trims2u

Reply to Gripe About weaponry and defenses in GalCiv III Founders GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Cronocke" reply="19" id="3466652"] I have never understood the comparisons between the game "rock paper scissors" and the attack and defense types in these games. Have I been playing the wrong version of GC2? Or worse, is there a version of RPS where you use both hands, one for your defense type and one for your attack type, that I've been woefully ignorant of this whole time?[/quote] It's a reference to a circular dominance strategy common in

Reply to The Snathi spread terror in another galaxy :) in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="7" id="3466408"] http://store.steampowered.com/app/204880/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/228260/ and that post from frogboy about dlc and expansion pricing. i THINK 5 dollar/euro [/quote] It's all speculation at this point, and I would expect that DLC has a varied price points, depending on what is included. For example, I'd expect that a single Minor

Reply to The Snathi spread terror in another galaxy :) in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="EleventhStar" reply="4" id="3466391"] what's so special about that that it would require a DLC instead of just making a custom race? edit: 13:40 into the first stream talks abit about it but its not the snathi part.[/quote] GC3 will have custom tech trees for all playable races. So, yeah, you could play the Snathi as a "custom" race. But the DLC will have a new custom tech tree (and likely a c

Reply to What am I exactly getting if I buy this game now? in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

Frankly, I think there are only really two major reasons why to purchase the Alpha over the Beta at this point: (1) if you're a GC addict, and absolutely want to have a (non-trivial) voice in what the feature set of the game will be. (2) if you're a GC groupie, and definitely plan to buy the game plus a bunch of the DLC and expansions over the next couple of years, it's a good deal now in terms of economics. But ONLY if you can commit yourself to saying you'll

Can we discuss Minor Races yet? in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Are we at a point in development where we can start talking about the abilities/restrictions/use of Minor races yet? I'd like to revisit their role vis a vis GC2, where they didn't colonize at all, didn't have influence, and were (frankly) part of the most broken thing about GC2 - the espionage setup.

Reply to Gripe About weaponry and defenses in GalCiv III Founders GalCiv3 Forums

We have fleet combat already, and until there's a real Tactical Combat mode, the combat will essentially be a statistical comparison. There's very few "special abilities" that I can think of that would make any difference in such a combat. And even fewer that would make the game more fun, and not bog us down in minutiae. It's like worrying about weapon placement on a ship, for consideration of arcs of fire, etc. It sounds real cool, and in a RTS game (such as

Reply to Quantified Resources in GalCiv III Founders GalCiv3 Forums

It's the same system used by pretty much all RTS games. Mine X, accumulate quantity Y, unit Z costs ABC of X to make. Remaining quantity: Y-ABC. I'd prefer the old Total Annihiliation method, where it wasn't X quantity of things, but rather the production RATE that was a concern. You produced X amount PER TURN, and to make a unit ABC, you needed Y amount, but it took Z turns to make. Different formula, same thing, but I think rate of pr

Reply to Realism/Logistics for GCIII in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="6" id="3464165"] Quoting trims2u, reply 4 For DISTANCE, however, I'm definitely in favor of having the various lifesupport modules provide a fixed distance (hexes) away from the nearest supply post (starbase/planet). And that distance SHOULD NOT SCALE with the size of the map, nor should you get any inherent range bonus FOR EXISTING SHIPS simply by researching new Life Support tech. If you want more range, re-equip the ship

Reply to Realism/Logistics for GCIII in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

Yup, especially since whatever Hyperdrive is, we have no idea how it works, or any energy efficiency thereof. So there's no "realism" to model. I'm perfectly fine with the current systems for speed. For DISTANCE, however, I'm definitely in favor of having the various lifesupport modules provide a fixed distance (hexes) away from the nearest supply post (starbase/planet). And that distance SHOULD NOT SCALE with the size of the map, nor should you get an

Reply to Way's to warn or threaten AI in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

It would certainly be nice to have a greater range of diplomatic options, including things like real trade embargoes, LIMITED time (and variable scope) economic and research treaties, and the aforementioned "chatter" communicating intentions. About the only thing I can think of off the time of my head, however, which will slow down the immediate colonization rush is to make colonization radically more expensive. The fact is, under GC2, after about the initial 25

Reply to Future of the Planet Surface View... in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Wer900" reply="20" id="3463626"] Quoting trims2u, reply 18 And none of this addresses the issue that a flat surface map is superior in information presentation/density to a globe. Basically, a 3D globe gets you a whole lot of eye-candy, no features that can't be much more simply implemented on a flat surface, and a whole bunch of deficiencies the flat map doesn't have. I'm not against bling/eye-candy - heck, the whole "watch the ships

Reply to Heartbleed and why you should change your password in GalCiv III Support GalCiv3 Forums

Heartbleed is NOT the kind of backdoor or compromise someone like the NSA would try to inject into an Open Source project like OpenSSL. The possibility of other spy agencies discovering it would be far too great, leading to not only the NSA being able to monitor things, but agencies the NSA doesn't like also being able to monitor stuff. An NSA-style attack would be one of two things: (1) discover a vulnerability that existed in the current codebase - whether du

Reply to Suggestion: Battles in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Wer900" reply="7" id="3463372"] Quoting econundrum1, reply 5 I would like to see ground battles played out stratigicly over multiple turns on the hex based planet maps e.g. troop movements, zone capture that sort of thing. Perhaps the 3D map idea suggested previously could form a part of this. It is unrealistic in terms of tactical planning to ignore the fact that planets are indeed spherical. Furthermore, the 3D map would allow for planets of a

Reply to Suggestion: Battles in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

We're talked about Tactical Combat before here. There's a couple of major drawbacks: (1) Assuming that it's a turn-based Tactical Combat (e.g. "chess with spaceships!"), resolving a single combat can be VERY time consuming. So time-consuming, in fact, that it's worthless for multiplayer. All multiplayer games will have to have auto-resolve turned on, and bypass TBTC completely. (2) A basic TBTC setup isn't terribly hard to implement, but that's

Reply to Future of the Planet Surface View... in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="AuraBoy" reply="16" id="3463534"] Quoting trims2u, reply 14Take a good look at the rotating solid sphere above, and the soccerball next to it. Notice that all the faces are differently oriented, even those of the same shape. Which means that both the pixmap that shows the terrain, and the buildings themselves, will face different directions (unless, you want the devs to have to make DIFFERENT pixmaps for use in different orientations). It will look ridiculous. Whi

Reply to Future of the Planet Surface View... in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="AuraBoy" reply="16" id="3463534"] Quoting trims2u, reply 14 Also, as noted above, there is no way to make a globe out of a single regular polygon beyond 20 faces (a regular icosahedron), which is smaller than the game maximum. In addition, there is no way to make a globe out of even IRREGULAR polygons of the same shape in a sufficiently large size. You're always going to be stuck with the Soccerball problem - inserting a couple of different-shaped

Reply to Future of the Planet Surface View... in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

Also, as noted above, there is no way to make a globe out of a single regular polygon beyond 20 faces (a regular icosahedron), which is smaller than the game maximum. In addition, there is no way to make a globe out of even IRREGULAR polygons of the same shape in a sufficiently large size. You're always going to be stuck with the Soccerball problem - inserting a couple of different-shaped polygons amidst the others. It's not an insurmountable problem, of course, but, onc

Reply to Future of the Planet Surface View... in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

But that's not helping matters, because it makes it more difficult to assess the planet as a whole. A globe, while realistic, isn't a really good interface for displaying the information we, as "God-like Emperor" want; we want to be able to quickly look at all the assets a planet has (which include assessing unimproved areas) to see both what's current, and what's possible. Since a globe inherently prevents me from looking at the entire picture at once, it&#3

Reply to Happiness System in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

Morale/happiness already is tied to taxes: more taxes = more unhappiness. So, in essence, getting more happiness means you can tax higher. Happiness of planets should probably NEVER impact ships. Overall happiness of the empire, yeah, maybe, but it would a PITA to try and compute happiness of ships that weren't in a specific planet's orbit. And, logically, why should the happiness of a planet I'm within influence radius of have any bearing on whethe

Reply to Capturing starbases, starships, mining outposts, etc in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

I have no problem with chain reaction flips. That's the price you pay for not watching influence. Rather than the old 4.0 threshold that was set for planet flips, maybe it should be something like 6.0 for starbases, which should be inherently harder to flip, due to being staffed by "professionals" from your space. Also, you can just as easily build influence starbases around if you've got a bunch of critical encon/military/etc. ones in a cluster. Note that we'r

Reply to Capturing starbases, starships, mining outposts, etc in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

I'd prefer if you could flip military and economic star bases via influence, but not invasion. And have influence starbases non-flippable or invadable. One of the more annoying things in GC2 would be going over and conquering a star system, and be left with a half-dozen of the enemy's old starbases that just littered the area. I would have to destroy them just to get my space back, and that seems like a total waste.

Reply to Suggestion: "Research" in two main categories in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

Just to be clear, I think what's planned (and, I'm totally possibly wrong here) is that a Technology can more than one precursor technology, and satisfying ANY of the precursor technologies allows you to research the tech. I'm not sure if there's going to be techs with multiple precursor techs that require ALL of them to be completed before it becomes available. But that would be nice, too. In any case, implementing either of

Reply to Restriction On Human Players To 4? in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

I think it was pointed out above that there should be no technical reason to not allow a large number of humans. Certainly, it should be constrained only by the performance of the least-capable system attached, primarily in terms of memory available. It looks to be only of a User Experience challenge. And, speaking as someone who has access to some pretty ridiculously high powered systems, it would be really nice if we could run everything

Reply to Restriction On Human Players To 4? in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="sleepyx732" reply="7" id="3459611"] The game can't support simultaneous turns because.. why? That is the one plus of a lack of tactical battles.[/quote] Because then it wouldn't be a TURN-based game. Not being snide, but once you get out of the lockstep idea of having only one side be allowed to perform an action, you start to introduce all sorts of problems of synchronization and "who gets to do what first" issues. That doesn't eve

Reply to Suggestion: Have Spacebar skip turn without removing action points. in GalCiv Beta Feedback GalCiv3 Forums

I'd want it to go to sleep - which is defined as not requiring any further input that turn, but awake for new input the next turn, while still retaining all remaining movement if selected again this turn. Both Guard and Sentry have additional behaviors that you don't necessarily want to enable, without explicitly having the user select them.