I liked the "Galactic Events". That served much the same purpose. Especially now in GC3 where there's no fixed alignment system (I always found it annoying that those great events stopped when I researched Ethics and picked an alignment).
Stardock Forums
Couple of things: In RTS games, there's hard limits for UnitCaps, or the like. This means that Turtling is a valid strategy, because you can always pretty much match your opponent's total force level, plus you have defensive structures. By turtling, you can force an opponent to burn through their resource advantage quickly, since you typically require 3:1 force advantage to win against a defending force. In an open game, where there are no resource limits or unit limi
It's getting a little hard to keep track of the changes. Can you just publish a link to a spreadsheet (like your earlier post) location, and then keep the most current version always available there? It makes it easier for us to look at the setup. Also, on one side note: Tech Trading is an integral part of the strategy of the game. I don't think we should care at all about making it "fair" or "balanced" if a person decides to play with it disabled.
Two minor things: (1) Am I reading your last post correctly Gaunathor - did you give access to all the government techs to ALL races? If so, I'm not OK with that. Certain races should not intrinsically be able to research every government type. (2) Same thing goes for the Economic and Tech Capitals. Yes, I realize that puts certain races at a slight disadvantage. However, they generally make up for it in other ways, and the whole point here is not to make every
Mass Drivers (the original "rods from God") give you a huge mushroom cloud bigger than any nuke ever could. Small rocks on the size of a car will give a more than a Megaton explosive yield, more if they're significantly accelerated when being launched. Using tiny asteroids (which are on the order of 100m+ in diameter) will produce impacts on the order of a GigaTon. Thems make nice 'shrooms.
GalCiv3 Forums
Simply to make sure that sight lines are maintained, we can't do some sort of a bezier curve approximation. The ship has to pass through every hex it normally would, and none that it wouldn't. That said, the assumption is that we'll see the ship "bank" though the path, maintaining the heading (i.e. bow of the ship) in the direction of travel, and slide left or right as it continues along the path. Heading isn't important when moving for the ship, so I expect this is wh
Second things first: Fortify on Civ 3 & 4 (not sure about 5) worked pretty much identically to Sentry in GC3 (though it also came with a defensive bonus). Now, to First things: with anything other than a small number of ships on a small map, having a mode which DOESN'T notify you of ships within sensor range runs the very big risk of you missing that approaching ship. There's simply too many different ships to monitor, and it's easy to miss the graphic symb
Just to be clear, GC2 (or, at least TotA) also had modifications to the base unit movement. Impulse Drive, Warp Drive, and HyperWarp drive all added +1 to base movement, even without adding one of those engines in. There were also several race-specific techs which did the same thing. The problem in GC3 isn't different, it's just the scale. I do thing that the disparity between races in base movement for GC3 is a bit much in early-game. I think they should general
There are three levels of graphics on the main galaxy map: No Zoom Medium Zoom Full Zoom The first looks like an abstract representation of the galaxy, with little more than basic icons. This is completely intentional and MUST NOT CHANGE. It truly is a map, and maps don't have detail - they convey information, not graphics. Information on a large scale is aided mostly by simplification, not complexity. There's a
I went and looked, and something like Trac ( http://trac.edgewall.org/ ) is what we want. Both Wiki info, and bug tracking. I can stand one up on an EC2 instance in less than an hour. BUT, and here's the BUT, we need buy-in by StarDock that they'll use this instead of the forums. This isn't just a community effort to be successful, it has to be a community + company agreement.
Everything you want is available simply by increasing the size of the map you play on. Which, incidentally, is exactly what you're asking for, whether you realize it or not. Now, the bigger issue is having an option which has the positioning of stars and planets cluster towards the center of the map. The same style of game play you're after is available now in GC2, if you use one of the larger maps, with few stars in tight clusters. All GC3 needs to
Folks - As we get new people here, and things progress development-wise, we desperately need documentation. Release notes aren't enough, and it's a real PITA to have to noodle around just to find the new things; that's not testing, that's wasting time. In the old days, I'd say put up a FAQ, and update that. But that's so 1990. [e digicons]o_O[/e] Rather, we need a Wiki. Something that us users can help maintain, to take the load off
I hate Kickstarter. But, the Linux/Mac port is exactly the kind of thing that Kickstarter is great for, because it gets people to put their money where their mouth is. If at all possible, I think StarDock should run a self-sponsored site to get people to put down money for the Linux and/or Mac port. And, frankly, I'd hire someone to come in and consult on the OpenGL work - it's non-trivial to learn, and there's just as many dark corners as
The problem with your metrics are that you assume Victory = Rule. There's plenty of ways that this isn't true, with Culture being the standout: why do you need to conquer anyone if you just assimilate them to your way of thinking (for approximations of "your way"). Who cares if they follow your particular form of political system? Here in the Real World, we're about 80% of the way to a cultural victory for Western Modernism. That doesn't mea
Frankly, I think that Influence Victories should be much less about you owning personal influence over x% of the galaxy, because, as CaptainYar points out, influence victories are really just military victories. Instead, I think we should have a whole section which counts each civilizations' influence over everyone else's. This isn't the same thing as political agreement - it's entirely possible to have a civ whose political leanings to you are qui
I think the best way to describe the new ship combat is rather simple: Admiral of the Fleet. You decide which ships to bring to the battle, then will have the ability to issue general orders to the fleet (full attack, cautious probe, full retreat), possibly during the actual combat. But you're not issuing specific orders to control individual ships. The captains of your ships are all AIs which follow your General Orders as best they can.
GalCiv3 Forums
Lots of Wagner, I hope. Aka "Music to Conquer By." Ominous Latin Chanting might work, too.
Frankly, 10 years ago, multi-monitor support was a *much* better idea than it is today. The economics of cheap, very large flatscreen monitors vs CRTs has changed the dynamics, such that virtually everyone goes for the largest single monitor they can afford (which is now hovering around 24" for the typical gameplayer). That is, the gaming population tends to upgrade their main monitor size, rather than add a second monitor to their existing setup. Back around 200
[quote who="joeball123" reply="26" id="3483590"] Quoting charon2112, reply 25 It always bothered me that the Korx were evil. A trading race should really be neutral, willing to trade with both sides as long as they make money. I rather suspect that the Korx were generally willing to trade with
Frankly, shipbuilding, planet building/colonization, economics, combat, and tech trees are the areas that I think need the least work and change, since they did a pretty good job in GC2, and while there's the possibility that something innovative could be a huge win, there's also a big risk that it instead turns out be a turkey. The sole exception there would be invasions, which I think have a significant place for some low-risk innovation. Nonetheless, the new "economy wheel" i
As to colonizing moons: given that everything presented is an ABSTRACT measure, and not a 1:1 correlation, it's long been said by lore that some of the value of a colonizable planet is the value that come from the moon. That is, a Value 10 planet with a large moon actually probably is a Value 8 planet, but 2 additional ratings come from the utility provided by the Moon. the same can be said for why we only see 2-5 planets in a solar system ever. Some of the
Just one note here: I was playing GC2 last night, and notices that GC2 has zig-zag movement for small movements (i.e under about 10 squares). The ships do the same wiggle thing, particularly if there are any obstacles (planets/anomolies, etc.) in the way. It got ugly really fast, which indicates that pathfinding in GC2 was hardly a paragon of cleanliness/prettiness. So let's disabuse ourselves of the idea that movement in GC2 was just all nice and smooth lo
But, but, but... I want my GREEN -skinned space babes!
Honestly, even ignoring the "lore" of the campaign, 8 races to start, each with a custom tech tree and graphics, is quite a bit. And, thinking with my business cap on here, adding a race is the kind of thing that fits very nicely within the DLC concept. It would be a good revenue stream for StarDock to be able to put out a new race for a couple of bucks (under $5). Even if I wouldn't be getting them for free via the Founder's bonus, I'd be happy to shell out $3 for a
GalCiv3 Forums
FYI - a very good description of how different sized opponents fair in a battle (taking into account relative firepower, too) is something called Lanchester's Laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws Related, and relevant to a turn-based game like GC, is the Salvo model of combat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_combat_model <