[quote who="ForesterSOF" reply="5" id="3510389"] There is a post somewhere that talkes about deleating some fonts to solve some problems. [/quote] I cannot see it that way: there are no fonts whatsoever in the fonts folder!
Integrated video doesn't work either. I believe that the stuff I see with no fonts in the font folder is the real problem. Don't know how to solve this.
Tried this but found no such files. However, I went into the Fonts folder and discovered it contains no significanr data. That is quite suscpicious. Instead, it contains only a gc3_font_setup program which doesn't seem to do anything when I run it, even as admin. BTW, my installation is in the Steam folder.
Playing my laptop. Windows 8.1. Just most strings don't show. I get some (10% ?) but most don't appear. Most notably, in the start screen menu (the one where there are lots of choices on top right, where the last button seems to be "exit game"), I get nothing on any button. I found the exit by clicking at random...
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="7" id="3492399"] Both of these issues will be fixed. The AI as you know is a placeholder. When the AI gets coded actually for the game I pretty sure it will do exactly what you are doing here. Which leads to this.... Currently there is no economic penalty for that many star bases. There will be. The simple solution is to spiral up the cost of so many star bases that it begins to outweigh their economic
I think their should be a diminishing return on overlapping starbases. The first one with full effect, the second one with half effect. The thrid one with quarter effect. Picking the strongest effect first etc. This would avoid the starbase building spree. Possibly, even don't allow more than one starbase effect on a planet. Doing so would force the player to find the "best" spot rather than just cram space... This would increase the game enj
[quote who="Rand Johnson" reply="61" id="3489969"] IT SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE GC1 AND GC2!!!!! ITS GC3 FOR GOD'S SAKE ITS A SUCCESSOR TO THOSE GAMES. IT'S NOT MOO AND IT WONT HAVE TACTICAL COMBAT THE WAY YOU AND SOME OTHERS HERE WANT IT... GET OVER IT ALREADY. IT"S NOT FINISHED YET!!! ARRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!! The same lame arguments over and over and over and over. Stop comparing it to other games until its finished at least. It will still be a great game!!!!!
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="58" id="3489573"] Quoting Slayan, reply 57 To be honest I really don't see that big a change from GC2 to make a big deal about having it in 64 bit. its a little vanilla I hope the finished gameplay is great otherwise I'm not thinking this version is that much of a upgrade from the last
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="53" id="3489330"] Here is the best analogue for a hex grid on globe I've found. Most solutions I've seen that look good involve including a pentagon every so often. http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/spring09/latitude.jsp But the amount of hexagons on the earth really hides the distortion. I really do understand wanting to mov
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="51" id="3489318"] If you want to deal with just spherical geometry and produce a grid on a sphere you will end up with distortion similar to the longitude and latitude that we use today. How much distortion would occur by using hexagons? There is quite a bit of distortion with just the grid we already place on the earth. [/quote] Yes, and it hardly matters: that distortion would be fairly well analyzed by your brains, and you
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="46" id="3489037"] Quoting moi-meme, reply 45 Just an idea for planets: instead of being a flat hex grid, it could appear as a 3D model (sphere with an hex grid imposed on it) that you would rotate to place your building on. Mathematically it is impossible for a
[quote who="twilight024" reply="5" id="3489178"] The tech ages take away from the fun of the game immensely, and also forces you to play a rounded conservative play style. I like to play my way and my style, some times I win some times I hit cnrl N (the function of cntl hasnt been brought over from gv2 yet [e digicons]X|[/e] ). [/quote] No, you certainly don't have to play conservatively. You can ignore whole branches of the tech tree and still pass ages. You just
Just an idea for planets: instead of being a flat hex grid, it could appear as a 3D model (sphere with an hex grid imposed on it) that you would rotate to place your building on. It is not that complicated to implement, and it sure would feel more like a planet!
I spoke about this as an aside in another post. But it requires its own thread. From the middle of the game onward, I find myself usually cranking hosts of constructors to create/improcve starbase. It's so mauch that moving the constructors around and selecting the item to improve in the starbase becomes more than 75% of everything I am doing. This is because: 1) I have to remember which Starbase can still be improved, so occasionaly I have t check starbase
I agree that the interface looks dated. I am unsure the grid is really useful ; removing it would give a better "space" immersion (i.e. moving to any point in space) ; sticking the fleets on the hex grid doesn't feel like the actual straight lines that fleet should follow. Then, another thing is the appearance of planets directly on the Galactic map. The problem is that it gives the map un ungalactic scale! After all, it looks like a star system is 3 hexes in radius. The U
I like ages. It's a nice way for enforcing cross-fields requirements, without making complex (and somewhat arbitrary) tech requirements. Think about what a "plane" tech tree could look like: helix plane -> jet plane -> supersonic jetplane -> modern supersonic jetplane -> drone Each tech level takes more than it looks, from other fields that have nothing to do with planes: * To get to jet planes, you requires
Yes, starbases need a lot more. We are still seing mostly GC2 starbases. I believe that upgrade through constructor is a bad design choice. It forces not fun micromanagement of constructors, and when you do have 15+ starbases around (in some GC2 games, I'd have much more!) lots of game time would be to: * select the starbase for that new constructor * check that en route constructors are safe * wonder what for I initialy sent that constuctor, once i
Well, its actually free! No credits are taken from your credit pool...
Space combat is, well, a bit sketchy. When I lose, I'm not informed about the state of the opposing fleet after the combat.
OK, I see the Drengin capturing my planets one after the other. I just fail to see how they do this (actually I'm not even informed about the event!), and it seems I cannot do the same. What am I missing ?
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="14" id="3486102"] The current strategic resources are things like Elerium, Duranthium, Antimatter, and the like. You need them to build certain ship modules. The old resources from GalCiv 1 and 2 will be back in the form of "Relics" (at least as far as I can tell by looking at the game-files).[/quote] That's good. But I'd expect more of them for different pruposes ; not exclusively ships. [quote]In effect, there is absolutely no disti
[quote who="Athlgrond" reply="11" id="3486082"] The international community agreed with the USA on the Iraq WMD evidence (which IMO says something unflattering about "consensus" being equated to "correct") and the consensus along with existing UN resolutions was the basis for an invasion, and there is no such consensus about Russia's claims and no international support anywhere to be found. Further the USA doesn't want Iraq as a st
[quote who="Ryat" reply="10" id="3486076"] Government forms will be in just not now. [/quote] [e digicons]|-)[/e] [e digicons]|-)[/e] [e digicons]|-)[/e]
[quote who="Blaze of Glory" reply="7" id="3486064"] Many features are not in yet. So as to those useless class 0 planets, I suspect the currently disabled terraforming will be what you are looking for. [/quote] In GC2 it did not. I would like to ensure that this is not so in GC3. [quote]I believe the ideology tree is essentially something like your government request. Malevelent societies will be hated, etc. The name given to a government doesn't mean it wo
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="6" id="3486060"] Let me say only thank goodness (it is) like Gal Civ II. Most of your points have been discussed in previous posts. Many features have not even been enabled yet so we cannot really say this or that is how it should be. [/quote] I'm aware that this is an alpha and features are not all in! [quote] The game is founded on the rock/paper/scissors idea of combat. The system works well and is easy to understand for