You can't buy the founders stuff on Steam, only here. You get the game on Steam, though. If you want to buy it through Steam, you'll have to wait. (The reason is simple: if they sell a copy through Steam they get 70% of the sale price. Here they get 100%.)
I saw the prompt yesterday. Now that I'm back on my PC with tools to see what's actually triggering it, I can't get it to reappear. Maybe they fixed it.
[quote who="Martok" reply="344" id="3420101"] The problem with your statements is that you're really only giving examples of the extremes ends of the spectrum: mostly hands-off (like Endless Space) versus micromanaging every single ship (ala Master of Orion). Believe it or not, there are varying degrees of control one can have in tactical combat between those two extremes. [/quote] You were the one who said Total War initially, not me. :) Fair enough, oth
[quote who="Martok" reply="339" id="3419844"] That article isn't stating there won't be tactical combat in GalCiv3; it's just saying the combat won't be like that in the MOO series. That's fine with me, as I have little desire to micro-manage battles. You can still have tactical combat without needing to give commands to every single unit, however. Birth of the Federation and Armada 2526 are both examples of this, as are the Total War games (to
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="16" id="3419908"] Some more new goodies have been added here: https://www.galciv3.com/founders[/quote] none of the images in there are working for me on an iPad. They're coming up as walls of text for some reason.
This thread's refusal to die despite it already being said there isn't tactical combat is impressive.
[quote who="Martok" reply="13" id="3419699"] Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 11 I noticed how the Terran fleet split into loyalists and mutineers; reference to the Trader Emergency Coalition in Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion? I doubt it, as they're completely separate game-universes. (Brad/Stardock created the GalCiv storyline, while Ironclad is responsible for the Sins storyline.) [/quote] Unless the thing the Vasari are
[quote who="Innocentia" reply="8" id="3419574"]Did they actually say SP was the focus? They wrote this would be the first multiplayer capable GalCiv, so I figured that means they'd design the game around this, not as an afterthought. I'm not holding my breath but I often think it's scary how conservative communities can be. There's a reason Apple is the king of consumer technology, and it's NOT because they stuck with what they knew.[/quote] They di
That works. "Covert Ops" would work too.
[quote who="Stohrm" reply="5" id="3419439"] When I first read "Population Management" I came here halfway expecting something a little different. Not that I am in any disagreement; but what I was curious about was whether there would be an ability to set up automatic immigration flights (or whatever one might call them). You see, in GC2, I would use Colony ships to transport people off planets with greater population counts to newly colonized planets (
[quote who="Innocentia" reply="6" id="3419239"] No, the same turn model is perfectly usable for single player too, least it was with Stars! Also they are coding GC3 from the ground up right? So there's every reason to consider a much better turn based model.[/quote] There has been absolutely nothing to suggest that they're changing the turn model from how it worked in the previous games in the series. At this point it seems pretty unlikely. I'm not sure
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="12" id="3419269"] As I said, I don't want to bicker about terms and such. I just want a name for what a combined mechanic in a game might be called.[/quote] It'd be called "Espionage" simply because that's how most other games use the term. But even in the game, the first and most important goal of your spies is information gathering and counter espionage. Stuff like sabotage, research theft, and assassination are extras to spic
Yep. You buy it on Stardock.com, and when it's available they send you a Steam code.
If auto-reoslve is as good as a player is, there's no reason for a player to do it, because the only outcomes are "as good as auto resolve" and "you screwed up, so it's worse than auto resolve". If auto resolve is worse than a player, at some point there's fights you will have no choice but to play out, or lose when you could have won by playing them out. This is all academic anyway as this game does not have tactical battles. The decision is already made.
The way people could do it in Civ 3 was tedious and micro intensive for no reason. That's why it was changed. They'd always leave if you asked them to unless a war was started, so it was adding nothing to the game except a bunch of extra clicking.
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="117" id="3419135"] unless you could make it reletively easy for the player to do this in gc 2 you could scroll out to a tactical wireframe map I assume this will still be possible in gc 3 if I could select a mode in that wireframe ( like putting the minimap options on the tactical map) that would highlight your borders / territory and highlight all ships that are not your own[/quote] Great, now it's automated. All I have to
Espionage is always about information gathering first. Not only is it the least risky operation in terms of exposing agents to harm or being caught, but you need it do anything else. You can't plan sabotage, assassination, propaganda, or any other type of black ops without extensive information collection first. On top of that, information also has immediate value to military planners.
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="114" id="3419028"] I still want the closed borders agreement to be where u have to click on the ship, and tell it to get out of my space, so this would apply for any ship u choose. The only thing I would want different is if the ship is from a species from one of your allies is that it wouldn't let me do this so there would be no mistake. I would still have u to manually catch me with your ships so I could have a chance to outrun u or fight u. I
[quote quoting="post"] As GC3 is the first multiplayer GC incarnation, it's crucial to switch to a multiplayer-friendly game model, rather than sticking with the traditional turn based model where people wait for each other to finish. For the perfect multiplayer experience, the model needs to support the following: Game hosted on central server at Stardock Player can create new game, control turn deadlines (10 minutes? 2 days?) and pause game, ie. fo
Neat idea. If the AI loses a planet it really cares about through influence, it might just want to go to war to get it back. Could be a common thing with home worlds, as those always have significant sentimental value (and often have practical value as a capital).
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="23" id="3418240"] Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 20Total war games have an auto resolve button if do not want to fight a battle. Auto resolve is *never* an option. It basically falls into two categories: the auto resolve can fight a battle as well or better than the player, or the auto battle does worse than the player. If the first is true, why would anyone play out a battle? The AI can do it as well as you can, yo
[quote who="yarodin" reply="25" id="3418267"] I think it depends on the game and how it's implemented. In ES for example, nearly unarmed scout ships or weak forces stumble across a superior fleet. Even a very scrappy AI couldn't screw this and I don't want to waste my time with it. So, auto resolve is a good thing there. I can spend my time in the more interesting battles. Speaking of ES, auto resolve there isn't even completly AI based, because you can give y
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="92" id="3418175"] The whole point of mines is that mines are orders of magnitude cheaper than unmanned mobile defenses, don't have to be individually manned, can be seeded into an area by a tender, are orders of magnitude smaller than an unmanned mobile device, are harder to detect than larger devices, and can be as smart as your tech base will allow.[/quote] on land,this is true and mines are useful. In 3d space, it's hilario
No date yet. They said they would announce ahead of time before it closes. Given that alpha isn't this year, you're probably safe. :)
[quote who="Surge72" reply="8" id="3418052"] Quoting Zydor, reply 4GalCiv is a Strategy Game not a Tactical shoot-em-up, the latter will never happen. Can you PLEASE stop referring to anything to do with tactical combat a "shoot-em-up". There are a plethora of things between these extremes.[/quote] I dunno, the idea of Age of Wonders or Disgaea being a "shoot-em-up" makes me giggle. ;)
GalCiv3 Forums