbase funding slider" which

I like this model. However, it probably needs to be tied to your economic model somehow, for instance a "starbase funding" slider, from which all starbases get their money to level up with. The player will still want to fast-track certain starbases. Perhaps they could click a box like "[x] Rush"

Some of this goes back to what i was saying earlier about there being no "alternative" strategy. GalCiv (all versions) has generally always been about stacking incremental bonuses. GC3 continues this tradition. I doubt there will be a full refactoring of the economic system. To have GC3 be anything other a "min-maxxer's paradise", there needs to be something for the player to do other than pursue ever-more bonuses. However, that's basically a different game than what GC3 aims

blowing stuff up.

Planet-buster techs.

I think you're right. It is designed for specialization, but apparently that isn't fun. It's just a race to see who can get the most bonuses. But what if a player going for heavy specialization could be totally up-ended by a player using a completely different strategy ? With the current system, there's no choice, no yin-yang, it's all yin. There's a similar situation with ship hull sizes. In most of these kinds of games, bigger ends up being be

[quote who="naselus" reply="84" id="3585658"] Works for me, but may result in the 'optimal' output position shifting on a turn-to-turn basis. That invites even more micro. [/quote] Not if we switched to a simple "Focus" system ala GC2, or a proposed Governor system. In fact, "Governors" could actually be the "focus tech" to get better returns. You would have a "Manufacturing Governor" tech that gives you better returns on planets that you click the "Focus

[quote who="joeball123" reply="82" id="3585641"] ... mathy stuff ... [/quote] So basically: "diminishing returns" . That's actually a really good, simple, easy to implement idea. Balanced Planet : Better overall production across three fields Specialized Planet : Maximum production in one category, but lower overall output compared to Bal

I would also like this, but it comes down to how players play. Some enjoy challenge, while others enjoy building something. I can understand both points of view.

Side note on custom civs: keep in mind that many players make custom civs to play against , not necessarily with .

Hi folks. Let's take a look at the really high level strategy game design for a moment. It seems to me that fussing over the production wheel is the wrong conversation to be having. The real issue is that planetary specialization is always the right answer. Quoting myself from the Strategy Game Designer's Constitution : Obvious choices should not be choices.</

[quote who="naselus" reply="7" id="3584739"] buildings=output would work. It abandons the pop=production system, but if you're willing to go that far then it'd kill the need to ever go back to a planet after setting up the initial build queue. The downside is, if your economy starts tanking you can't do much about it. [/quote] You could make the argument that if you (as the player) let it go that far, that's your punishment for playing poorly.

I think planetary output should be determined solely by what you build. Benefits: No sliders. More intuitive economy. Increases strategy and forethought (you can't suddenly swing a planet from one extreme to another). Easier for AI to handle. Still allows players to "specialize" planets. thanks for reading

I haven't played the patch yet, but i suppose you could queue up a planet with what you actually want and then set the governor. I'm not sure how the two interact yet. I would never want to give a ground-floor colony over to the AI to manage without queueing at least the first few buildings.

The UI governors are the same governors that AI players already use under the hood to manage planets. If you see AI players making dumb mistakes, you will likely see it on your own planets on autopilot.

@Avatar: read the release notes. you need the corresponding tech to unlock the governors screen. Personally, i think there ought to be some minimum level of governing ability without any tech. Making a UI usability feature dependent on tech just sounds like a bad idea. (Giving bonuses through tech is fine.)

[quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="2" id="3583936"] Quoting leiavoia, reply 1 Bug: The ai is obviously very aggressive and likes to declare war on me a lot, but if I revert to a previous save (1/2 turns ago) and keep playing the ai seems to forget to declare war again. This exploit means that I can build at my leisure

[quote]Bug: The ai is obviously very aggressive and likes to declare war on me a lot, but if I revert to a previous save (1/2 turns ago) and keep playing the ai seems to forget to declare war again. This exploit means that I can build at my leisure and never be under pressure. [/quote] It also means you're a 4X game reloading cheater-head. ;-)

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="309" id="3583204"] I'm wondering if the developers should just totally get rid of the "war" concept and instead change the game title to: "Galactic Economics III." I wouldn't mind. [/quote] I only play the game so i can blow stuff up.

Your opponant will doubtlessly be looking for ways to save the planet.

Suggestion: Instead of just fielding questions, it would be interesting to hear a more focused discussion on a particular topic. Ideas: what is planned for the next build(s), modding, future design ideas, current problems or obstacles, etc.

The AI gets this on difficulty levels higher than Normal (to make it more difficult!). The devs are looking into taking away the ability on some higher levels, but those higher levels need to be more competitive first.

[quote who="Antilurker77" reply="41" id="3581035"] And that still doesn't justify stripping content only to add it in as DLC. ... I don't feel like I'm missing a part of the game if I don't have it. But this goes way to far. [/quote] Mega Events were not a release feature in GalCiv 2. They came in with the Dark Avatar expansion. Also, a lot of people disabled them because they didn't like them. The