Oh, I knew about it while KS was active, I just didn't think it was feasible for the project to be brought to a successful end by one guy and the low funds he was asking for - those didn't allow him (IMO) to get any real help. I do wish for him that I was very wrong.
This guy is incredible. I still doubt he'll be able to finish the game as he envisioned it on his own, which is also why I haven't backed his project. I don't have enough money to just throw it around sadly, though this guy seems awesome enough to support his talent even if the game is never finished.
Ahhhhhh, must know more on battles... MOAR! ;)
[quote who="Achronous" reply="386" id="3425631"]No, it's not. But it's basically deciding the strength of your army/unit. Where you put the gun is insignificant and doesn't take a lot of time, you could just double click it and it's there. It's strategy how many guns and how many shields you can put. Deciding how flexible your units should be/how strong or how defended they are, is strategy.[/quote] That can be done way simpler than having a full blown d
Designing ships can also be described as a tactical feature. Surely placement of a gun is not strategy... Why isn't anybody crying to get this feature out of the game?
[quote who="Alstein" reply="36" id="3425207"] Exploits to me are things a human can do that an AI cannot.[/quote] Same here. Generally it is better to not have exploits at all. Have less gameplay systems the AI can handle instead.
Yes, I'd love to see it added to minor extent in EU, too. I think you "hardcore strategy people" envision tactical combat as something necessarily extremely time consuming, strategy destroying and thus inherently bad for GC. Which is not true. I would welcome a tactical combat with very limited player input. Not guiding each ship, not giving individual attack commands. Fleet actions, general orders. Something that one would need to adjust twic
Dear lord, all this hard science... I prefer hard por...ridge.
I'm a huge Frozen Synapse fan and its concept could be used in GC3, both for space and invasion. Make a plan, see it unfold. Perhaps in a single turn or several, as long as it does not take ages to get it to a resolve.
[quote who="jim_viebke" reply="274" id="3411328"] Quoting mogthew, reply 273[...] makes this simpler than chess to solve properly, and we HAVE solved chess AI's. Ah... No we have not. Not even close.[/quote] True, we have not solved the AI of anything. Sure the comp can beat me in chess no problem, but that is not due to its intelligence but due to the incredible number of moves done by people much better than me that the program has stor
This is it, the project only lasts for some 40 hours more. Just a note to those who tried to contribute through Kickstarter and are not otherwise familiar with this crowdsourcing stuff; your pledge at Kickstarter was never deducted from your account (because the project did not meet its goal) and your pledge was not automatically transferred to IndieGoGo campaign. If you want to see the project to be successful and Kerberos to only hand over 4% to IGG, you need to pledge at IndieGoGo. I would
I may enjoy microing the first ten colonies, but thirty... So yes, I'd love to see a governor or a pre-set buildings list.
HE HE HE, love this one. I love the name Elemental. I'd say stick with it. If you absolutely must, someone mentioned Masters of Elemental. I like that one, too. Or Masters of Elements, The Shards, Masters of Shards, Shards of the Elements...
Ground Pounders are running the last lap at IndieGoGo , so close yet not quite there. In case you don't check the project daily, there is an interview with <span c
I'd like to add my vote to having a meaningful combat system with only fleet actions available. Single ships should never matter in GC so targeting one is something I would not like to see. But having commands that affect whole fleet would be great. Actions like envelop, flank etc. etc. would be great.
I love SotS universe, backed as well.
It would be an abuse of a game system. The pirates are forced into the ceasefire by your research, it wasn't like they wanted it. Giving the player an option to end it whenever they chose (after profiting a whole lot by not needing to deal with their opposition naturally) would be far too good on the player. Who does not like this option should not research it.
Same here. Kicked it.
I'm very late to this party but I'll post anyway. I see the ups and downs in Steam. The up being that many small indie developers can get their shot at having their game sold through Steam and no problems with distribution whatsoever. I like that the updating is fast and simple. I do not like the fact that I need to have this third party software RUNNING all the time however, on-line or off-line. It takes computer resources and frankly the simple fact th
StrategyCore - http://www.strategycore.co.uk/articles/reviews/sins-of-a-solar-empire-rebellion-review/ "Rebellion's years old roots don't show. It looks great and it has evolved enough so that nobody can call it stagnation. If you're looking for a game that will demand extreme levels of thought and headache-ca
Deeper combat or not is IMO also a question of time consumption. If there are twenty combats each turn than the length can become unbearable. If there is one per turn or less, it is nice to see some tactical elements involved.
[quote who="EvilleJedi" reply="1" id="2028553"]it will be released for entrenchment once entrenchment is officially avaialble and whne I've had enough time to test it.[/quote] So the current version of the mod is the last one for Sins vanilla? Or do you plan to release one more for Sins 1.12?
Will any of the Entrenchment AI improvements get into a Sins patch?
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="10" id="1941792"]To each their own, but ultimately I fail to see the reason to complain about a patch you don't pay for For me, even the new explosions are a gameplay improvement (ie content).[/quote] Patches are definitely "paid for", generally speaking. Because they are usually released so that the game runs as it should. This patch IS VERY meaningful, there is no doubt about that. All I said is that the incoming "expansions" are so
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="17" id="1937316"]What do you call that then? Balance changes? That's just some of the stuff.. you could at least try reading the whole change log rather than the first 20 lines.[/quote] I have. No new content. Better rendering etc. is NOT content. It's eye candy and doens't really add to the gameplay.
GalCiv3 Forums
Sins Forums
Elemental Forums