[quote who="Tharios" reply="31" id="3431563"]Such a space-faring civilization cannot exist in reality, period.[/quote] This sort of statement was part of the basis for Niven's Man-Kzin wars. The assumption ended poorly, as the name might imply.
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="106" id="3430824"]That's not an intrinsic problem of tactical combat in a game, it's a problem with AI coding. [/quote] You're wrong about that. How much advantage the battle control gives you is partially an AI problem, but it giving you one is an intentional design decision. If you lost horribly to the AI every time you played out a tactical battle, but broke even or won when using auto resolve, how often would you control a battle? <p
[quote who="Tharios" reply="94" id="3430569"]Tactical combat can be turn-based, and have zero disruption on the strategic element of the game.[/quote] Good joke. I admit I laughed out loud. No one would be pushing for tactical combat of any sort if it didn't change the strategic elements of the game. Generally, that change is to slant all combat in the game to the advantage of the human player over the AI. Tactical combat, at least in most games, allows the playe
[quote who="00zau" reply="87" id="3430526"]Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.[/quote] Ahh, the old "just make it optional" argument. No one has ever used that before. It's a really silly argument to mak
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="36" id="3430446"] Wait I was talking about the version on Civilization where you are playing with multiple people playing on the same computer.[/quote] Earlier I made a post about that. The point is that you can use a PBEM system to make a pseudo-hotseat mode. The infrastructure and game design needed for those two modes is very similar, assuming people are willing to use an online system to run it. If we have PBEM, hotseat would
[quote who="Tharios" reply="68" id="3430063"]First, once again...if drives can cheat physics, then other forms of the same technology can prevent that cheat. I don't need mines for that purpose...just 6 solar-powered stations, at most. But as a result, I can force every fleet incoming to a few, or only one, point that I determine, and can position a fleet or mines or whatever I want there to intercept them. In such a case, when the technology is clearly viable, anyone who would not use it
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="62" id="3430025"] Why you don't like my beautiful mines? Have you ever tried them? Have you followed Jamie Oliver advice and add a bit of parmesan, little drizzle of lemon juice, and tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil?[/quote] It led to explosive diarrhea. Literally explosive. I had to replace the toilet.
[quote who="Tharios" reply="58" id="3429971"]1) I can agree in principle. WIllythemailboy pointed out that supposedly the constructor spam and such will be reduced, but he neglected to give any indication of how, or cite the article where it was seen. In any case, reusable ships that have to be "reloaded" for each use of each appropriate module, would seem to be the best course.[/quote] It's possible colony/transport/constructor ships will be reusable, but I wouldn't bet much
[quote who="EadTaes" reply="15" id="3429894"] SINS 2 anyone? That would make a wicked game. Just saying.[/quote] I'm really hoping they hold off making Sins 2 until they can build it around a fully functional Nitrous engine.
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="2" id="3429810"] As with any forum, you are going to see people making statements in such absolute terms in ways that make them sound like they are StarDock employees that you have to take their statements with a grain (or more) of salt. This time, since StarDock has told us that GC3 is being re-written from the ground up with a brand new custom engine, and has mentioned that some of the things that were hard coded in GC2 are going to be in XML in GC3 (inc
It's going to be even more open. All the stuff that was moddable in GC2 will still be available, as well as things that were hard coded in GC2. Random events, additional structures, probably a few other things that I can't think of right now - all were hard coded in GC2 but are going to be moddable via XML in GC3.
[quote who="Achronous" reply="38" id="3429531"] Is this the Nitrous engine, I forgot. Can we name it Loquat instead? It has multiple seeds inside which fits in perfectly with multiple threads [/quote] GC3 is using a custom engine designed specifically for it. The Nitrous engine is still in the early stages of development.
[quote who="satoru1" reply="1" id="3429366"] fire station? [/quote] Clearly his computer combusted.
[quote]I should also point out that this has a major change from the previous 2 GalCiv games: There is no such thing as production waste in GalCiv III. Population provides the base production of a planet and planetary improvements provide % bonuses in particular areas based on that. By contrast, in GalCiv II, a factory might provide 5 IP. In GalCiv III, same factory would provide say a 5% production bonus with the production stemming from the planet's population.[/quote] Interesti
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="140" id="3429083"] word[/quote] Please stop doing this. The topic died. If you have something new to post, by all means post it, but don't post solely to try to revive a dead topic.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="15" id="3428766"] Hotseat is not asynchronous. We have to be playing at basically the same time, in the same location. We can't play hotseat if you're not at my house, and we can't realistically play it if I take my turn at 8am and you take your turn at 4:30pm.[/quote] Under certain circumstances we could. Well, not we specifically, but if you were to play a game with your wife it wouldn't be a barrier at all. [quote who="Tridus
[quote who="Tridus" reply="7" id="3428760"] Quoting Aygis, reply 6 I would rather like automated homing missiles - small self-destruct spaceshipe that I deploy onto one hex and that subsequently attacks fleets that don't have the right transponder-code. A further range-upgrade could allow attacks into neigboring hexes. Point-defense systems or AI-core-hacking would counter this space-defense systems. This would also be some kind of wall because it must not be invisible, just a
[quote who="Tridus" reply="13" id="3428759"] Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard, reply 11 Hotseat is a local form of multiplayer, where each player takes their turn playing the game on the same device. I don't know what StarDock means by asynchronous so I can't answer that. I don't know what Stardock has in mind specifically, but asynchronous multiplayer is any method where players don't have to be playing at the same time. Play By E-Mail (PBEM, mentioned ea
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="7" id="3428581"] I just want to be able to demolish them and rebuild them. If I had a nickle for every time I invade Thala and the Hyperion Matrix made the moral plummet... The AI is really bad at GA placement. Everything else is just fluff to me honestly.[/quote] Really, all buildings need to be upgradable. Things like the Iconian central mine thing - they could be bulldozed and something else built there, but you couldn't just
[quote who="Tridus" reply="44" id="3428529"]Pick a huge map, throw a bunch of AI players in on one of the high difficulties, and see what happens to the game in a couple hours after the mines come out. The entire thing will slow down drastically once they start throwing mines everywhere, including the UI, at 1x speed. It's a known, acknowledged problem that they can't fix due to the game being single threaded, and it's existed since Entrenchment (in vanilla it was still possible t
That wasn't an "option" to be turned off, it was a flaw in the AI that got ruthlessly exploited. The minor races didn't fall for it because they were hard-coded to not trade planets. I never used the Swindle technique, but regular planet trading was pretty exploitive too. The AI based a planet's value mostly on its population, with a bit of adjustment for how the influence environment was around it (i.e a planet was worth more to the AI if it was in their influence, and le
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="7" id="3428165"] Just in case this is a consideration I think it would be a big mistake to remove trade out of the game. More or less you have options I don't use to remove some of the more important trade out of the game. I don't sell influence points. I would like to not be able to trade planets. Like anything there is always for improvement. [/quote] On the other hand, some of us buy planets *with* influence points!
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="4" id="3428115"] Hopefully trading influence points doesn't make me want to slit my wrists this time. *Remembers trading a few hundred points per transaction* *Shudders*[/quote] 991 at a time. Technically 999 was the highest possible to trade, but 991 was fewer clicks/keystrokes. Trading influence is one of only two things that have ever tempted me to get a keyboard macro generator. The other is prospect
GalCiv3 Forums
How would infinite tech trees possibly affect tech victory? Assuming the trees work pretty much like GC2 (and from what we've seen they are pretty similar), all major lines except for tech victory could have infinite techs at the end without affecting tech victory at all. Or if that line has bonuses on it, have the tree branch so one leads to tech victory and the other to the infinite tech. The only difference between tech victory enabled and not is whether researching the "tech v
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="12" id="3427494"] Honestly, in the era of unlimited interconnection over the internet the whole premise of LAN and Hotseat gaming has taken a backburner role in game development. Very few people use it when they can very easily play simultaneously with each over the internet, without letting some other assho-friend take their chair and desecrate their glorious master race PC with their filthy peasant hands. :3 That being said, it