Thanks for the update, good to see there is a roadmap/future for GC2 Although the game is pretty solid. One thing I'd hope for either in GC2 v2.x (or GC3) is that techs can have more than one pre-requisite. I'd also like to see bigger (yes bigger) map sizes (not necessarily for more stars/planets) And customizable starbase types. e.g. Repair Starbase for adding repair modules that give +25% repair rate etc. this is turning into a wish list.... Frog
DeicidE
Very late to this party. :( From a commercial point of view, stardock needs to at least cover the cost of all the development on an ongoing basis. A subscrption model (or fixed annual fee) would offer guaranteed money up front and allow development to be planned accordingly. I'm sure the community can offer much in the way of graphics/ideas/testing, maybe a roadmap to refactor code such that it allows the community to develop new features. I'm sure there are many hardc
[quote]Now, this doesn't stop the other pet peeve - the AI building stupid things on a planet (like 10 morale buildings or something).That, I still haven't figured out but I'm working on it.[/quote] I presume that the AI checks to see if the planet already has a morale building before it starts building? Does the AI look at all the stats for the given planet and make a judgement call to say for example I have 100% morale and have two morale buildings, I may be able to upgrade o
[quote]I agree, I always wonder what cool stuff gets cut out because of "Balance". Can you imagine if we had GalCiv II: Multiplayer edition? Twilight of the Arnor would have been impossible to do because balancing 12 races would be impossible. Some races in Twilight will inherently be overall "better" than others in all likelyhood. But in a single player game, that's part of the charm. You make up a back story and a universe to explain it. In multiplayer, it results i
36 and I can see me playing these type of games decades to comes
Draginol, Industry praise means nothing compared to the praise your customers can give you. I suspect you'd find it difficult to please both sides. Stick to writing great games for gamers by gamers :) and not games to please the industry by gamers. ahem anyway, get back to work on TA ;) Dont suppose you'd release galciv2 to open source (or some of it) and let the community code in some mods after TA (or you could do a 3rd expansion).. that would really put th
[quote]It'll have to wait for next week to be enabled.[/quote] So that will be 9am Monday then? ;p .... and we all thought you guys work 24x7 :)
[quote]That depends. If you can use the editor to create DL and DA mods, then it does have some use. [/quote] I think anyone that is looking to mod the game will have pre-paid for TA anyway. If they are ready release 'em so we can test 'em. Could SD not just put some quick validation to check if a few \Twilight\*.* files exist? If it's just the one, please let it be the map editor.
Ok, dodgy solution until SD fix the issue. 1. Copy your Twilight folder from your laptop to the desktop. 2. On Desktop : Delete the \Twilight\sig.bin file then run Twilight and it will ask you for your id/serial no. Enter those and hey presto. Note the SDC will still think that you have 0.95[b].002 but you'll def have the latest.
Same issue on my laptop, gc2_Twilight.sdc keeps looping over and over. Show pre-release versions is checked too
All of us that have paid for the game have had the option of being active participants in the fine tuning of the game, which is the whole point of a beta. I want a game that I can play through the next 5 years, where each game is different from the last. This beta has had some risky additions, not one tech tree but 12 tech trees to balance, which have lead to economy tweaks, maintainince tweaks (good news in my book) so it's got to be right or it was all for nothing. I'd like t
[quote]So when you set it to -1 it is actually treating it as a very high positive value due to loading a signed value into an unsigned integer.[/quote] If this is true then in my book it's a bug. I have modded the Abilities so for example from your 10 points you can select an option the gives you more points, such as Logistics - 3 give you 2 extra points or -10 PQ gives you 4 points, then you can spend your 16 points on say ecomonics, trade routes or research. I think
I love your idea, looks slick and provides categorised info that you can take in at a glance. Stardock should implement this right now! :CONGRAT:
I like the idea of being able to disable a ship, then board it, confiscate the ship and recycle it's materials (effectively like when you sell onoe of your own ships get say 40 credits - maybe research techs to get more value out of the recycling process) I think that each alignment should offer unique tactics : (good = weaker, aiming for non destructive -> evil = strongest) weapons : (good = weaker, aiming for non destructive, -enemy speed advancements -> evil = strongest
i think independent sites are sometimes useful. I think a focus on what players would like for GC3, lots of polls and a collated consensus of opinion. I think you should not make it a forum based site, we have that already in galciv2.com
Why not have one constructor that created the starbase. Then build a freighter to instead of trade with the starbase it upgrades it. then returns back to the home world (as a mini freighter - just like trading mini's) it spends a week loading new modules and returns to the starbase to upgrade it ad infinitum. that way once it's setup you don;t need to worry about it. And also you choose your upgrade module when it gets to the home world.
My two penneth. Starbases like Culture, mining and economy should stay as they are or even loose their weapons/defenses, because realistically they are not designed to be weapons platforms. Military starbases on the other hand should be able to stand upto a fleet of huge hulled ships with all singing all dancing designs. but not two fleets in succession say.. A huge hulled ship would have the largest ship type of "warp"/energy core and starbase would have much larger
Wicked!!! :CONGRAT:
[quote] I'm seriously considering moving the date back quite a bit actually in order to concentrate on this more. The rest of the team would still move onto the fantasy strategy game but the fleshing out of the civilizations and the AI is the part I do on the game and I wouldn't be doing on the new game for awhile. With Sins of a Solar Empire coming out in February, it would mean moving the date back to March, however if we decided to do that. [/quote] I'd rat
[quote]I had 2,3 GB in use, but i have only 2 gb. and i had NO "out of memories" since i changed the settings... [/quote] Yep, it allows the app to swap out memory into virtual memory, might slow things down a little (as it swaps the memory to disk) but will reduce memory crashes. physical + virtual upto 3GB
try this web page http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721 it might help, not sure if it helps 64bit OS's Should allow 32bit apps to use 3GB of virtual memory instead of 2GB. TotA is more efficient and if you want to play gigantic/immense galaxies then upgrade to it.
[quote]Sometimes, extreme realism makes for crappy game design. Who wants to sit through a hundred turns of planetary invasion? Not me. [/quote] Me neither but once the invasion has started then over the weeks battles take place behind the scenes. The outcome would be the same as the instant invasions we get now excpet it happens over several weeks. Or each week so many troops on each side die until one side has no more. this means that additional troops can be brought in from both si
I think the greatest difficulty is the selecting the destination. A 2D screen cannot represent a 3D destination selection. Imagine a transparent cube at an arbitrary angle, imaging clicking the mouse on the cube (your destination) this gives you x,y co-ordinates, but no way to define the z plane location. (alhough just thinking maybe use the scroll wheel on the mouse) ... anyway a tricky business. For those that want 3D. You'll probably need a 64 bit processor cos you'll need
[quote] From a magnitude perspective, though, Beta 4 is going to be a HUGE step forward, rather than the baby steps we've been taking, which is always fun to experience. I much prefer 'Woah, look at the difference' over 'Uh...what got changed again?' [/quote] Damn you stardock, now I will be going out of my mind contemplating what "HUGE" means for a couple of weeks ;) Have a great xmas and new year. :CONGRAT:
Thats a nice xmas present if ever I saw one. You deserve it all. Congratulations