They said they will only support Windows 7 and 8. As to DirectX9, did Win7 even ship with DirectX9. If not, to support DirectX9, GC3 would have to include it in their packaging.
Planetary governors? GC1 had four of them and you could assign a planet to use any one of the four, or none at all. With the planetary maps of GC2, planetary governors becomes much more problematical. The assignment of buildings to tiles that had the matching bonuses is very important, and is a reason I was fearful of using them. I should have tried it to see if they would work well. I just took a cursory look at what GC2 has, and it looks like you can create an infinite number of planetary g
[quote who="erischild" reply="8" id="3410734"] I don't have a floppy drive on my PC and haven't had for years. Am I going to have to upgrade my system to use this feature? [/quote] If that is what is being asked for, I have great faith that the SD people would reject the idea without comment instantly. But if some of the sound tracks they create were made using (or simulating) the step drive of many floppy drives, that would be fantastic. And
[quote who="you28" reply="268" id="3410706"] Have they said when they are giong to say what they are going to do ?[/quote] If past test cycles are any indication, each build (there were many builds in both the Alpha and Beta test cycles) will contain what was added in that build, which was an implicit statement of where they wanted us to concentrate our efforts.
[quote who="Zydor" reply="4" id="3410688"] If they turn it into a Tactical War, that's cool, its their game - it just will not be for me.[/quote] Zydor, I don't think you need worry about it. Brad has stated many times over the last two decades that GC will always be, first and foremost, a strategy game, not a tactical one, and that is what has attracted so many of us to GC. I have not yet seen anyone asking that GC become strictly a tactical game. If anyone did, the entire GC
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="1" id="3410580"] I've never heard of this r u trying to suggest an idea for Galactic civilization 3[/quote] Yes. I failed to clarify that. Thanks.
I just got copies of the GC1 and GC2 Ultimate editions. I had no idea the tech tree had grown so large. I now see a need for a search ability for finding a tech by name. If I want to find the path to a tech, I would like to ask the tech tree to show me where in the tree the tech is.
GalCiv3 Forums
It may also be that Tyrantissar is talking from experience from a particular level of GC2. I had noticed that the re spawning of anomalies quit on at least one particular upgrade.
Androshalforc, I think you just made my point for me, although it may not be readily apparent. The specific example you give is a good one for showing some divergence in tech trees, but it doesn't get past the point that researching how gravity works is a universal problem. The method of getting to the point of being able to use the knowledge may vary, but the uses that can be made of the basic discovery is limited by the rules of physics imposed by the universe itself.
[quote who="Starbound_Dust" reply="55" id="3410489"]I was seeing things more complicated than they should have been. My mind works differently from most peoples, heh[/quote] Isn't that true of all of us??? [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote who="satoru1" reply="15" id="3410304"] Personally 'alignment' doesn't really work in GalCiv. for my own campaigns alignment was more about the 'broad' morality that a character adhered to. And to be honest I'd only really pin them down on it, if the lawful good paladin suddenly thought that burning down the orphanage full of kids so they could make their escape from the trolls was a 'great idea'. If you're going to introduce alignmen
[quote who="Starbound_Dust" reply="13" id="3410299"]sidenote: does anyone else always wipe out Miriam at earliest opportunity?[/quote] Yep. I find her "holier than thou" rants and "religious proselytizations" very anoying. But I think that was a big part of the game's purpose, having a number of contentious character traits.
[quote who="Starbound_Dust" reply="45" id="3410466"]Sectors will look something like this, but a little bigger:[/quote] Stsrbound_Dust, what you show here would force a great deal of sector overlap between adjacent sectors. It would make a lot of the mathematical aspects of the game difficult, especially of the "what sector am I in" kind. That being said, the only way I can envision sectors of hexes is as a hex of hexes. After drawing some diagrams on paper it looks to me that
[quote who="Illauna" reply="6" id="3410352"]Leave it to the devs to look through the forums to find what they need. [/quote] I wish i had veto power on this one sentence. As a retired programmer, I know the value of being able to track bugs effectively, and forums are too random in the extreme to make it work. Also, didn't we have several tools for reporting errors of several types during the Alpha and Beta of both GC1 and GC2? While we are talking about bug reporting, one
[quote who="mormegil" reply="36" id="3410402"]Currently a hex sector, has a 12 hex radius[/quote] Envisioning a 12 hex radius is a bit difficult. Could you restate this as xx hex tiles on a side?
[quote who="Voqar" reply="1" id="3410423"]Variety and diversity are good.[/quote] Is it? If done well (I have faith SD will do it well), then yes. But absolute statements such as this one always is an extreme temptation for Murphy. Also, don't forget the boundaries imposed by the physical nature of our universe. I contend that, simply because of the physical nature of our universe that the variances of tech trees between the many species in GC should be sm
Fantastic. Will the planet combat be as rich and have as much depth and be as interesting as the trailer had?
[quote who="Tridus" reply="250" id="3410271"]You mean other than: 1. It would significantly increase the cost of developing the game 2. It would draw development resources away from other parts of the game 3. It would change the focus from a clash of empires to a clash of fleets[/quote] 1. Yes, or maybe not so significantly, depending on how simple they start with its first iteration. 2. Yes, or No, depending on how well staffed they are and ho
OOOpppsss. That last post comes from seeing the last post on a page and not checking to see if there are more pages. Sorry.
[quote who="jim_viebke" reply="25" id="3409067"]With 12*12 tiles (?)[/quote] Wasn't it 15*15 tiles per sector? Just a minute, let me check. --- Yep. at least on GC2: Dread Lords, it is 15*15.
GC1 and GC2 Moo2 -- But -- just got a new PC with Windows 8, and was using the Moo2 from "GameStop" on Vista with a "DosBox", but since getting my new PC it doesn't work any more. The game comes up and kinda runs but many of the mechanics in it are crippled. I have Moo1 and Moo3 available, but I really dislike them. WOW (World of Warcraft) Civ 1 through 5. Not so much of 3 and 4, which I think were very poorly done. 1 and 2 through a DosBox, but now 2 doesn&#
So I have two questions. 1) what does this have to do with CalCivIII? 2) Is StarDock seeing this? Is it legit? Or is it a joke? or a scam?
Didn't we discuss this in a previous version's development? I have difficulty seeing the "reality" of there being greatly divergent tech trees. Some things, based on a Civ's physiology might be believable, but most of it would have to conform to basic physics, which is not just a galactic condition, but a universal condition.
[quote who="Gaslov" reply="19" id="3406122"] Sigh. Why does every game have to be a role playing game? Isn't there anyone else who just wants a competitive turn based strategy game? I hate feeling so alone in this world.[/quote] Don't feel alone. I am with you.
"Impressive. Most impressive."