I realize these aren't yet available, but before they do get implemented, I'd like to make a suggestion: DON'T HAVE THEM. At least, not in the same sense that GC2 had extreme planets. That is, in GC2, all races colonized the same basic type, and "Extreme" was the same for all of them, the ability to colonize depending only on access to certain techs. And the Terraforming techs applied to ALL planet types. Rather, I'd p
[quote who="Honethite" reply="22" id="3456154"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 2 Personally, I could imagine 100+ civs in a large enough galaxy. That blew my mind. I cannot wait to play these large, LARGE games! [/quote] As we've talked about in another thread, one of the benefits of a 64-bit OS and fully 64-bit aware application is that there are no effective limits. You're limited only by how much RAM you can stuff
Burba - that's interesting, but that's an entirely different model for a game than GC3. At some time in the (far) future, Game Developers are going to come together and form a consortium that handles combining different game types, so you can have something like a 4X with RTS combat, Spore-like planetary evolution, "spy" missions that play like Thief, etc. All in a persistent universe like Eve Online. But I'm not holding my breath, bec
GalCiv3 Forums
It's annoying, but it's temporary. They're re-using artwork as placeholders for now. I do have to say that the *absolutely* need to do away with the "inherent" bonuses from certain terrain. Either it's a terrain type with no bonuses, or it has an Icon which denotes the type of bonus(es). It's just annoyingly confusing otherwise, because you have to constantly re-survey everything looking for "hidden" terrain bonuses. Also, I'd like
Since I thing the issue of galaxy size and Virtual Memory is pretty well settled, I presume what you'd really like is a configuration file somewhere that lets you tweak all sorts of various parameters. My presumption is that this would reside in the Game directory itself, as one or more XML/INI - style files that were sourced upon launch by GC3. To a certain extent, I would hope that something like this is documented in a Modder's Guide or similar, that
Jeremy - Exactly what would the purpose be of this scratch area, that disk-based swap wouldn't already cover? Virtual Memory subsystems are extreme efficient about caching data and deciding which will be used when, and that includes lots of memory-mapped files. If you're ever going to be using a file more than once, then letting the VM subsystem handle where to keep it is far more efficient than trying to have the program know when it makes sense to pull in or
I realize the icons for the planetary tile bonuses are being recycled from GC2 at this point. However, I just compared them from a game of GC2 to the new GC3 planet tile view. The icons (whatever they are) need to be about twice (maybe even 3x) as big in GC3 as they currently are. It's night and day in terms of ease-of-recognition. Particularly now that the backgrounds are more interesting, and the buildings themselves will be more detailed, it's *
After reading both, I'm pretty happy with the SY100 concept and agree with most of the above. As mentioned above, I would think that maybe a planet-borne starport should have the ability to build *any* unarmed ship. Though, frankly, there's a loophole there: you can build a battleship hull, stripped of all weaponry/etc, launch it, then upgrade it for a price to get your weapons loadout. I wouldn't worry about that too much, because, if the upgrade fees are close to wha
I'm 99% sure that if you buy it through StarDock, they get more of the money than if you do through Steam. Buying it through StarDock gets you a generated email link to go log in to the StarDock site, where they'll generate a Steam key for you. You can then manually activate the Alpha in Steam using that key. In both cases, you WILL ALWAYS have to use Steam to actually install the game itself. It's a comparable experience to going to a physical store and bu
I'm using a puny GTX 650 Ti 1GB graphics card, but, then again, I only do 4X games, so that's more than sufficient. But, hey, the *rest* of the box is leftover OEM parts from our Intel Beta program. I *seriously* doubt anyone is going to be gaming on something like this anytime soon: (2) Xeon X5660 chips - 6 cores/2.8Ghz/12MB cache each 48GB of PC-1333 registered RAM mirrored enterprise-level SSDs. SAS 6G RAID controller, wi
On this note about Life Support, I'd like to suggest the following: 1) New LS tech DOESN'T increase any ship range. It merely gives access to new ship components, which are what determine range. 2) LS components should start out LARGE (in terms of space), but cheap. Improvements should reduce the first slowly, but increase the second quickly. E.g. "Basic" LS should be size 10, cost 5. Reduce size by 2 per new tech, but double the cost. 3) Range sho
It's a space-sim. There IS no significant terrain in space. In fact, the overriding restriction is distance. Both in terms of the time it takes to travel, and the maximum range of your ships. I *do* thing GC3 should pay more attention to range. In particular, Range should SOLELY be a function of distance to the nearest supply starbase or planet and the Range Components on the ship. I *really* didn't like that researching a new Life Support t
GalCiv3 Forums
There are definitely times when you want the "older" version, and not have your Build Queue touched. Tade Centers vs Banks, and Research Academies vs Neutrality Learning Centers are classic cases. The lower-tech versions are FAR faster to build, and you get the (substantial) benefits much earlier. I'd often build a bunch of Trade Centers, then wait to upgrade them to Stock Exchanges, and forgo Banks entirely, because they (banks) were simply too expensive in terms of
The multiple-researching thing was done in Homeworld. Honestly, it didn't work out that well, even though they implemented it correctly - e.g. it was more efficient to research multiple things in parallel than do them serially. But, however, there were always critical technologies that people wanted fast, and provided significant advantages. So, even if the parallel research path got you more techs over the same period of time than by serially researching them, the advanta
Maybe, instead, it would say: "How about a nice game of chess?" (Wargames, for those who didn't get that reference)
I'm very much in favor of NOT restricting a player to just one Ideology tree, and, in fact, allowing them to "buy" from the various trees, based on their acquisition of Ideology points (via Event, building, etc.). What I do want is the Civ5-type concept that purchasing specific ideology entries denies you the ability to ever purchase certain others in the other two trees. E.g. the "Heroic Nature" and "Doctrine of Strength" are inherently incompatible. Doing this woul
GalCiv3 Forums
The big thing I miss about a dual queue is the ability to dedicate different governors to the different systems. If we bring back a starbase/starport combo, that lets me set a whole configuration for that completely independent of anything else. So, if I'm in a battle, I can go around and assign all my starports to be building a specific fleet configuration, without having to screw with what each particular planet is doing to develop itself. I *much* prefer dual qu
Yeah, I had a problem with that in GC2. The background image is just distracting. I'd rather we saw just the playing field, and nothing as a backdrop. Or, had the option of turning it off.
1) I see nothing wrong with the existing model from GC2 on cultural influence, which does expand influence according to the cultural output of the planet. 2) The city production tile system from Civ5 doesn't match well here, and as much as I like it for Civ5, I think it would be a mistake for GC3. We have the terraforming tech tree system instead, and I think that fits in better with the idea of improving a planet. 3) We'll get a tech tree view soon. Look at the bottom
One of the more annoying things in GC2 was that you could lose a non-trivial amount of production because the building/ship you were making wasn't an even multiple of the planet's protection, and any excess would be lost. Civ3 has this problem, too. Civ5 fixed it, by assigning any "excess" production from that turn to the next item in the build queue. Please do this in GC3. Especially now that you've unified the build queues; having to constantly micromanage
OK, I've been playing this for a couple of hours, and I'm mostly commenting on UI things I've found annoying: In planet admin view: (1) something needs to be done to make it visually obvious what "type" of tile (e.g. arid/plains/etc) it is and if there are any special "other" bonuses, without having to mouse over it. Suggestion: use another small icon (just like the "bonus" icons), and put it in the top of the hex. (2) Can't repl
I'm really not sold on the Production Wheel thing. Part of the problem is that it's one of those "infinitely tunable" knobs that actually gives the user far more control, with less real understanding than they should have, when compared to a well-though-out set of options. I'll keep trying it, but I'd actually prefer right now if we went back to the 3-slider options, marked in 10% increments. It's easier to grasp for most people (the "wheel" concept i
(1) Just return them to Good, Neutral, and Evil. It's a PC game, but not that kind of PC. The Benevolent/etc. descriptions are mealy-mouthed and actually not that helpful. (2) I'd like to have them continue to have multiple options available to "spend" your morality points on. But I do think that by choosing certain ones, it locks you out of others. E.g. picking certain Evil options may lose you the ability to pick a couple of Good and Neutral ones.&nbs
I'm actually OK with NOT having the planet info when you click on the star - it was a lazy method that meant you could "skimp" on surveying. This way, you actually have to have the survey ship scout through the ENTIRE system to make sure you didn't miss anything.
I'm going to suggest that they abandon the "tooltip" method of displaying the vast majority of information. It's annoying to constantly have to move your mouse all around the UI to get information that should be available at a glance. The Research thermometer progress bar, and the Construction progress bars for each Planet definitely should have a number at the far right of the bar indicating how many turns remain for that item.