I've played a lot of Galactic Civilizations II. At this point, I can launch a game on Suicidal difficulty, and before the year is out, have the AI's all eating out of the palm of my hand from the three planets I haven't swindled them out of. Now that we're looking at a sequel, there are several areas where the game could use a boost, and one of them, as has been said before, is the tech tree. &nbs
GalCiv3 Forums
Nice to hear about the hardcore ship designer! Any chance of being able to import from Blender too? [e digicons]:pout:[/e]
I'd also like to see a more detailed tech tree, where improving your engines or research or whatever involves interesting choice, rather than going through Engines I --> Engines II --> Whatever you think is good enough. Imagine if you instead were choosing between a cheap engine tech, which only provided speed + a culture boost you don't care about, a more expensive tech with prerequisites that could improve your economy, or a significantly distant tech which could offer
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="85" id="3270942"] Quoting Tohron, reply 83Don't think I'd pay $5 just for a map pack, but I would pay $5 for a map designer - given how cramped the default maps are, I'd really like to add some that give you room to maneuver (and don't let Umberdroths hit you on turn 0). You do realise that the game already has a map designer. It's in the workshop area under cartographer...[/quote] I meant a tactical map designer.
[quote who="Yarlen" reply="5" id="3270923"]I'll be posting update notes soon. We haven't gotten enough data to look into the reported desync issues, so don't expect anything on that front.[/quote] Would there be a way to at least increase the amount of data generated by minidumps/desyncs, so you can track down the problem(s) more easily?
Don't think I'd pay $5 just for a map pack, but I would pay $5 for a map designer - given how cramped the default maps are, I'd really like to add some that give you room to maneuver (and don't let Umberdroths hit you on turn 0).
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="8" id="3259904"]That quote is basically how I feel about FE too. Also unfortunately true: "With little room for tactical creativity, the battles are more of a chance to see the units you’ve designed and heroes you’ve customized in action than a whole second side of the game." It's sad, but Derek focused on merely reorganizing the basic systems and ignored opportunities to add real tactical depth.
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="18" id="3255825"]Waiting for my new comp so I can play Sword of the Stars II....[/quote] So is the word that the game working now? From everything I've heard, the release was a total disaster, and it sounded like the company itself was struggling to stay afloat.
Elemental Forums
I proposed integrating this into a general system of map-based difficulty zones over here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/433333 So in essence, yes, I definitely agree that the tougher monsters need to be further away from starts - nobody should get randomly screwed because any city near the start will have its ZoC release a deadly monster long before there's any hope of defeating it. FYI, I would call "strong" m
1. Monsters do seem pretty inconsistent with regards to when they attack your stuff, which makes it hard to plan strategy. It feels like consistent aggressiveness would work better. 2. It feels like high-danger monsters should be further away from your starting area, yes. 3. The AI factions do seem to face less monster attacks - which adds a significant annoyance when you take an AI city and have to choose between clearing out the monsters or risk losin
[quote who="Yarlen" reply="13" id="3247480"]Additional nerfing is happening. We'll see if more is needed once the next update goes out.[/quote] Good to see you're listening. Thanks!
Part of the problem is that there are many things in this game that can make the master quest easy, and it's not guarenteed which (if any) you have any chance of accessing. The Mana Blast spell you mentioned is quest-given, meaning the quest can't be designed with the expectation you have it - yet it vastly reduces the difficulty. Availability of shards, availability of high-power monsters to increase your xp, availability of certain powerful quest items or drops, are all
Have to agree on all those proposals. Right now, the only penalty for rushing an enemy city is the high, unmitigated Unrest afterward - and if you don't like that, you can just raze it after having crippled/killed a faction. I also suggested giving Path of the Governor a few traits to further boost any city militia's they're defending with, so said units can at least provide a buffer against late-to-endgame troops.
Judging by comments on the forums, there are still some significant issues with map randomness that can greatly affect the difficulty of the game for the player - if they luck out with lots of good resources nearby, they can start powering up fast - if expansion is blocked by lots of dangerous monsters, they're basically screwed (time for ctrl-N). So here's my proposition - upon gamestart, before placing resources or monsters, divide the map into a series of "difficulty zones"
Seconded on requiring Open Borders agreements - all the current system does is increase the number of clicks to keep stuff out of your borders. If the concern is players getting contained by AI, make Open Borders cheap in terms of base diplomatic value.
The ideal composition would be a Level 8+ Ragnarov Titan with maxed out Snipe and Overcharge, backed by hundreds of carriers with pure bombers. You need those hundreds of bomber-carriers to win - if you don't have them, build starbases with maxed hull and Safety Override (to kill the support fleet once they're nearing death) to slow it down until you get them. Once you fight it, remember that it gets increasing cooldown reduction as its hull enters the red, then it gets 4
Replay where I nearly effortlessly render a much more experienced player irrelevant, then save a teammate while simultaneously enabling a push on the other front: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73603960/OPOrKy.recordreb All because the host decided not to ban VR. Frankly, increasing the damage debuff's strength and duration would not have changed the outcome of this game. Subcapital enemies were wiped s
Elemental Forums
Sounds like improved random map balance could help with some of these issues - insure that there are a variety of shards near any given start, with the option to secure more of any given type by branching out in certain directions. Map balance could also keep the monsters near the start relatively weak, while having the most dangerous monsters localized in more distant areas that also happen to have good city locations and/or good resources to claim. Of course, the fast obsolesc
[quote who="Kongdej" reply="2" id="3240333"] Double HP for garrison units (these units are currently irrelevant against tough enemies except as temporary meatshields - might as well improve that function) This should only be added to city militia, but is a nice idea for a trait! Sincerely ~ Kongdej[/quote] That's actually what I meant :) [quote who="ddd888" reply="3" id="3240346"]stil the general governor need a way to gain exp apart f
Just read two complaints about the game that I thought could be addressed at once - that defending your holdings with garrisons is difficult/impossible when tougher monsters come calling, and that Path of the Governor requires active monster-hunting to be useful. Solution - give Path of the Governor a bunch of traits enhancing city/territory defense (and make monsters aggressive enough to actually go for cities after entering your territory, rather than wandering around while you wonder
[quote who="ddd888" reply="2" id="3237951"]yes seems good but you need to think something for champions surely sunder multiplied by troops count is good but what for champions? 1 armor reductions is more usless than backswing you would never use a axe on them [/quote] You could also have quest-given axes with an improved version of sunder, sort of like how there are quest-swords with more than one counterattack/round. And when you're dealing
Since there seems to be a consensus that Backswing isn't very useful, how about Axes get an ability more in line with their expected behavior - I'll call it "Sunder". It's effect would be to cause a stacking -1 Armor penalty to the target, which lasts until the end of the battle. Thus, if a 5-man axe-wielding group attacks a champion with 30 armor, and they all hit, the champ's net armor is reduced to 25 - another 5 hits would reduce it to 20. This would gi
Sins Forums
[quote who="GoaFan77" reply="1" id="3234145"] See any problems with this? To me the problem isn't really how hard it is to kill the bombers, or even how long they repspawn. Its just no matter how many flak and fighters you have, they can only shoot at 1 bomber at a time, and when you get to the huge late game bomber spams, that means only a handful of bombers can be destroyed before they launch their first pass. Unfortunately this is often enough to kill or cripple a capit
Sins Forums
It's well known that bomber-carriers become the best subcapital and the lategame, with sufficiently large numbers able to readily overwhelm ships like a Flak Burst Kol that were intended to counter them, whereas the subcapitals suited to face them - light frigates and flak, get shredded by titan AoE in the lategame. So consider the following change - bombers lose 33% of their HP, and their rebuild time is doubled. Right off the bat, this increases the effectiveness of flak a
Given how all the planets and fleets facing this threat simply dropped out of contact, except for a single ship that fled with all the crew members being driven insane, it would seem that the Vasari enemy is psionic in nature. This is substantiated by how the Advent Rebels have detected a corrupting influence on their Loyalist brethren (who now have enhanced mind-control powers). As for how to model this ingame, you could use an encroaching wave of Culture that you need Delivera