GalCiv3 Forums
this sounds wonderful
GalCiv3 Forums
They are a means to force a military action, even from a civilization isolated and/or safe with other major races, whom does not have a standing army. They do indeed exist, if you are playing this game.
I like the idea, but honestly it sounds awfully difficult to code in. It would require a completely new AI to manage the market, add and remove resources, determine "short sell" prices, manage embargo lists, etc. This is not at all trivial. Still, I really like the idea.
I'd rather the tech tree be more branched (again)
it does indeed add to the experience of the game - as %hullMass vs Speed is a valuable asset
I've gotten them
it is easy to turn off surrenders :-/
@zuPloed : current game is with bio aquatic slavers, only putting farms on non-manufacturing colonies. Still works out great. The AI synthetics don't do a great job with pop, IMO Not sure I like the mix of aquatics and slavers, though. Better than synthetic slavers (which is kind of OP, but wastes building properties)
ooh, also, it is nice taking the starting planet of a "tall race" .. I recently got 8 planetary citizens (5 of which were Engineers) on a relatively poorly defended planet (only 4 legions defending, and only took out 4/5 of mine). Basically won the game for me.
I generally use my first few citizens to jump-start hub planets. Depending on how many planets I can get on my first rush (which may include 1 or 2 admins, depending on starting position) I go for Leaders. I like the flexibility, and I do usually have one area of production which is scattered. Leaders help with this, until I can get a hub planet up and running. As time goes on, I may make one or two more "planet citizens" on specialized planets (I always use escorts to
GalCiv3 Forums
in pre-Crusade, pirates prompted me to build at least a small standing military, to deal with the threat. I do believe that pirates in Crusade are under-powered (same with the space-monsters). Scaling up their military threat, though, does not sound good to me, unless they could, maybe, interrupt trade routes, or demand tribute from under-protected ships/planets. In other words, I agree with most of the above posts.
I've won UP votes with far less planets (but higher pop) than other civs. Population DOES make a difference, but it depends upon play-style, I suppose. Tall empires now stand a chance.
I also don't like tons of planets. I like keeping my empire manageable, until such time as I influence or invade planets, at which point my planet total goes into double digits. IMO, the biggest draw of Crusade is that Tall is now viable. I keep events on high, so that I can use Ideology points more, and agree that they should be rebalanced for tall empires with low events.
GalCiv3 Forums
Every empire, regardless of size, gets one FREE citizen every 10 turns. That is without any effort on the player part. As mentioned above, several times, any empire may create citizens, at a cost. That cost is (generally) social manufacturing. By doing so, you can have more than 1 citizen every 10 turns. Assume that the citizen creation project is your beloved STEM, and boom, you are back in the game.
I actually like Trade the way it is. It start off small, but grows over time to a hefty income. Just don't trade with civs that you want to invade in a few turns.
research Leaders, each of which can give a 6% boost to all planets in one area. They may be switched at will. So, with 5 citizens, you can add 30% to Research, Econ, Ship Building, etc, or split them up for a more balanced economy. Works much better than the wheel ever did (with no coercion costs). This would be instead of assigning a citizen to a planet, so it is one of those "player decisions" that gets talked about.
Agreed on the garrisons. Personally, I don't mind the Research or Econ projects repeating, but anything that uses a resource should never auto-repeat building. Ditto for "auto-upgrade" on planets. But then again, you guys have heard about this one a lot.
I like the idea of project-auto-continuation being a check-box per planet, though this should have a global button next to it as well (so people who don't like the default can change it).
GalCiv3 Forums
I'm on board with never ever subscribing to a game. For pretty much the aforementioned reasons. Being affordable within my budget has nothing to do with it. I have, however, bought all the DLC for GC3, because I wanted them, and each was a one-time purchase.
been wanting global auto-upgrades from the start. I don't mind the Research/Economy projects repeating, but yeah, take Garrisons off that ... just like the auto-upgrades, it uses/wastes resources where they are not wanted.
GalCiv3 Forums
My faves are Mercs, Precursor Worlds, and Lost Treasures. I have (and like) them all.
there are already a lot of "ship construction" improvements, as well as a lot of social adjacencies. Be nice to see some "all construction" planetary improvements.
GalCiv3 Forums
I continue to enjoy the updates to Influence. It has been my fave strategy for a while now, and it nice to see it get some respect.
GalCiv3 Forums
thinking about it further... if any of you use Leaders for the double-all-planet bonus, which can be swapped at will, you are using socialism placing citizens on planets is localizing the resources, hopefully for a big gain, but pulling out is difficult. That is capitalism.
GalCiv3 Forums
I do not buy Starbuck's coffee. I cannot afford a house because I occasionally spend $4 on DLC. and I do not understand why "socialism" is a bad word, nor how it really applies to the OP.