How do you know that? GalCiv 3 isn't even out yet. Also, what does it matter, how food the editor is, as long as the game is edible?

Why? The Civ 3 editor was okay for it's time, but there are much better examples out nowadays. The Starcraft 2 editor, for example, allows you to completely change the game. Don't like RTS? Turn it into a Shmup!

GalCiv 2's map editor was good enough for this.

We could do that in GalCiv 2.

We could do that too.

I did that in my mod. So, yes, that was also possible.

Modding in GalCiv 2 was as easy as it could get. Granted, there are probably games out there, that are even easier to mod, and some things were just impossible to do (like changes game mechanics). However, if an idiot like me can easily add new planetary improvements, techs, and so on, into the game, without even touching the provided editors, then everyone can do it.

I think this series got the map editor down, even if it is not as fancy and elaborate as the Starcraft II editor, most of the suggestions were covered by GC I and II.

Otherwise maybe a scenario editor or something would be nice considering that people would like to make missions and stuff to distribute to the online community, look at Tropical 4 scenario system to begin with.

Other then that, I don't think GCIII needs some improvement since GCII already covers most customizable aspects.

I will take your word for it, there is some improvements that can be made, I perhaps shouldn't state things that conflicts with the forums existence, because obviously someone sees a problem when they spend time posting about it.

Haven't played Starcraft 2, but a friend told me the other day that it was not a stradegy game, but that u r only one person instead of playing an empire. I will probably try it eventually. Right now Distant worlds is on the list.  I have played sins of a solar empire, Panzer general, Civilization, 1603, Warriors of rome, and Masters of Orion 1 and 2, and Final factasy tactics. There r a couple I can't remember though. These r the stradegy games I played. So there may be better editors, but all I can go off of is what I've seen. This is what the post is for go ahead and give your ideas. Can U describe the one from Starcraft 2.


I would like to be able to make a better map,

I really meant bigger, but I really thought they could do better either way.


more races,

I couldn't do this through the editor.

Able to give stock races a modified or made up tech tree

This may just be my opinion, but to me. Using an editor  is not the same as modding. This may stem from the fact that I used to play Civilizations. Modding required U to edit a lot of text where a game editor more likes show u all the variables that is not in a text editor format, but more like options U can choose from. Stardock seems to agree with me on this. Just check out the editor they provide with the game and compare that to notepad there not the same. 

I'm talking about an editor; not the modding capability of Galactic civilizations. The difference may just be my opinion, but from my experience with civilizations it does seem to be different. I guess one of the differences is that it uses a menu instead of a text editor. I'm not arguing the modding capability of Galactic civilizations. I am comparing the editor they provided Vs. another editor I used. I want to see both options that r in the game. I do understand the confusion on what I'm saying to someone who knows how to mod. I'm suggesting that an editor is different than the modding capability of the game.

Yes, strategy for the win, guess chess is a tactical game right? Or why people call chess a game of strategy when clearly it is tactical game. Guess the board game industry does not know the difference between tactical and strategy.

believe it or not, I am calling bullshit on tactical and strategy not going well together.

Honestly dude, when you write my brain explodes trying to understand lol. Try proofreading a bit more.

Well, I think he was just trying to respond in the heat in the debate, I proof read all the time yet, I have to fix so many things before leaving it on the forums.

From what I understand, he wants GC III to be a strategy game where there is no tactics, no RPG elements, no shooters, no... he just wants strategy and strategy alone, and for some reason I just can't help to point that out.

What drives me up the wall if everybody listens to this guy this will be one hell of a boring dry game. It is a game where you can't do shit because so and so said that there can't be such and such in this game.

Sure we can live without RPG elements, and I want to avoid shooters at all cost... but seriously are we really going to let these tittles define what this game should not be or should be? As long as it stays true to the core concepts, it doesn't have to be this way all the time.

I personally like to roleplay the different races and their motivations, and rationalize my actions in the game

Really adds to the atmosphere and deepens the immersion in my opinion.

     Hey wait I'm not trying to change the current game elements. I'm really am not understanding where this is coming from. I'm actually confused. I want to keep this turn based stradegy. I want interaction between leaders. I like trade. I considered these to be stradegy elements. I really don't play the campaigbs. What I want is galactic civilizations 3. The only thing I think this stems from is tactics. The reason I never responded to that site is I have nonething to enter. Don't know anything about tactic games.

     I'm not trying to remove the elements out of the game. On the contrary I want to give the leaders a feal like medieval total war or civilization. I never played starcraft so I can't respond. I'm not trying to destroy the campaign. What about the tech tree ideas those were good ideas. I later thought about the starbases and realised I wanted better starbases. Obviousely I like micromanagement. This site is about a better editor. I'm not trying to destroy the modding ability.

     Sins of a solar empire is a rts game shouldn't we be trying to make that game better instead of making Gakactic civilization rts. What is wrong with turn based. Why can't we have both options in the computer world. I like mega events that is one of the best parts of the game. That's why I posted there. Yes make them better. Medieval tatal war and civilization r not roleplaying games they r stradegy games, but they have leader interaction. What I'm trying to say is that I want to be a leader micromanageing an empire instead of some voto trying to live his life moving up in the world. This doesn't mean the game can't have personality and missions. I've even suggested leader interaction on a really good scale. If u have ideas go ahead and post them. I always meant single player non campaign game. I never meant multiplayer. Multiplayer would have to b a limited game if it was a turn based game. As far as multiplayer I would want it to be real time. This is the reason why, so it could be a really big game combined with sins of a solar empire.

I'm making a deal since I'm not creatice enough to think of missions I would like to leave this alone. If u would like me to check out posts tell me what they r. I will even comment on a post I don't know anything about like tactics. If I do I can't garantee it will be constructive. I got ideas on brainstorming. It's limited by what I know and have played. A lot of games I have not played because I didn't know they existed I only recently had the internet. The only thing I don't want to see in single player games  is continious play; I like turn based. I want a good Ai. I like big maps, Never played a tactical game I don't know about tactical games. Can;r comment on tactical games. Unless all tactical games means is continous play. I don't want to ruin the current elements. Basically all I have done is to suggest on how to enhance the current elements. That doesn't mean that there  r other ways to improve the game.