NorsemanViking

Reply to [Suggestion] Multiplayer Implementation in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Gaslov" reply="20" id="3406113"] With the exception of close friends, no one is going to play this game with you for 2 months. And even at that, how many games do you think you'll play? Probably 2 or 3 MAX. Most likely you'll just do it once and spend the rest of the time trying to plan a second game. Multiplayer just isn't very practical over 2 hours. And honestly, if you need more time than that to figure out who is the better

Reply to How the combat should be in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Commander_Kryton" reply="4" id="3407520"] Quoting Zydor, reply 3 This is a Strategy Game - not a tedious shoot-em-up. This doesn't make any sense, are you saying that XCOM Enemy Unknown and MMH6 are "shoot-em-ups", whatever those are? That's just ridiculous, it's like you haven't read the post of the topic at all. [/quote] Those games are more RPG and Tactic-games then they are st

Reply to Questions and more questions in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

God job!

Reply to Lessons from Elemental in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

GalCiv2 is one of the absolutely best games I've ever played. I'm not worried. Stardock will make it once again.

Reply to Suggestion: Diversified Starship Classes in Fleet in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Yeah, supreme huge ships that can take alot of damage and survive battles should cost ALOT! Small ships need to be really cost effective, espacially when they can operate in huge quantas. I suggest making these small fighters hard to hit, and that you willl need your own fighters to fight enemy fighters most efficently (dogfighting). I think we will see very impressive huge scale battle cinematics in GalCiv3. :)

Reply to Replacing the Tech Trade mechanic in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I have been thinking abit and think tech trading might be sensible if you have a system where you have to send emissaries (a hero/champion type) arround to do diplomacy. Then it wouldn't be something you did every turn with every civilization.

Reply to To Stardock: suggestions for acquiring gaming franchises in PC Gaming GalCiv3 Forums

Remake of the Civilization styled game called Call to Power! Perfect for Stardock.

Reply to Deemphasize Starbases. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="8" id="3406633"] The keyword is "interesting". Micro for micro's sake isn't interesting, only tedious. [/quote] Indeed yes. An example of tedious micro is for me checking possibilities of tech trade with every nation every turn. :)

Reply to Deemphasize Starbases. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I actually liked, and still like, the excitement in sending constructors vulnerable to attack out, and the fact that multiple planets can share the work on the Space Stations/Death Stars this way. Micro is OK when it adds to gameplay, but of course I guess there is other ways too do it too that can acchieve the same gameplay feel/consequence, or even improve on it. Anyways I want to underline this: The best strategy games have interesting micro. The worst

Reply to Tactical combat. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="yarodin" reply="115" id="3406053"] +1 for tactical combat. Just watching a completly randomized movie is not enough for me. I want (at least the illusion) of making a difference in the combat. [/quote] You are making a difference through strategy instead of tactics. You do this by many, many means, like ship design, being positioned there in the first place, tech priorities, production priorities, production capacity, choice

Reply to Replacing the Tech Trade mechanic in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="jirkaesch" reply="1" id="3405987"] And of course, ltes keep an option to turn it off as well. You dont like tech trading and brokering? Turn it off. Problem solved.[/quote] I'm afraid it is not that easy. Take for instance GalCiv2 and the human faction (or how diplomatic skill worked in general). If you turned off tech trading it was a great nerf to the human faction, and also a nerf to tech/buildings that improved diplo-sk

Reply to Diplomacy: The great "thinkbox" thread. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I hope that how much the AI likes you will not mean everything when it comes to for instance allying you or joining you in a war. That a nation likes you doesent mean it's in its interest to join your war or ally you. It may rather be the opposite, that the best interest of that AI would be to join those nations it has had worse relations with in a coalition against a long time friend that is becoming too mighty and dangerous. It should not be to easy manipulating a

Replacing the Tech Trade mechanic in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Let's face it, few mechanisms have been more exploitable then the trading of techs. With the diplo-bonuses of the human faction in GalCiv2 it became even more crazy. I like the way the diplo-skill worked in GalCiv2, but I've never liked tech-trading. The AI can't cope with it, research progress goes to fast, and it causes the boring type of micro'ing (micro can be good for gameplay, but not this kind of micro, checking AI diplo every turn to exploit tech-tra

Reply to Needs better tech _tree_ than last time in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

The classical tech tree is superior to all other fancy ideas I've seen in this thread or in other games like Horizon. One tech at a time, and total player control of what to research (and knowing all pathways in the tree) is the way to go. Why? Because it gives the player meaningfull choices with (huge) opportunity costs. I couldn't care less for the realism arguements in this thread, because the alternative suggestions just seem like dull game mechanisms with very little or n

Reply to Stardock -- Please save Imperium Galactic War in PC Gaming Elemental Forums

GalCiv3 announced lads!!!!!! :D

Reply to Interactive Planetary Invasion in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I don't agree tactical land combat will add to the game for the same reasons I am against tactical fleet battles. Have explained why in other threads, but the main reason is this less focus and importance of the strategy aspects of the game. What I'd rather like to see is more strategical decissions arround ground troops, like design and building of regiments and defence systems on the planets etc. I hope the main focus of GalCiv3 will still be on strategy, not tactics

Reply to Map hexes in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Hexes are superior in every way, except perhaps more work for Stardock with programming. :)

Reply to Tactical combat. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Complications for MP is my last concern here, we could have an "always auto-resolve"-option. The game becoming a less grand strategy game and a very little challenging game with ttactical battles is my main concern. I explain in post 61. Those who thinks the main issue is multiplayer here, has misunderstood a few things. The point is that with tactical combat the game is at huge risk at becoming as hollow as all the other space strategy games doing that (not just r

Reply to I hope the new ship builder is more functional than just choosing weapon types and armor in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

As long as we get carriers (CV's) I am satisfied. :D Ultra expensive of course, both in upkeep and prod. cost, and taking alot of logistics points, and only carrying tiny ships that die easely and must be replaced.

Reply to Gal Civ III Founders in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Soon I'll have it as well. My Star shall be called Stratos!

Reply to Tactical combat. in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

I don't think tactical combat will be an improvement. It will rather make the game worse. Why? - Takes game focus away from strategical gameplay. - Takes ressources away from the rest of the game. - AI will be alot easier to exploit, making the game less of the good old challenge. - Tactical combat is terrible for multiplayer games. All this for a feature that gets old pretty fast. I like tactical combat in fantasy games with ma

Reply to Welcome to Galactic Civilizations III! in GalCiv III Dev Journals GalCiv3 Forums

[quote who="jimtanker" reply="36" id="3404627"] I'm going to be slamming my money down for the Founders Elite edition but I have one major question. Are you going to be able to have space battles like in SoaSE or is it going to be like GalCivII where you just sit there and watch them fight?[/quote] Hopefully the last one, so the focus of the game can be strategy, good shipdesign/fleet composition and an AI that is not easely exploited. Also most practica

Reply to It's been a long time coming in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Oh my God, Frogboy! These news are so splendid, and finally with Multiplayer. This is going to be so grand. I look forward to the thousands after thousands of hours I will play this game for the years ahead of us. Thanks for prioritizing making GalCivIII now, good choice lads and ladettes at Stardock. Suddenly my interest of other upcoming Space Strategy games fell under the basement. NB! Need to buy Alpha access today when back from work. Yummy!

Reply to Back from the Atari auction in PC Gaming Elemental Forums

[quote who="Anguille" reply="56" id="3387195"] I would love to see GalCiv3 with Sins of a solar empire battles...that's me.[/quote] I'd hate to see tactical battles in GalCiv3, both rts or tbs. I'd like GalCiv to concentrate on strategical warfare, and not human tactical exploits. We have enough of those kind of space games already, and it's not making them any better, just much poorer strategy-wise. Another reason

Reply to Back from the Atari auction in PC Gaming Elemental Forums

I understand why it wasn't worth it to pay more for MoO rights. Afterall Stardock has an even better simular concept in the GalCiv-series. But of course I would'nt mind 2 Stardock games in this genre, if they have had the capacity to develop both simultanously, which I doubt would be the best idea.