1. The game is currently being released solely on Steam because of practicality, but another medium is likely sometime in the future (For instance, on Good Old Games) 2. There will be a fully-integrated multiplayer 3. Windows only for now Beat you Tridus lol l l l l V
[quote quoting="post"] 1) Imma firin' mah lazor [/quote] Fixed
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="80" id="3421007"] [/quote] This guy knows what's up
[quote who="deathcoy" reply="75" id="3420809"] Whatever happens, happens lol... Besides, i think by now the devs prolly have decided and work out what type of combat they want for encounters. Our arguing ain't gonna change anything...[/quote] Elemental and the two free expansions serve to show you wrong :3
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="71" id="3420743"] Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 70we don't really have much more available to us than you do Actually we do. A screenshot of an alpha version of the research screen, and a screenshot of the Govern screen (graphs, taxes, spending sliders, etc.)[/quote] ... Is that really all that much? All it told us was [REDACTED]
[quote who="ElanaAhova" reply="18" id="3420724"] a convention site would be much safer... caution with internet connections into RL is definitely called for. [/quote] Damn Stardock; they're just collecting us into one place so they can extract our brains!
[quote who="qrtxian" reply="69" id="3420725"] Now you know how I feel each time people reference something from the Founder's Vault.[/quote] While some of it is pretty neat (the soundtracks are very good) most of it is just fluff; we don't really have much more available to us than you do; it's basically eye/ear candy. Still, I feel your pain
[quote quoting="post"] The reason for that is that unlike GalCiv II where the main evaluations only involved weapon types, GalCiv III has sublight speed, mass, rate of fire, weapons range, accuracy and evasion to deal with along with the roles of ships in a fleet. [/quote] My heart stopped beating for a moment. Is this what you meant about battles having "Some" tactics in them? By balancing ship traits?
Since this is a strategy game, every time you click the "Turn" button the entire map would need to be regenerated and processed, and I don't think current systems could handle it, at least on the level yo're talking about. It would be fun though :3
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="62" id="3420649"] We'll have to come up with some new galaxy size names since the top end galaxy sizes will be much bigger.[/quote] Dropping these innocuous one-liner bombshells makes me so angry. You know so much more about the game and it drives me insaaaaaannnnneeeee D:
The Elderly picture of Lord Kona looks... sad :'c
I don't mind 'basic' tactical combat like the kind found in Gratuitous Space Battles (Give out very basic orders prior to combat, units fight automatically), but full-on tactical battles would detract really heavily from the strategy elements in the game. Not to mention how much time it would take to complete the dozens of battles that can happen late game per-turn. The "main screen" of the game should be the galaxy map, not a battle viewer </p
[quote who="Seilore" reply="5" id="3420396"] per http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html AMD FX 8350 8 core 4 Ghz benchmark 9075 I can get for $185 versus any Intel i7 or i5 with comparible benchmarks Intel i7-3820 4 core 3.6 Ghz benchmark 9005 I can get for $290 again it's cost versus performance, I only have about $1300-$1400 for the system before monitor/s that needs to includ
[quote who="Seilore" reply="3" id="3420331"] Give me a performance per cost reason on why I would want Intel over AMD, the FX8320 is $100 less compaired to the i5-4670 and the AMD FX8320 is rated faster?[/quote] What is your price range, firstly? Because Intel chips this year really trounced AMD EDIT; Intel is traditionally 'better' but less cost-efficient, while AMD is 'worse' but more efficient. I can see what you mean about $/Performance, bu
Honestly Seilore, you're best off using a low-end Intel and not an AMD
[quote who="SPARTAN-2316" reply="25" id="3419945"] im using Internet Explorer[/quote] Problem found :3
[quote who="Tridus" reply="20" id="3419924"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 16 Some more new goodies have been added here: https://www.galciv3.com/founders none of the images in there are working for me on an iPad. They're coming up as walls of text for some reason. [/quote] Two of them are screenshots of the Alien representative of the Iridium corp (The alien portrait in the article) Harondin Gaul in separate diplomacy screens; one in the United Pla
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="17" id="3419910"] I'm not familiar with that one. [/quote] "Profit is all that matters; keep the people consuming our products no matter what." BnL in a nutshell; basically a soulless megacorporation devoted to profit, without the explicit evil. Best called opportunistic, they'd be called "neutral" in GCII
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="3419900"] Oh one other thing about the aliens, as cool as they look in still shots, they are fully animated. They look just insane when on the view screen.[/quote] You lucky bastard. I envy you so
[quote who="The Rusty Gamer" reply="2" id="3419754"] You still have the problem of conquering planets you can't use in Galciv 2 because the other race's technology is more advanced than you when they colonised it. I don't think the argument is valid and having different races use different types of planets in the beginning would make the game more interesting. There will still be common planets that everyone wants for one reason or another and as techs are researched, the pl
^ l l l l l My face after seeing this; l l &
[quote who="Martok" reply="21" id="3419838"] I'm aware of that. However, it's irrelevant to what I actually said, which is that Brad came up with the GalCiv storyline, while Ironclad created the Sins storyline. The fact that Stardock later on helped out with development of Sins has nothing to do with either series' backstory. Unless you know something I don't, I'm pretty sure Ironclad wrote the actual lore for the Sins universe on th
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="19" id="3419721"] MOO3 was a lousy damned game that poisoned a franchise and showed a company's complete disregard for cohesive gameplay. Yet its races did become much more distinct. Both in their appearance and behavior. Humanoids of all stripes, machine/cyborg and fully alien blobby thingies. They had different tolerances. Some liked M-class, others gas planets (blobby thingies) and so on and so on. Colonizing became more immersiv
[quote who="Martok" reply="13" id="3419699"] 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] Sins of a Solar Empire (Rebellion) was co-developed by Stardock and Ironclad, as were the forbidden worlds and stellar phenomena DLC's I believe
I noticed how the Terran fleet split into loyalists and mutineers; reference to the Trader Emergency Coalition in Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion?
GalCiv3 Forums