Surge72

Surge72

Joined Member # 3575987
3 Posts 62 Replies 9,540 Reputation
Reply to We need the ability to minimize events. in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="peterh1979" reply="4" id="3841389"] please don't underestimate what big positive change it would bring to the game. [/quote] I second this! It is incredibly important for this to be possible. I wouldn't even call it a feature to be added, more a fault that it can't be done yet. I can't comment on the difficulties of adding it, but I can comment on the prevalence of being able to do so for all other strategy games that are less than 10 years old. You

7 Replies 35,525 Views
Reply to GalCiv IV Dev Journal #16 - The Battle Viewer in GalCiv IV Dev Journals GalCiv4 Forums

I agree that full tactical combat would be terrible. I suggest Stardock look at the Dominions series (by Illwinter) to get some really good ideas of how to give the player some very good agency in an otherwise automated combat. Setting formations, high level orders, and targeting priorities at a group level. Then these orders can be copied and pasted across different unit groups in the same or different armies.

48 Replies 212,051 Views
Reply to GalCiv IV Dev Journal #10 - Do we need a battle viewer? in GalCiv IV Dev Journals GalCiv4 Forums

Stardock could look at how Illwinter's Dominions series does auto combat? For each army, you set up the formations and orders of units, and then they carry those out to the best of their abilities in each combat. Now Dominions combat is considerably more complex and involved than Galciv, but there should certainly be something to take from how they do it? https://www.illwinter.com/dom5/

94 Replies 586,336 Views
Reply to Tactical Combat in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

Tactical combat shouldn't be a thing in Galciv, but what is important that is missing is a way of learning how effective your ship designs are and how your fleets are performing against the enemy.

29 Replies 90,819 Views
Reply to Medium (QHD) size UI has some issues in GalCiv IV Bug Reports GalCiv4 Forums

And another thing that's happening with the QHD UI size on 1440p. For some reason, the list of Improvements in the planet screen is cut off, leaving a huge area of empty space below it, and an incredibly unnecessarily small scroll bar on the right.

2 Replies 3,934 Views
Reply to Your game review in Galactic Civilizations IV GalCiv4 Forums

I get the impression that Stardock are done with real changes (see all the feedback comments that fall on deaf ears), and are just after the low hanging fruit now like balance and pacing changes. Things that require minimal dev work. In which case, I don't hold much hope for release. Its alright on its own, but when comparing to the whole market of strategy games, it does nothing new and lacks all quality of life features that have become standard over the last decade or more.

23 Replies 31,123 Views
Reply to Situation Reports - modal window in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

Ha. See my thread from a few days ago here: https://forums.galciv4.com/509844/page/1/#3835433 It seems to have fallen on deaf ears by Stardock. And this isn't the first time I have brought it up - I mentioned it very early on in the Alpha, but not a word from them. They don't seem to understand that it's an issue at all. Or care.

6 Replies 3,304 Views
Reply to Gripe list in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="gypsy2299" reply="10" id="3834287"] 2. Your map suggestions puzzles me the only one I can speak to atm is combat adjacency each hex in GCIV is 3.26 light years apart, so having a concept developed for ground combat games is what IMHO immersion breaking.[/quote] And yet Stardock have introduced abilities to attack ships from 5 hexes away...

17 Replies 44,355 Views
Reply to Galactic Civilizations IV 0.6 Changelog in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

Have you gotten rid of every popup dialog window being modal? That is the most frustrating thing about the game - a design practise from the 90s which severely hampers being able to play the game. Unable to check thing's before making decisions. Being forced to address an event before you are ready to. It is not an acceptable way to build a UI in this age.

5 Replies 15,604 Views
Reply to Meaningless Terrain and Boring Maps in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

At least the devs of Distant Worlds 2 understand the importance of not having for all intents and purposes an empty map. This is certainly worth a read. https://steamcommunity.com/games/1531540/announcements/detail/2980809117799377487 Some key points: [quote]The answer to this was to use nebula clouds as the natural barriers to travel. In DW2 nebula clouds dramatically slow

25 Replies 65,401 Views
Reply to Meaningless Terrain and Boring Maps in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

[quote who="SchismNavigator" reply="1" id="3816958"] Hey Surge, I am curious, do you not think the sectors help break up the terrain and present new challenges with chokepoints? [/quote] I think the separate sectors help a little, but when considering the size of each, and the fact that 99% of the game involves playing wholly within a sector at a time (with very little fighting across the boundaries), is really is only a little. Even counting the new secto

25 Replies 65,401 Views
Meaningless Terrain and Boring Maps in GalCiv IV Early Access Feedback GalCiv4 Forums

Hello Galciv community, The most impactful piece of feedback I can give: Just like all previous Galcivs before this, the maps are extremely empty, and the "features" such as nebula and blackholes do too little to give any meaningful shape to the map, and indeed make any impact to decisions of the players. I see this being due to two reasons: 1) The features are too small. Nebulae should be significantly larger - both for gameplay reasons, and to be mor

25 Replies 65,401 Views
"Each weapon module should be firing independently" in Galactic Civilizations III GalCiv3 Forums

Brad said last yeah (during 2.5 I think) that " each weapon module should be firing independently ". I have been trying to test this in game, and it doesn't seem to be the case. Nor is it what the wiki says. As per the wiki: "Whenever a weapon is ready to fire, the ship will fire on its primary target, or another nearby ship if its primary target is still out of range for that weapon. All weapons of that weapon type on the attacking ship fire as one single attac

3 Replies 20,131 Views
Reply to Basic Railgun in Tech Tree in GalCiv III Support GalCiv3 Forums

You also haven't updated any of the default ship descriptions from when you changed all of the weapons. The prototype Guardian says "Short-range but equipped with a Prototype Durantium Driver". This isn't true. It doesn't require Durantium. The Prototype Sniper says "...uses an Elerium powered prototype weapon, giving it the firepower of a much larger vessel". This isn't true. It has a beam attack of 1. It couldn't be any weaker.

5 Replies 20,693 Views
Reply to Two small wishes in GalCiv III Future Ideas GalCiv3 Forums

[quote quoting="post"] 2. I would find it very nice if ships in nebulae could not be so easily spotted by sensors than when in free space. That would make it possible to lay ambushes in nebulae. It would also be nice if you could not only set nebula frequency, but also nebula size in the galaxy setup window. [/quote] Similar to something I suggested a long time ago but fell completely on deaf ears :( https://forums.galciv3.com/457396

4 Replies 9,607 Views