The engine wasnt made to do it originally. That was a mistake (lack of foresight), but once done it can't be undone. Adding meaningful threading to a real time game would require so much work that it would be a new engine. If they ever make a sequel, that would be the time to do it.
It's a gameplay thing, they're legendary things that can't be duplicated so they create a race to build thrm/planets to capture for theM. Its based on Civ of course, where you can't duplicate the Pyramids in significance even if you can build the same thing today.
It's always neat when you have to do something to unlock building a wonder, as it's a bit silly that you can have these galactic super soldier wonders despite never fighting an intersteller battle. :P They also serve to spread the wonders around, as some playstyles are going to have an easier time unlocking certain ones than others. It's important to not keep it overly complicated though. If there's a lengthy list of things for each wonder, it's going to just get c
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="45" id="3428534"] Huh, I always thought the biggest culprit was trade ships. On the biggest maps it slows down so bad I can see visible hesitation between updates and ships that just ignore or forget orders due to so much computational lag. Limiting trade ships seems to help, but not all that much.[/quote] Trade ships are a problem too, but it got a lot worse in Entrenchment when mines made their appearance. The problem was the sheer quantity
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="43" id="3428509"] What is not boring and lame, building fleet capable to negate enemies' fleets, blockade them in their system, letting you build a lot of nukes and make it flashy? No sarcasm, just curiosity.[/quote] Anything that does something other than sit still and act like a wall thrown up in the middle of space? [quote]So if enemy has cloaking ship, you build detector, if he got radar jammer you build better scanners
GalCiv3 Forums
If we are talking about Bioware games going downhill in sequels, Dragon Age is a far better example than Mass Effect.
[quote who="magnuskn" reply="40" id="3428193"] quoting postRhonin_the_wizard: Will there be hot seat multiplayer? Raymond Bartos: As of yet there are no plans to implement this. Wait, what the hell? This feature was in the FAQ! And now it has been removed? Guys, you already said it would be there, no going back on this now. My whole circle of friends was besides themselves with joy when they heard that we'd finally get a new good turn-based 4X
No, minefields are not awesome. They're boring and lame. They don't add to the strategy of the game, all they do is try to let you create walls in space for some reason, unless you bring the ship that counters mines. So I just have to build somerhing to make the mines go away, which isn't at all interesting. in the case of Sins, mines are the thing I want to mod out. All they really accomplish is lagging the game.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="57" id="3428084"] I would rephrase that to "Microsoft chose to screw up badly". Because how could they not see what they were doing while doing it???[/quote] Someone thought the Pontiac Aztec, New Coke, and Crystal Pepsi were good ideas too. Corporations screw up spectacularly all the time without realizing what they're doing, because internally either the boss likes it and so everyone has to go along, or they get into an echo chamber where eve
[quote who="kevinjo87" reply="34" id="3428064"] Well the map and travellane is flat so mines could work just fine? You dont actually travel "up or down" if there isnt a full fledged 3D map in GalCiv 3 [/quote] No, they really can't. Take our solar system. The asteroid belt in it is pretty flat. It's made up of a huge number of asteroids. Yet they're so far apart that they aren't an effective barrier to anything. So to use something smaller (mines) to hit som
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="33" id="3428059"] Quoting Tridus, reply 32Space mines, again? That's already been debunked, guys. Debunked? No. Outshouted? Yes. If you don't believe space mines won't add to the game, fine. Many of us do.[/quote] No, it's bee pretty debunked. The math was clear on just how totally insane this idea actually is. You need so many mines that it makes no sense to ever build them instead of building ships. On top of that
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="55" id="3428067"] Oh that reminds me, when i downloaded the third party shutdown program for Windows 8 (because it is bloody annoying to access in Windows 8), they bragged on their website how popular the download was... it occurred to me that the more popular that download, the more proof it is of Microsoft's stupidity! An official undeniable record of statistics proving Microsoft are stupid. [/quote] It's true. Start8 being among Stardock
[quote who="BTAxis" reply="36" id="3428055"]Agreed. Total War in space is exactly what I want, and GalCiv 2's approach to ship design and combat made me lose interest with it pretty quickly. I don't expect GalCiv 3 to make any difference in that sense. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of choices out there for people like me. Basically, a Stardock-quality version of Space Empires 4 would be the holy grail.[/quote] If you haven't checked it out yet, take a look at <a href=
Space mines, again? That's already been debunked, guys. Actually stopping ships would require so many mines to fill the space that it's actually *cheaper* to build ships, because ships can move to intercept the attacker and mines can't. On top of that, there's nowhere to hide them, which means my ships can simply shoot them at range and clear a path. Mines only work if you can cover the approaches to something. They work on the ground because you have to go by ground,
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Sanati" reply="52" id="3427872"] Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 44Not going to lie, you're literally the first person I've seen saying this. Everyone reviles Vista for being useless garbage. I dunno', maybe it's a bias of the community, but Windows 7 is considered to be a considerable improvement over Vista It's hard to remember that far back, but I think the main issue some people had with Vista was the def
[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="23" id="3427694"] Once again dodging the tactical combat question.That same answer was given weeks ago.Create checks and balances does not mean anything..[/quote] They said this, which was new to me (and not in GC2): "In GC3 we will introduce the ability to assign roles to ships, giving them unique behaviors in fleet battles. These different behaviors will be used to specialize ships and create checks and balances, making the comp
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="19" id="3427509"] Quoting Achronous, reply 18 Overheating games have been known to cause PC problems. Maybe not immediately, but soon. I'd rather the game won't play than frying my CPU and/or graphics card. Remember the throttle frame rate box in the settings of GalCiv2?? No, a game cannot exceed the maximum safe capacity of the hardware, it is totally illogical, you can only run as fast as you can run, because that is your l
ME3 was good until it kind of blew up at the end, but it's the weakest of the three.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="11" id="3427364"] Quoting Lucky Jack, reply 10And if there is a service in Windows 7 that GC3 would be dependent on not available on Vista, then I would expect GC3 to refuse to run on Vista. And needlessly miss out when you don't know the only effect could be something completely unnoticeable in game. When the price of knowing is at worst, the game doesn't run and crashes, big whoop. [/quote] If they use an API that Vi
Not right now. The game is a long way out, and we don't know a lot yet. Pre-orders at this point are for series fans who want to get in early. You don't sound like one of those, so you should wait until there's something more tangible to evaluate. Next year there's an alpha, then a beta. There will be a lot more information available. Streams and lets play videos (though of the alpha those won't mean anything), and so on. That will be the time to make a dec
[quote who="General Joab" reply="11" id="3427350"] My dream for all these additions to each solar system is to have them all orbiting as opposed to GCivII where planets are stationary objects. This is a strategy game, right? So why not ask us to think about the movements of the planets within solar systems when we play the game? Knowing that the planets' positions relative to each other will change with each turn could make a grand strategy hinge upon the orbital mechanics of a few
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="12" id="3427202"] What irritates me the most, is widespread of save files. Steam's game's folder, appdata, documents, documents/my games, program files (wave far cry 3 and saves kept in ubisoft launcher folder)... [/quote] Me too. Part of that is actually Microsoft's fault, because they keep changing their guidance on where it should go. Vista & 7 have a "Saved Games" folder inside your user folder, but before that it was My Documents\
Cool, sounds like its coming along nicely. :)
[quote who="NitroX infinity" reply="10" id="3427136"] But for a specific game/program, the programmers of that game/program know what goes where. They know if the game puts something in Documents & Settings, and they know where exactly. So for them, it would be no problem to make the uninstaller also remove that. [/quote] Uninstallers don't remove user files, as a rule. Some of them used to ask if you wanted it to as an option, but that is never the defa
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="8" id="3427125"] CCleaner knows, other don't? Hmm...[/quote] CCleaner is spending a lot of time analyzing stuff to try and figure it out, and it's had cases in the past of getting it wrong and breaking things. A normal game uninstaller is not getting the resources into development to do that kind of analysis, and you really don't want it making mistakes.