nomotog

Differentiating weapons means making each weapon feel and function differently. There are about a million ways to do that. Maybe lasers work better when your so many hexes from a sun. Maybe missiles don't work inside a nebula. Maybe mass drivers have the ability to lower a ships maximum HP. You don't have to fundamentally change combat to have different weapons effects. Fundamentally changing combat should be on the table though. The target is more in depth combat and warfare.

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="22" id="3408983"] I'm curious to know if and how they're doing sectors, quadrants, etc. If the boundries will bisect hexes or whatever.[/quote] My guess is they won't have them.

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="203" id="3408268"] Simply making the different weapons actually behave differently would require some form of tactical ability as a result. Real-time control of each single ship may be a bit much. Yet that would make the combat turns faster than making it turn-based. I'm still sayin' that it'll be more like MOO3, where you control fleets seperately instead of ships singly.[/quote] I don't think tactical combat is

If you release a good expansion for Fallen enchantress with the name elemental in it, that could help cover up the old elemental search results?

If only you could just use the name legendary heroes, then you would be gold. It's a stand alone expansion, so no reason it can't stand entirely by itself.

[quote who="1xador" reply="21" id="3408068"] Quoting nomotog, reply 20leaders all being actual units you can move around. There was a big backlash to this in Elemental. Quoting nomotog, reply 20The hard part about letting the player react to an espionage victory is the espionage. It's all about being secret. This is why I like causing revolutions. It gives you a reasonable amount of time to react.[/quote] I love that aspect

[quote who="1xador" reply="19" id="3408062"] Quoting nomotog, reply 18 If they included something like a king unit, then you could have an espionage victory from successfully assassinating every race's leader before they can elect a new one. Causing the universe to descend into chaos. GalCiv usually gives the players time to react to the victory conditions. A coordinated assassination would be hard to react to.[/quote] I'm like picturin

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="5" id="3407916"] Quoting Zydor, reply 4GalCiv is a TBS, its designed to be a thinking game, with battles along the way. It should stay that way - simplified shoot-em-up's are not hard to find, and I for one can live without them. Less micro != FPS, you know. Are you implying that Governors in GalCiv II make it a non thinking game? I have never used them, I love to control all the stuff going on in my little empire/republic/federation.

[quote who="N1ghthavvk" reply="1" id="3407782"] Some things you just have to accept the way they are. That's a life lesson as well.[/quote] No surprise I find that answer lacking. There must be a reason they picked to do things this way. Someone must know that reason. Likely more then one person. (One could also call that a life lesson too. :P)

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="20" id="3407739"] Quoting Wintersong, reply 19So no Carrier module that allows X Tiny ships to not count Logistics wise in the fleet where that module is present? As Zydor said, carriers were repeatedly shot down in all three GC2 iterations. It's not likely to change. Although it would be hilarious if Stardock included carriers with the realistic downside of carriers: a successful surprise attack can kill off

I picked up this game in the sale and I am really loving it, but there is something that puzzles me. (Well a lot that puzzles me it's a big game.) What is the point of the barren lands? Not the story reason I get that, but what gameplay reason is there for them? I have a guess. I would have it's intended to be land that you can't take over so the game always has some place to spawn monsters and quests, but you can take it over real easy with an outpost and monsters stop spawning a

What about custom making the militia? It would be a trait you could add to a troop and that troop would get a rather nice price cut and maintenance reduction in exchange for never being able to leave the city.

[quote who="Zydor" reply="13" id="3407390"] This one sums it up ... The combat in Galactic Civilization 3 needs to be like you are watching Battlestar Galactica. This is TBS - not a lightweight RTS shoot-em-up. Want to play zap-the-ray-gun ..... go find an arcade video game slot machine Its a S-t-r-a-t-e-g-y game ..... hello ? The RTS crowd need to give it up - GalCiv is a Strategy Game, and at its Core will always be so. There will be v

I picked up fallen enchantress and legendary heroes in the sale. It's nice and novel. I haven't played another game like it. There are some problems with it. Mostly interface and some fuzziness around city building and outposts. (Why even have outpost I think.)