Is Econ 102 coming soon?
charon2112
[quote]I tried to play before on the last alpha patch and the game was just not fun yet for me. [/quote] Did you miss the big pop up disclaimer saying that the game is definitely not fun yet...?
Will the different tech trees be just a re-labeling, or will the branches be shaped differently like in GC2? Random question: in GC2 once a star was in sensor range you could click on it and it would show the number of planets and the number of habitable planets, I miss this. Is it coming back?
[quote who="Z-74" reply="7" id="3483439"] Question: How long in TIME is a turn? [/quote] A turn is a week, and 1 tile is a parsec. Obviously solar systems aren't to scale. But really, what would making the planets move around the stars add to the gameplay?
It always bothered me that the Korx were evil. A trading race should really be neutral, willing to trade with both sides as long as they make money.
How do you take a pic of your ships without any UI elements on the side of the screen?
So why not just keep the Korx?
[quote who="SF1 Raptor" reply="13" id="3483352"] ( with me being a Christian creationist) [/quote] Allright, I'll take the bait. You're certainly not a young Earth creationist right?
[quote who="trims2u" reply="14" id="3483060"] And, thinking with my business cap on here, adding a race is the kind of thing that fits very nicely within the DLC concept. It would be a good revenue stream for StarDock to be able to put out a new race for a couple of bucks (under $5). Even if I wouldn't be getting them for free via the Founder's bonus, I'd be happy to shell out $3 for a new full race, or say a 3-pack of new minor races (which have no new unique tech, but
I heard Akari has a thing for Lord Kona...you know how it is, 'once you go Drengin, you don't go back'.
The old Altarians were just humans with face tattoos. I think the new ones are much more imaginative.
Any expansion to the diplomacy system, I'm on board with.
I recommend a 'rock/paper/scissors/lizard/spock' system...
[quote who="trims2u" reply="11" id="3482774"] Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, and any other space media I can think of all depict battles that are completely incompetently run, because they're made to look good, not reflect reality. [/quote] That's fine with me. I'd rather battles that look and sound great, than be completely realistic. What's next, all battles are silent, because of the vacuum of space?
I can honestly say that I have never, nor will I ever play the campaign. When I play through a game, I create my own galactic history and story, I write my own campaign. If the Drath and the Torians are wiped out in my lore, so be it. But I at least want the races included in the game so they can be part of the story.
I don't care about story elements in the campaign. Are you serious? Several major races aren't in GC3 sandbox games because of the lore of GC2? That sucks.
[quote who="Tolan_Grimm" reply="72" id="3482872"] Perhaps I should have given my $99.00 to the developers of Lords of the Black Sun. [/quote] If you spent your $100 with the hopes that SD would turn GC into a completely different game, then yes, you may have made a mistake. [quote who="Space Voyager" reply="75" id="3482913"] Oh the drama. People, this is at least the third thread on combat. Everything that can be h
8 races in the base game is a disappointment. I had hoped for at least all of the GC2 races, plus a few more.
Ading tactical combat would dramatically change GalCiv, and IMO not for the better. Let me describe how GalCiv is: You design ships, you arrange fleets, you send your fleets to attack other fleets, then the best part, watching the battle unfold (which could be done in a more dramatic fashion, and I hope this is addressed in GC3). This is what GC is, and I love it this way. Adding TC, would destroy the battle viewer, and turn GC fleet battles into little more than 'advance
I agree. I'd rather they just stack until I manually create fleets. maybe 'auto create fleets' could be an on/off setting?
[quote who="Kanlei" reply="90" id="3482509"] it would seem it was put there as an attempt to balance the game but defeats the point of the game. which is to conquer your enemies. [/quote] Not necessarily. You could get along well with the other civs and research your way to a tech victory. You could ally yourself with the other civs and win a diplo victory. You could be friends with them and win through your amazing cultural influ
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="97" id="3482518"] Quoting charon2112, reply 96 That's really a 2D system, but with multiple 2D "boards" stacked. Yes, that is precisely what a 3D is in a lattice system. Think about 4D with time, it is just multiple 3D boards stacked moving in a Time referen
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="95" id="3482513"] Quoting charon2112, reply 94 It seems like those games use a "star to star" travel system (phase lanes)...it's easy to do a 3D game with that system. GC maps out every parsec in the galaxy. That's a whole different ball of wax. It would be ridiculo
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="93" id="3482494"] Quoting DARCA1213, reply 92 Quit putting tactical battles in the same boat, that's actually been done before! Fyi. [e digicons]:P[/e] 3D maps have been done before too. For example, <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/ascendancy" target="
I still like my solution. Give all starports level one weapons in all three categories. Enough to fight off weak early attacks, but not enough to fight off more coordinated fleet attacks without upgrading. That would at least allow enough time to create a small fleet to protect it.