yarodin

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="96" id="3418356"] Quoting yarodin, reply 94 Lucky Jack and I already told you why we think mines are a good thing. Ok, you can disagree, but please stop ignoring our arguments. We already told you what we think what the benefit is/would be. Unfortunately, he's right. Nothing in your arguments amounts to more than "mines for the sake of mines" and a lot of frantic justifications for it. Not to ment

Reply to Tactical mode for spacebattles in GalCiv3 in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="23" id="3418240"] Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 20Total war games have an auto resolve button if do not want to fight a battle. Auto resolve is *never* an option. It basically falls into two categories: the auto resolve can fight a battle as well or better than the player, or the auto battle does worse than the player. If the first is true, why would anyone play out a battle? The AI ca

Reply to Tactical mode for spacebattles in GalCiv3 in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="GrayLord" reply="22" id="3418216"] I'd like to give general orders to the fleet (close in, harass, evade, etc) at the start and maybe have an option to update the orders mid-way. This would also allow different weapons to shine based on the order (beam weapons for close in actions, missiles for long range / harassing actions). Yes I envision fast, beam armed ships with lots of missile defenses charging into an enemy fleet and proceeding to decimate it at

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Tridus" reply="93" id="3418199"] Quoting Lucky Jack, reply 92 The whole point of mines is that mines are orders of magnitude cheaper than unmanned mobile defenses, don't have to be individually manned, can be seeded into an area by a tender, are orders of magnitude smaller than an unmanned mobile device, are harder to detect than larger devices, and can be as smart as your tech base will allow. on land,this is true and mines are us

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I agree with the limited traveling lanes for mining. I mentioned that in a previous post. If someone wants something from your planet (e.g. conquer it), this someone has to come to the planet. For the mines - they are of course hard to hit. First because they are very small targets. Second, they don't emit any energy, so you don't get them on passive sensors. Third, active sensors like radar or lidar are easy to counter through shape and hull materials (that is possible even t

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="12cfoster" reply="84" id="3417862"] I don't really want another thing to keep track of when ships (with engines and guns) can do the same job so much better with Sentry or Guard enabled. You want big sensor range, get Eyes of the Universe. Now you have long range sensor ships that can respond to enemies. If you really don't want to bother going up the (short) sensor tree, then stack a bunch of sensors on a cargo hull. Your economy should be go

Reply to Deemphasize Starbases. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Breadshaped" reply="83" id="3417366"] Quoting Cikomyr, reply 3 A single constructor should be needed to startup the starbase. Once it's been initiated, we should simply have it build by planetary production, with a penalty linked to the distance between planet and starbase. Edit: Sorry I didn't read all the posts above me and someone already suggested this I was thinking about this and it could be like how freighters work.<br /

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="71" id="3417564"] What we might be able to do with the closing borders thinyg might be dependent on the species. Lets take the Terran alliance, I'm basing on our current border policy assuming this is a closing borders thing. By this time there would be no capital punishment. so we would try to capture the ships, and judging by our current imigration policy with illegal immigrants we would deport the illegal immigrants.[/quote]

Reply to Deemphasize Starbases. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Stohrm" reply="80" id="3417353"] A Starbase should be a logistics focal point. Whether it's purpose is to help with trade or to "defend the frontier against the Khodan armada" it needs to be a Base of operations. Perhaps for refueling ships. Maybe for extending communications. [/quote] In GC2, starbases did extend your ship's range. I admit, this was more a side effect than the original purpose of the base. A base useful for fleet operat

Reply to New Missile ship component in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I don't like the idea. In terms of game balancing and because it's not very realistic. To target a ship this far away (with a solid firing solution), you'd need a hell of a sensor tech. Your sniper missile needs enough fuel/propellant or whatever to reach the (moving) target and has to have enough power to maneuver short of the target because a ballistic flying missile is dead meat against any active anti-missile defense. The strength of missiles is that they are elusive t

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I think that depends on the size of the borders. A space 2-3 hex fields around a planet shouldn't hamper yout scouting abilities a lot, Only in dense inhabited space, you'd find a solid "block" you'd have to move around. Regarding the mines: Of course it's impossible to mine a complete cube with an edge of a parsec. Mines in space do have a purpose in my opinion only if you know on which vector your enemy is likely to sail by, so you could greatly decrea

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Of course one could cross every border, i don't think anyone suggested a "force field" or something like that. Crossing a border just means you may get the party which space you violate pissed of on you. It's your decision if you ignore that or if you say "ups, sorry, was a mistake". A civ should just have the right to say who has permission to pass and who not and to decide what to do about it. As a human player, maybe you get a message if somebody crosses your borders y

Reply to Stay Out Of My Space!!! in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I like the idea of country borders around your planets and your star bases and which are not identical to your influence borders or scan ranges. Everyone could cross scan ranges or move through my sphere of influence (why not?), but everyone entering my borders needs a permission, maybe except ships without military or star base modules, so freighters can establish trading routes. If you negotiate a "open borders" treaty, the partners can pass the borders. Additionally, you could even

Reply to Torians in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

In GC2, the appearance of a race doesn't really matter. You see them only on the race selection screen (which is just an image) or in the diplomacy screen (I'm not sure, but I think they weren't animated there either). So, what really matters to add a race are its traits, tech treee and maybe ship design style. Don't know for GC3 of course, but individuals (and their appearance) won't be very important either.

Reply to Needs better tech _tree_ than last time in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

And in regard of the multiplayer-mode, it would be very nice to (or at least have the possibility to ) trade techs with your allies in your effort to beat other players.

Reply to Interactive Planetary Invasion in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

They will not include tactical space battles where you control the ships directly, so why should they do this in ground combat? Having different types of ground troops would be nice (infantry/space marines -> tanks -> mechs etc,) depending on your tech perhaps. On the defenders side, defense buildings (AA-Missiles, bunkers etc.) would also be nice, but just to beef up your combat power, not placed strategically on a map. A pre-battle strategy order would be nice but I can

Reply to An idea on how to develop planets in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I don't like the idea. You replace a easy system through a much more complicated one, increasing the management factor by 5-20 depending on your planets because instead of 1 grid, you have to manage x grids per colony. I can't see the benefit, it would just increase micro management enourmously. Think about a GC game with 30 colonies (which is not so much, depending on the setting you play) this would become unplayable in my eyes. I found the GC2 colony developm

Reply to Needs better tech _tree_ than last time in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

You mean like, say, the Krogans on Mass effect ;)

Reply to Tactical combat. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="mattiscool555" reply="280" id="3411523"] FDR was really involved in both military and domestic affairs.[/quote] FDR? To be involved into domestic affairs doesn't mean you tell your people "put the factory at this place over there, it looks nice". Setting tax rates is an domestic affaire.

Reply to Fighters/Drones, Command modules and carriers in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Agreed

Reply to Tactical combat. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

No president decides how to develop the new colony either (where to put your buildings etc.) or where exactly to send ships to (which quadrant). Playing president would restrict you to set the tax rate, maybe decide whether to colonize a planet (but not how) or not and to declare war. Even nowadays, the president of the USA IS the chief commander of all forces. Of course, he would let his generals/admirals fight the battles, but he would decide what goal to achieve - to comple

Reply to Needs better tech _tree_ than last time in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I found GC2 tech tree rather boring. The endless laser 1, 2, 3, armor 1,2,3 and so on trees were not very interesting and you had to go through all laser series before developing the next type of weapon. This was easy to balance (let the tech get smaller, then let it make 1 point more, again shirking, then next level...), but really unimaginative. And very linear. True, there was enough tech to keep you busy for a while, but just because you had many expensive branches, all with the same sche

Reply to Fighters/Drones, Command modules and carriers in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="John Falkenberg" reply="16" id="3411332"] Besides, the game even GAVE all you raving fighter-fanboys what your asking for. Tiny and S-class hulls. If you want 'fighters' do what I did. I used the s-class hull and turned those into 'fighters' Now 'fighter' is a bit of a misnomer of course, since these fighters had crews of 6 and were small starships in there own right, but compared to the other craft they were stacked against, one could call the

Reply to Fighters/Drones, Command modules and carriers in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I'd really like to count which is more often: posts about a carrier/fighter element or posts including "it's not a shoot-them-up" and "hell freezes over first" from zydor? It really gets exhausting...

Reply to Needs better tech _tree_ than last time in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Tridus" reply="45" id="3410859"] There's a reason why the Civilization style more or less linear tech tree is in so many games: it works. [/quote] Yes, but even civ had techs with multiple requirements. And as for needed resources, you could research everything, but you couldn't build the resulting unit when lacking necessary resources (e.g. no sword fighter without iron). The logic behind tbis is that you could ge to enough samples of the needed resource