JerkClock

Lack of global management tools was the single worst thing about GC2. If this changed for the better with 3, that'd be awesome.

I agree that such immersion would be a good thing, but to make it work, you'd almost have to build the game around it, and I'd say it's a bit too late for that with GC3. [b]Although[/b], this can maybe be done a bit less directly. Say, maybe Benevolent [b]doesn't[/b] lose points for declaring war and such, but gets an invasion penalty, and a temporary moral loss upon declarations of war (Strategic benevolent players will simply provoke other civs, but will have to

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="23" id="3702365"] You could award ideology points for trading, war, goingtowarupon request, not colonising a planet, surveying an anomoly thats in some one elses territory... I still would prefer ideologies that were ideologies, not fancy names for good vs. Evil. Instead of having points in all three ideologies pick the ideology based on your average choice. If there is a tie here, there are two ways to handle this. The f

If stardock has the time and the will, I don't see why not, it's a lot more work than just allowing colonizing events to trigger post-colonization, though, so pragmatically speaking, I suggested the latter. Though if they make anomaly events, they may as well also do straight up random events too. Stuff like, maybe: "An asteroid is crashing into , how do you respond?: Benevolent - Destroy it, of course - +

[quote who="implodinggoat" reply="19" id="3702323"] Is the ideology system going to get any refinement? We're two expansions in and its still more or less the same primitive colonization event dependent system that it was at launch. [/quote] Yeah, kinda weird that this only happens upon colonization. A simple idea for how to do this would just be to make it so that that these random events can trigger for already colonized planets, including the ho

[quote who="AbsoluteZer0K" reply="30" id="3702320"] A possiblity that it may happen? Your May 2017 Journal post gave me a glimpse of what could happen. You mentioned the potential consideration of "letting flees that are commanded by an Admiral have tactical control over their battle. " and that " right now, GalCiv III has tactical battles, it's just that they are forcibly put to auto-resolve.."

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="3" id="3702241"] The formula to how defenses are reduced is changing. Before, if your enemy hit you with a blast of 9 it would reduce the corresponding defense by 9. Now, it would reduce it by 3. [/quote] Wait, is this permanent, or for the battle only?

Damn, I could have sworn the job was programming and developing a working, and fun game. I guess it's actually slaving over whether they wrote a word slightly wrong, or made a very difficult to catch typo somewhere. And yeah, I remember when "Off Course" broke FF7 for me, so much fun could have been had playing it, but then I read that typo, and lost my fucking mind. It ruined the experience man. Or that time I played Mega Man 6, I had to stop playing

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="11" id="3702124"] Im kinda seeing the point of the op. If we really look at this almost every book written would have the same problem. Most books get rewritten before you see them. This is also why we have a first, second, and third draft in english. There is a field for creative writers to proof read. Books otherwise would have the same problem. [/quote] Key word - BOOKS, as in products that are [b]entirely text[/b], ki

I gotta be honest, I actually thought this was a joke/parody topic when I first read it. I'm not saying typos belong in ANY game, but, "OONLESSS DEY LUK LEIKE THEESEE", then it deserves nowhere near the seriousness that the OP gave it. While Draginol is doing cool things with the AI, I spot a person complaining about whether it's "Breakdown", "Break-down", or "Break down", and he's........actually serious. I mean, this is major back bu

The problem with neglecting an anti-rush strategy for the AI is it will create an exploitable weakness wherein players can simply rush the AI to defeat it easily. That's not to say it has to be perfect at this or anything, just don't want a big, gaping weakness that's oh so easy to exploit.

[quote who="P-DEX" reply="24" id="3701933"] *entitlement* [/quote] Yeah, this kinda self-hatred needs to stop within the gamer community, demanding and wanting quality isn't wrong. Demanding and wanting a full product isn't wrong. It's kinda stupid to think that game prices should never go up, and it's not remotely unreasonable to expect a higher UP FRONT price for

So I was thinking, in GC2, ultimately, while there is a variance in strategy to how one can do this, it's ultimately all about targetting the planets. Even using Terror Stars, while certainly a unique way to do so, is still about taking out your enemy's planets. The existence of shipyards presents the potential to make galactic conquest no longer be this simple. Currently, as I understand it, planets still supply the shipyards, and the ability to have more than one planet su

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="20" id="3701883"] That's pretty disappointing to hear. It seems like in 2017 we made a lot of progress on the game. Starting with Crusade and several major free updates to the game. Have you tried the v2.8 opt-in? [/quote] Don't get discouraged, the progress isn't going unnoticed. It's kinda weird that the old game mechanics weren't there to begin with, but I can tell they are less "copy paste" and more "bring it back

So if I'm reading this correctly, the Apocalypse story is NOT being told in this expansion, correct?