And civ 5 was only really good after several expansions.
charon2112
People need to go back and remember what the beta for GC2 was like. GC3 is a blessing in comparison.
Off topic, but, do people who buy into the beta now still get a forum badge? I see a lot of people remarking on the game without a forum badge showing they bought it.
I agree 100%. I was thinking about creating a similar thread.
If I get a second survey ship through an anomaly or whatever, and I set them both to auto survey, they both tend to chase the same anomalies, which is a total waste of time. Shouldn't they go off on completely separate paths?
Joining an early access beta and then complaining about things that have always been the nature of the game doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
[quote who="NemoStardust" reply="35" id="3502854"] Quoting charon2112, reply 32 Quoting Wraith367, reply 31 colony management
[quote who="Wraith367" reply="31" id="3502846"]colony management lacks meaningful choice (eg multiple option that are significantly different and can each be worthwhile). [/quote] Do you think GC2 had superior colony management? and how so?
Speaking of UI...I miss the notification icons that drop down to make you aware of events. Are they coming?
The game's mechanics so far are becoming pretty fun for me. What kills the fun at this stage is the lack of AI's to play against. I play on huge galaxies, and I'm 162 turns into my current game and I have yet to meet another civ. So that's not too fun. But I also know that this is a very temporary problem.
Would it be possible to get a star tooltip, showing planets and habitable planets? This info was available in GC2.
That sounds pretty dumb IMO. My planet should upgrade existing basic structures to xeno, but any new ones I build after getting that research should start at xeno.
Yes! According to the latest dev stream, Adam seems to agree with my original post. [e digicons]:D[/e]
That's just the way GC works, if you want those gameplay elements, check out Distant Worlds, in that game, you can mine pretty much anything.
I'v researched xeno industrialization but the xeno buildings aren't in my available projects list, just the basic versions. Is this a bug?
I think it looks pretty cool. Better than the grid of lines from GC2, IMO.
but even a class 4 can eventually be upgraded to be pretty good. the solution is, don't colonize them. Where to send your colony ships is part of the strategy of the early game. do you colonize that class 4 next door, or hang on to your colony ship in the hopes that something better pops up. Part of it depends on how you play too, I like to have habitable planets pretty rare, so even a class 4 could be a valuable find, especially if it has s
I have to disagree with your questioning of having planets of different usability. I think your example was Mars, as in, why can't all tiles on mars be used for factories even though they aren't suitable for life. Part of the fun of GC is discovering different planets, most not great, but occasionally an awesome one. Your idea would remove that whole aspect of the game, and make most planets the same. I think that (from a story point of view) the point of the p
[quote who="kestlstw" reply="16" id="3502699"]... It seems most players love GalCiv2 and just want GalCiv2 64 bit edition which is what 3 seems to be heading toward to me. [/quote] That's nuts, there's a ton of new ideas and content in GC3. Just to name a few: Black holes Anomolies Nebula Pirates Strategic Resources Adjacency bonuses new tile improvements<br /
[quote who="Thecw" reply="2" id="3502632"] A thought occurred to me: The 'go to next' infrastructure would be every useful for creating ship patrol lanes. A ship in 'Patrol' mode would simply follow a (cyclic) way point chain, but when an enemy is detected it should abort motion and thereby alerting the player to the enemies presence - because the 'Turn' button will show an idle ship. [/quote] This is a great idea.
Thanks Trumpeter. Also, I think the algorithm that lays out the stars needs work. They seem very evenly spaced to me, no matter what galaxy shape I pick. For instance, loose clusters keeps the stars in loose clusters, but the stars in the clusters are almost evenly spaced between each other. GC2 generated galaxies that were much more organic.
I'm sorry but adjacency bonuses add a great deal to colony management, and are one of those 'why didn't I think of this before' game improvements. The game doesn't force you to lay out your planets a certain way, you still have full control. But if you are smart about the layout, you reap a benefit. Big colony management improvement IMO. All I wanted out of GC3 was more GC2 with better graphics and small improvements, exactly like adjacency bonuse
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="10" id="3502651"] ...One way to remove your tedium is to set you galaxy to what I enjoy, HUGE maps, tight clusters uncommon habitable planets. You can actually play 70 turns and NOT find a planet to colonize. It makes finding one, ANY one more of a treat and you agonize over how to specialize it [/quote] <span style="fo
I'm confused by the original post...it seems like you didn't like GalCiv2 much, and (not surprisingly) don't like GalCiv3 much. So why buy them? The game mechanics seem to be progressing very nicely to me. and have improved in many ways to GC2. Numbers (like tech research speed) will be balanced later.
[quote who="Hawawaa" reply="5" id="3502499"] Yep new game meet a neighbor started to setup a trade deal 2 of my techs for 3 of theirs (clicking weekly payment or cash deal one click crash). Only things I changed in options are large ui, Default: 2560x1440 and anti-aliasing 8x. https://w