Or we can go to modification of missile weapon, adding them cluster mines warheads and targeted ship suffer movement penatly during tactical combat, or right before it (or after it). So we use mines tactically, not strategically.

Strategically we will be digging trenches. Yes, right in vacuum, private Smartypants, go get your shovel and dig, or you'll be digging them in granite with tea spoon.

I've posted a site specifically about mines so we can take this conversation to an appropriate site, and stop hijacking other posts.

Sarge how am I supposed to dig without dirt should I try to scoop it off the planet and shoot it into space.Every time I try a lot of nonthing keeps filling up my shovel.

Alright, Private, you brought it upon yourself! Orders are given you not to think about them, but to exercise them! Now grab the rake and collect all the stardust that defile the magnificient welkin of my beloved planet! On the double, mister! Left-right, left-right!

Help sarge I'm fallen and can't move.

Was recently playing GCII and got an idea.  Instead of having your first explorer ship be called your flagship.  Have each empire build their own so called flagship, which would be  more powerful then a regular ship and would gain levels and abilities similar to sins of solar empire capital ships.  If your flagship gets destroyed you have the option to rebuild but would loose influence points and if you kill an enemy's you would gain some influence points. Each empire would be limited to just one flagship at a time. 

Flagship idea is interesting, but aren't fleet commanders allowed to move their "flags" or "pennants" in case their ship has been damage and they been transfered safely on other ship? This could require adding actual fleet commanders, and appointing one as supreme commander among them. Ship is just ship (even that Excalibur) experienced crew is what's important.

1) I can agree in principle.  WIllythemailboy pointed out that supposedly the constructor spam and such will be reduced, but he neglected to give any indication of how, or cite the article where it was seen.  In any case, reusable ships that have to be "reloaded" for each use of each appropriate module, would seem to be the best course.

2) This too I can agree with in principle, but not all economic systems are created equal.  There are, at the ultimate core, only three different systemic economic foundations to choose from.  Capitalism, in which the market is an unrefined and largely antisocial Darwinian model.  Communism, in which either the Government (totalitarian) or the actual People (democratic) share equal ownership of all resources (or stewardship, as I call it).  And finally, Piracy, in which a kind of formalized theft is the basis for a given organization's financial acquisitions.

An economic victory for any variant of capitalism is not going to be at all the same as that of a communist system, and either will be drastically far removed in implementation or scope from piracy.  Anything less is just...the same economic systems in different skins, no matter the race.

While capitalism and communism (while poorly understood by many) are relatively common and known, piracy as a foundation for a national economy is not.  Think of Germany circa 1940, or really any incarnation of the original Roman Empire, or any of the barbarian hordes such as the Huns, or the Vikings.

I think the best implementation of piracy would be specialized modules for those races who use piracy, as well as specialized star base modules and planetary improvements for that purpose.  Using a copy of the influence mechanic as the basis, instead calculate the value of the loot by the capabilities of the vessel/star base/planet.  What would constitute an economic victory for them, would be an end tech, (probably for a ship module) that would allow for "circular piracy" in which theft occurs in a never-ending loop so that the system becomes sustainable (which is its ultimate failing).  This advancement is what would make it possible for a piracy-based nation to build up enough economic clout to potentially financially outstrip the other nations without actually having to conquer them all.

Obviously, the best implementation of capitalism would be the aforementioned Galactic Reserve Bank, though it would merely be a planetary improvement that does the same thing as the piracy ship module, because that's all it really is.

Communism would have some form of improvement or whatnot that would make money "meaningless" a la Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.  It would be a facility that changes their economy so that all resources count as a large percentage of food, industry, ect. and nothing else.  Basically, food and industry would simply directly count as money after the research of that tech.

Probably these facilities and modules would have incremental prerequisites that do the same things to lesser degrees, while the ultimate techs finally jack it to the max (which may be bad phrasing...but whatever).

3) This, I've been advocating for a very long time.  I think the volume ("space", in the Gal Civ games) requirement of ships is sufficient to keep distinctions between "classes" of ships.  Power Converter (there's really no such thing as a generator, because power is never "made" only transformed) stats would scale with the size of the hull.  You could put more than one on, but they should take up a lot of volume (signifying the fuel they have to carry to operate, though it's otherwise not tracked as a resource), and more advanced techs would take up less volume while providing more power.

Modules such as weapons, defenses, engines, and special devices such as fleet modules and piracy modules, would have power ratings that detract from the converter's output.  It would become a balance of capability, volume, and power.  I think that would dovetail nicely with the Devs' admitted interest in incorporating combat roles into fleet composition.  And it would remain relatively simple to implement.

Again, someone else already implied the Devs have mentioned that they intend to incorporate modules that enhance weapons and defenses and the like in specific ways, rather than the simple general attack and defense boosts of Gal Civ II.  This would make sense since they did mention in Q&A #1 (see how I cited where I saw that?) that they would like to include aspects such as weapon range into combat with Gal Civ III.  But again, they didn't mention where they saw it.  This too though, I've been advocating for a while, and again I think it would go well with their intent to incorporate specialized combat roles.

4) It would be nice, but it's not going to happen, sadly.  Though I'll admit, I don't find it lacking on the part of the game.  It would be an addition, not the inclusion of a missing component.

5) I can agree to this, mostly.  But there needs to be some way of adjusting how cooperative they are by how much they like you.  Just because you're allies, doesn't necessarily mean they'll do what's in your best interest.  To use your own example, if your ally really liked you, they'd do exactly as you specify, essentially.  If they weren't very fond of you but simply hated your mutual enemy enough to ally with you, then odds are they'll blow you off and do as they please whether it's a good idea or not (depends on how smart the AI is).  Not sure how they'd go about that, but I think it's worth looking into.

I also very much agree that allied fleets should be able to occupy the same hexes, and that allied fleets should be able to orbit ally's worlds and defend them as such.  I don't think it's reasonably possible to merge allied fleets into one though.  But if it is, the ally with the greatest military rating should control it...which may not always be the player.

6) This I think needs to be tabled until we get a better idea of how these new Ideologies are going to work.  Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you say here.

- - - - -

(Now it's my turn)

7) Mines.  Oh Noes!  Not mines!  Yes, mines.  As many have pointed out, space is simply too big to make minefields effective.  Good to know...because space is too big to make space battles effective, either.  The only space warfare you'll ever see in reality is orbital bombardment and invasion.  There is no minefield, fleet, or other form of mobile or stationary defensive perimeter, that another fleet can't simply go around.  But, that's not fun, and it's not necessarily universally true, either.  But ultimately, in the context of this game, that's all irrelevant.

As someone else pointed out, this is a 2D game, not a 3D one.  As such, space is a fraction of the size in the game that it is in reality.  Additionally, the scale of space in the game is radically different from that of reality.  If each hex represented 1 AU, a gigantic map would only ever have one star on it.  As such, a given hex must be at least 1 light-year, since one parsec is much too large (it would mean any given planet is 3 light-years away from its star).  That's still kind of absurd though.  How about we go with MAU (Mega Astronomical Units)?  At that point, one parsec would be 20 hexes so star systems would still be much too close together on maps, but at least star systems wouldn't be quite as cartoonishly overinflated.  Frankly, the scaling of the game simply doesn't realistically work, period.  It's intended solely as a visual abstraction of the concept of interstellar and interplanetary distances.

At that point, in a 2D plane, filling a hex with mines isn't infeasible.  And since we're already using up way more resources in the game than could possibly exist in any star system or hundreds of star systems, filling the hexes surrounding a star system with mines really isn't a stretch.  Give a hex-worth of mines a comparable production and maintenance cost to a medium-size ship of the appropriate tech level, and voila...mines that are useful, but not easy to spam.  Different races could use mines in different ways.  Some might have dummy mines that just mostly sit inert and magnetically drift toward targets, while others might have mines that are more like automated drones that fly through space and kamikaze trespassers.  That's mostly all a matter of detail.  But in terms of game function, it's reasonable, and it works without disrupting balance.  The ultimate tech of course would be self-propelled mines that hang around asteroid fields and are equipped with 3D printers to make more of themselves.

A nuke or other EMP weapon may disable or detonate mines, but it will be slow, and uncertain unless you know there's a minefield there.  Which in space, is unlikely.  Radar as a technology is largely already topping out on both sides...detection and stealth.  Radio waves just don't do that much.  Other sensors will do more, but will still eventually top out.  At a certain point, it becomes guesswork no matter what.  So...nuking a minefield works, but it's hardly a "counter" to them.  Also, if they become solid-state optronic systems, EMPs become meaningless, and only destroying them does any good.

8) Hyperspace inhibitors and different drive mechanisms.  Any device that can be made to alter space to allow ships to cheat relativity, can be further made to force those ships out of that altered space.  This creates the kind of bottlenecking that makes minefields and fleets actually effective in the vastness of space.  It also means that covert operations become much more valuable to try and circumvent such defenses.

Inhibitor tech would come in two forms, planetary improvements/star base modules that reduce all ship (including friendlies) speeds by so many spaces/turn (with the max tech dropping it all the way to 1), and single-purpose mini-bases that create a straight corridor through which inhibitor effects (even those from multiple sources) of equal or lesser tech level are completely nullified.  Facilitators of lesser level than inhibitors would have no effect.  Thus, you'd have two ways to bottleneck opponents.  Build bases far enough apart to leave small gaps to travel through, or overlap everything and use the facilitators to make corridors through those zones.

I also think it would be more interesting to see different races having adapted their understanding of the gate/hyperdrive relationship in unique ways.  The Drengin and Arceans (gone now) would likely have projectors that function more like gates than the hyperdrives.  Just like the old Arcean improvement in GCII that sped up their ships because they were otherwise slower than molasses in winter.  Have planetary improvements and star base modules that improve ship movement speed within their respective ranges, but no ship modules affecting speed.  It gives the Drengin more incentive to militarize their space, and keeps them a real threat without forcing everyone into the "land rush" that was predominant in GCII.  This would also go well with their piracy economic system (c'mon, of course they're going to be like vikings, attacking and plundering others instead of working themselves), as their abundance of star bases would expand their capacity to raid other worlds as well.

Other races could adapt the hyperdrive tech to their less in-depth understanding and more limited power capabilities by outfitting a single ship with one large field generator, and little else.  All ships in a fleet with that ship, would travel at the "jumpship's" listed speed.  Any non-jump-capable craft would travel at a speed of 1, otherwise.

Then of course you'd have the normal drives that have been used throughout GC.  Nothing really needs to be said on them except that they should look less like rocket engines and more like field generators of some kind...or at least components that would contain such generators.

9) The Terrans should have better power plants than any other race.  The justification for Terrans figuring out hyperdrive is that they're more creative, and could meet the drastic power requirements of such drives with their abundance of fusion power.  If power was that much of a problem for the other races, so easily solved by a race so young, then the power plants of the Terrans must be an order of magnitude better than everyone else's.  This should be at least partially reflected in either the volume of their ships (an increased ability to support weapons, defenses, and engines), or in power modules with greater capacities compared to other races' plants of identical volumes (assuming power modules were included later in development).

10) Someone mentioned the idea of flagships.  I like this idea.  I think it would best be implemented by a module, with minimal power and volume cost, but extremely high production and maintenance cost, that is unique and can only be outfitted on one ship at a time.  It would designate that vessel the empire's flagship, and confer various bonuses (unique to each race) to its fleet and/or the planet it's orbiting, or all ships within a certain range and/or all worlds within that range, or all ships everywhere in the navy and/or all worlds in the empire.

That is all. 

Frogboy mentioned it here.

"For instance, the way star bases are being handled (we don't like the constructor spam so we're tying the star bases to their planets)."

In the previous games, one tile represented one adjusted parsec. The hexes in GalCiv 3 will probably do the same.

"A true parsec is 3.26 light years. An adjusted parsec varies from 1.9 x 10^6 (million) miles to 1.9 x 10^14 miles depending on how much mass is in the area."

It's possible colony/transport/constructor ships will be reusable, but I wouldn't bet much on that. Current game lore abstracts the cost of the initial colony building into the cost of the colony ship itself; the colony module is essentially a prefab colony building that is assembled on the ground when you colonize. Likewise, troop transport modules are stripped for ground combat equipment and constructors are consumed and used as the building materials for the base they are building. These mechanics are intended to force you into interesting strategic choices like whether it's better to pay for and lose a big, fast, armed transport or take the risk with a stripped down model you might lose en route. Or fast vs. slow colony ships; is it better to maximize the number of planets colonized or have the speed to beat another civilization to that one particularly good planet?

As for the reduction of constructor spam, we just don't know yet. Hopefully we'll see the changes when the Alpha comes out (late January, maybe). This is all we really have to go on at this point; everything else is speculation based on it.

On constructor spam, Brad said that they were changing it. So we know it's being changed in the context of Starbases because they said so. We don't know to what.

... and I want to barf every time someone tries to start up the space mines nonsense again.

Why you don't like my beautiful mines? Have you ever tried them? Have you followed Jamie Oliver advice and add a bit of parmesan, little drizzle of lemon juice, and tablespoon of extra virgin olive oil?

It led to explosive diarrhea. Literally explosive. I had to replace the toilet.

WOW, also in my opinion planetary defense mechanisms such as large cannon/laser/missile/other pew-pew boom type thing batteries and giant shields could be added which would give enemies penalties for trying to attack your planets such as the weapons being able to attack adjacent fleets and give fire support to friendly ships fighting next to your planet.

I realize this, though I didn't know the exact scale.  My point, was that no matter how you slice it, it will either be completely wrong on one scale or the other, or somewhat wrong on both.  There is no single scale in the game that is an accurate representation of realistic distances.  It's like Kerbal Space Program.  I was more trying to demonstrate just how drastic the discrepancy in scaling is, and how it and the resource discrepancy make mines in this game as viable as anything else.

Again, in real space, even fleets would be as worthless as mines.  Even clustered around a planet, it would take enormous numbers (beyond available resources on even an interstellar level) to properly defend it from even a small attacking force because they could strike from any direction.  But in a 2D game, where resources are irrationally abundant and distances are nonsensical, the whole point is to have fleets, and mines are not some game-breaking problem.  Essentially, in such a game, every single complaint about mines thus far is completely negated.

That was what I was getting at.

Not really sure what you're getting at.  If you have a viable point, go for it.  But so far, everything just sounds like people hate mines just to hate mines, without a rational purpose.  In this game, they will be no less viable than fleets (which themselves could not otherwise be viable in reality), as I stated above.  This game does not in any way accurately represent space, or space combat, or even managing a space empire, from even the most imaginative perspective of speculative fiction.  It is entirely a deeply downscaled and simplified abstraction of such.

Besides, I've already demonstrated how even in a proper universe where space is "too big" mines and fleets of ships are still viable simply because it will likely be possible to restrict interstellar travel to specific points, even with freeform travel through hyperdrives or whatnot.  As I said, if it's possible to develop devices that allow one to "cheat" relativistic physics, then it is possible to develop a similar device that neutralizes such devices.  The idea behind the proper use of mines is either to put them where someone already must go, or to adjust circumstances so that they must cross a point of your choosing.  That, and you're not supposed to mine everything.  You're supposed to force the enemy to either gamble that you haven't mined a strategic point, or wastefully spend resources clearing them whether they're there or not.

Ultimately, one is only supposed to spend those sorts of resources on minefields in places of major strategic importance.  Like putting a ring of star bases around your core systems or most valuable outlying systems, with only a couple of corridors in and out through hyperspace, then mine the corridors.  As long as mine spam is prevented in the game, what does it matter if they're a strategic option?

- - - - - 

Also, on the constructor spam...I was in agreement...so why all the commentary on it?

- - - - -

One other thing...

11) Teleporters as weapons, multiple weapon paths within types, and long-range colony and base defenses.  Target a ship, run the cycle to disassemble a particular portion of it...allow it to disperse rather than reassemble it anywhere.  Most powerful beam weapons, obviously defeated by shields.  Probably the end tech of the disruptor path.

Each type of weapon Kinetic, Beam, and Missile, would have paths within it, instead of simply being a straight shot with irrelevant odd branches.  One branch would be ship-to-ship weapons, while the other would be long-range bombardment and planetary assault weapons.  The long-range weapons would further make star bases the "line" as now they can damage ships for even flying by them.  And planetary assault becomes more hairy since they can lob fire at an approaching fleet before they arrive.  Likewise though, while expensive and large, such weapons can be outfitted on ships to counter these defenses.

- Beams would have disruptors and plasma weapons.

- Kinetics would have ballistics and spatial weapons.

- Missiles would have missiles and torpedoes.

Defenses could well have similar branches.  Generally each type would be divided into a pinpoint protection format, or a broad protection format.  The broad protection would be for ship-to-ship weapons, while the pinpoint defense would be against long-range assaults.  Though I'll admit I'm not sure how that would work with armor.  But for PD and Shields, it's pretty easy.  PD would have normal PD modules for the long-range torpedoes, and a kind of "lightning field" that surges and automatically detonates incoming large-scale missile fire.  Shields would have small, powerful single-point projectors, and then broad field arrays.

Also...

12) Covert Ops techs.  Cannot be equipped on hulls larger than medium, nor on cargo hulls.  Terrans may equip them on large hulls as well, and Krynn may equip them on cargo hulls.  Reflecting the Terrans' abundance of power to use technology on scales others cannot, as well as the Krynn's criminal syndicate underpinnings.

- Covert hyperdrives.  Capable of jumping through inhibitor zones as long as the total rating is higher than that of the inhibitors (total of all inhibitors in overlapped hexes is used).  High power cost, high volume cost, high production and maintenance cost.  Allows the equipped ship to serve as a hyperspace facilitator, at the cost of becoming immobile for X number of turns.

- Stealth modules.  Early techs focus on reducing sensor signature (ship behaves as if enemy vessels have reduced sensor range, but doesn't actually affect enemy sensors.  Later techs comprise active camouflage, and outright cloaking fields.  Early techs have little to no power requirement, but high volume, production, and maintenance cost, while later techs cost a great deal of power as well.  Such modules significantly boost overall defense rating of equipped ships in combat.

- Covert weapons and defenses.  Normal weapons or defenses on a covert ship greatly increase the range at which the ship can be detected, and drastically decrease the defense boost in combat.  Covert weapons and defenses do less damage and offer less protection, and require much more volume, but eliminate the detection penalties.  A ship equipped with a balanced array of covert defense modules and no detection penalty, has total defenses significantly higher than a conventional ship of the same class.

13) Active/Passive sensors.  Both forms would have comparable research requirements and overall costs to use.  Active sensors cannot be deactivated.

- Active sensors reveal the same area both for exploration and fog of war.  Active sensors can be jammed by phenomena like black holes, or stealth techs, and reveal the ship's location to all other ships, bases, and planets whose sensors overlap its own.

- Passive sensors have a much better exploration range than active sensors (maybe double), but a much worse fog of war range (perhaps half that of active).  Passive sensors cannot be scrambled, and do not give away the ship's position.

- Ships with active sensors modules cannot equip covert ops modules, and vice-versa.  Obviously, this means if you put active sensors on a ship, all covert modules will become restricted.  If you place a covert module on a ship, active sensors will become restricted.

This is completely wrong. Blocking off our solar system in any meaningful way with mines requires so many mines that the mass would be greater than that of everything in our solar system right now. It's so absurd that it'd be hilarious if people didn't keep trying to pretend that it makes sense.

Protecting it with a fleet requires engines and sensors good enough to see someone coming. If you're going for Earth and I'm anywhere in the vicinity, I can intercept you if I can see you coming (and our ships are anywhere near the same speed). Invading the planet while I'm shooting you is going to go poorly.

"Striking from any direction" is meaningless when my sensors are also omnidirectional and can see you before you're anywhere near the planet. You can't go around me when I simply come at you as you get near.

You mean other than that it's been in four threads already and having the same conversation over and over again gets really old really fast? At some point this "oh lets throw walls up in space like we're playing a land based game" just gets annoying.

You keep saying that, and it's still not true.

No you haven't demonstrated anything.

How do you plan to mine strategic points in a free travel game? You're going to first add stuff to the game that isn't there (tech to remove free travel) to change the game into one more hospitable to mines, because you really want mines? That just demonstrates how mines don't make sense in this game. Anytime you have to change it into something else in order to make mines fit, maybe the real answer is "mines don't fit, move on to some other idea".

Using GC2 as the example, small quantities of mines would have been useless. You'd need to mine large areas to accomplish anything at all, which would wind up being the equivalent of setting up a space wall.

Why would I do that? I can fill in the corridor with ships or another base. Hey , no developer time needs to be wasted implementing mines!

First, once again...if drives can cheat physics, then other forms of the same technology can prevent that cheat.  I don't need mines for that purpose...just 6 solar-powered stations, at most.  But as a result, I can force every fleet incoming to a few, or only one, point that I determine, and can position a fleet or mines or whatever I want there to intercept them.  In such a case, when the technology is clearly viable, anyone who would not use it is pretty much doomed.  That it hasn't been included yet in the games is somewhat annoying.  Like a naval game that doesn't have submarines.  It's absurd.

Next, fleets ARE equally useless otherwise, because no sensor is omnidirectional and assuming some future tech might make them so is rather silly.  Even if they are, you're still limited to line-of-sight, which this game doesn't account for anyway.  And finally, you have no basis for surmising whether a ship traveling through warped space of any kind at functionally superluminal rates is detectable at all in the first place.

Additionally, you can't realistically just go where you please in space, no matter what technology you have.  If your fleet is orbiting your world prograde, and my fleet arrives at a time and orbital position where you're directly on the other side of the planet, you're not going to do a thing.  You can't speed up to catch me, because you'll break orbit and fly off.  You can't slow down for me to catch up with you because you'll crash your ships into the atmosphere.  Even with inertial dampeners of some kind, you still have to obey orbital mechanics.    Even if you're orbiting the star instead, or another nearby body so as to maintain relative position, you'll still never get to your target in time, no matter when you see them coming.  If you "jump" to the target, you'll have to expend enormous amounts of thrust (inertial dampeners or not) to match the relative velocity of the targets or overshoot them uncontrollably...probably getting yourself blown out of the sky in the process.  Your only option would be to have thousands of ships at various orbital altitudes all around your planet.  In GC terms, you'd need a hundred fleets or more of maximum size just to properly defend an average earth-like world with no gaps.

But then, GC doesn't model orbital mechanics or relative velocity.  Nothing about this game is realistic, it's all an abstraction.  And as a result of that abstraction, things like mines are actually viable on these types of maps.  Just suck it up already.  Your argument only holds water in a realistic scenario, and even then, it actually doesn't in the end.  In a game such as this, it was never even a real argument.

No, because the changes I've proposed to the game regarding artificially engineered choke-points has nothing to do with mines themselves.  They're useful and interesting in their own right, and they are what will happen should we find the galaxy to be a hostile place.  That mines become viable as a result doesn't actually matter, but is still true.

Also, you keep citing resources as a limitation on this, but that's irrelevant, since already in this game more ships, bases, and whatnot are constructed than could ever actually be supported by the number of worlds on a given map.  Since planets and such don't "run dry", there really isn't such a thing in the game as "wasted resources" except those that aren't used for anything at all.

See...that right there only tells me that you don't want the strategic face of the game to change.  You have no real reason for it, you just don't like it.  You like the way you play now, and you don't want to have to change it.  Well, maybe more people prefer a better challenge with more options.  Unlikely, but possible...I choose to be optimistic about people's intelligence.

I'm not "shoehorning" mines into the game.  I'm suggesting strategic options that enhance gameplay overall.  Your only counterargument is "It's too complicated and I don't like it."  If it makes you feel better, we'll drop the mines entirely.  Instead, we'll expand the maps to realistic scales, make them fully 3D, and then limit sensors to specific facings, cycles, frequencies, and line-of-sight as they realistically would be.  We'll also incorporate relative velocity and orbital mechanics.  Then you can try and stop an incoming FTL fleet.  Or rather, fail to stop them, anyway.

Maybe someone used mines to beat you in another game sometime in the past.  Maybe you're just angry because mines are too mainstream.  I don't know, but all I read in your posts is an irrational dislike for a viable strategy within the context of this game, and anything that could even indirectly and loosely be associated with the idea in any context.

The real tell here is that you keep arguing against mines as if you're sincerely concerned the devs will include them.  I have no illusions that they'll include anything any of us have mentioned at all.  Why are you so convinced they'll include mines?  If you think they won't include mines, why argue so hard against them?  Note, I'm not actually arguing that mines should be in the game, I'm just saying they would fit, and that there's no legitimate reason not to include them except perhaps coding issues.  You, however, are arguing that they be kept out of a game they'd never have been in in the first place.  So what's your deal?  Why are you tilting at windmills?

This is pretty much the fatal flaw in everything you're saying. You're coming in here with "oh, just take this free movement game and add stuff so that it's not free movement anymore" as if that is ever actually going to happen in GalCiv 3.

No sensors are omnidirectional, except for the ones I've got in GalCiv 2 and will almost certainly have in GalCiv 3. So I think I'm okay.

Mines don't work in a realistic scenario, or in an unrealistic scenario. Mines are so flat out stupid in space that they take the unrealism to space magic levels.

Now if we're just going to argue on if space magic should be in the game or not... it already is. Oddly the last time the mines argument happened, the mines crowd wanted to pretend that mines were in any way practical in space. Just saying "they're magic" would at least get around that, but it doesn't get past the problem of mines not adding anything fun to the game either. (I, for one, can't wait until the AI decides to go mine happy and starts dropping them absolutely everywhere with the resource advantage that it'll get on higher difficulties. If they're at all tedious to remove, that will get old very, very quickly.)

I choose to be realistic on what's actually going to happen in a sequel, and some people choose to pretend that they can take this game and turn it into something else by throwing all kinds of stuff at it.

Course I'm also experienced at designing things, and at some point someone has to remind people that just throwing more of everything doesn't actually make things better, more interesting, or "more intelligent". 5 well designed options are better than 50 rushed ones, every single time.

I'd contend that mines don't enhance gameplay. They're a thing you stick somewhere and then forget about until someone else comes along with whatever removes them, in an attempt to create walls in space. That's not an enhancement, it's tedium.

Counterargument to what? Your only argument is "it doesn't matter that mines are laughably unrealistic, because other stuff isn't realistic either". Which is fine and all, but there's no scenario in the game that actually requires mines except if you want to block off some area of space. And I don't find space walls to be an interesting addition to a franchise that has eschewed limitations on movement in the past.

Now if we were using warp gates or some such, mines would be an entirely sensible thing to use at the gate entrance if you really want to blow up whoever is coming out.

I'm far from the only one who hasn't liked mines in the various mine threads (there's been several). At one point the pro mine folks were basically drowned out by the anti mine folks, so there's quite a few of us.

So we're arguing with each other about mines, and you're confused about why I'm arguing? Why are you arguing? My answer is probably pretty similar. I'd expect it's largely the same reasons why anybody replies to anything around here at all. (On the upside, it beats yet another tactical combat thread!)

When it comes to mines, I don't know what they're going to do. Certainly, I think there's more value to be had in developer effort focusing on something else.

The tech was in GC2, and it wasn't terribly effective. The solution is to go in head first and destroy the station generating the field. Only an idiot AI would fall for the "trap", and only someone wanting to exploit a stupid AI would expect such mechanics to be included in the game.

No, we can assume a fleet isn't going to have their blind spots aligned to leave a fleet-sized blind spot. That's the equivalent of putting 10 guys in a watchtower and having them all look the same direction - that is, really stupid, if the goal is to look in all directions. Finally, ships *are* visible at a distance in game lore and mechanics, so we have no reason to suspect they suddenly won't be.

This one is particularly foolish. The drive technology in the game allows for travel to another star system in a week. If done entirely in normal space with constant acceleration, that would require a ship to pull about 45,000 G constantly for a week to get from Earth to Alpha Centauri for a zero/zero intercept (if I did my maths correctly). There's superluminal drive of some type, but even getting out of the inner system in a reasonable amount of time requires the ability to go from zero to relativistic speeds very quickly. That sort of drive power would make orbital mechanics effectively irrelevant due to forced orbits and other tricks.

Actually, the ship sizes in the game are somewhat reasonable in terms of scale. Even huge hulls aren't that big - somewhere in the 1 km range IIRC. A few big asteroids can supply enough metal for a lot of ships that size.

Due to their lack of mobility, mines would be required to cover the entire volume of space, rather than generate an intercept vector like a fleet could. How much stand off range do you think mines should have, and how big does the mine need to be to achieve that effect? Unless it's very close, even a nuclear weapon isn't going to hurt a ship designed to face solar winds and interstellar space at very high speed. Also, why are you assuming these ships won't have something similar to the Star Trek navigational deflector system? At interplanetary speeds, hitting a rock would mess your ship up pretty bad even if it didn't have a warhead in it. A system to detect and eliminate such threats is a practical necessity.

Just for fun: say you can build a billion mines from the same material you can build 1 huge hull ship (solid 1 km sphere vs. 1 m sphere). How dense does that mine field have to be to have a reasonable chance to inflict any damage at all on that ship? How wide is your corridor, and how long? Even if we assume you mined a cylinder 1000 km in diameter 50 million km long (not even long enough to reach Mars orbital shell), you'd get an average mine density of 1 mine per 39,000 cubic kilometers. That's actually pretty reasonable, but it assumes your drive field disruptor has knife-edge accuracy over huge distances. It also assumes a lack of the mentioned navigational deflector.

Or you're arguing solely as a hopeless turtle who can't defend themselves without massed passive defenses. That can be fun on occasion, but as a main game mechanic it's pretty tedious. Or look at it from a historical perspective: GC2 had no passive area defenses at all. Starbases were technically passive since they couldn't attack, but they served other purposes. The only thing close to a passive defense was leaving ships in orbit - and those didn't *have* to be left in orbit once they were no longer needed.

Speaking solely for myself, I argue against them so that no one can say that mines have any sort of wide popular support. I don't expect Stardock to include anything they don't like solely because people on the forums ask for it, but I'm also not willing to let it go unchallenged and give anyone the impression that everyone thinks that mines are a good idea. That's pretty much the same reason I'm so vocally against tactical combat.

Not to mention the number of games where mines are an annoyance without any real strategic value at all (looking at you Sins).

I do not propose to blanket areas, what I propose is to use mines tactically. You launch them from your missile launchers, right into midst of enemy formations, to constrain enemy maneuvers, forcing them to waste time in attempt to clear mines from their ships' proximity, or to ignore them and suffer hull damage (and possible systems damage), should they attempt maneuver regardless. Playing space skeet also look funny, even if enemy used nuke to clear mines, then he spent precious munition and wasted time. As for EMP, well, does lamps suffer same fate from it as transistor do?

I cannot believe we are still having this same old tired discussion about mines. You want strategy? Read the historical uses of mines on Earth. They are useful ONLY when maneuver is virtually zero such as in trench warfare or in a narrow mountain pass etc. Please explain how that fits into outer space where the scale is simply unfathomable (at least to you anyway). And don't even pretend that you can make a rational argument using the laws of physics when you begin by nullifying every law of physics to constrain maneuver into a mine-friendly universe. I have previously explained in more detail how and why the very suggestion of placing minefields in space as a defensive measure is senseless comedy. Of course the devs could work them in. I even suggested ways to do so myself before once again pointing out the absolute lunacy of thinking it will accomplish anything more than increase sales of migraine medications. You want mines? Make your own mod with mines in it and play it with other mine-obsessed people who favor tedium over stratagem. And while you're at it, why not bring in Magneto and Bilbo's Ring to complete your fantasy?

Honestly, if mines were so great as to deserve another mention on this thread, why have they been abandoned by every military force on Earth? And don't cite international law or ethics which would seem perfectly valid except that nuclear weapons have not faced the same fate.

Ah, Tharios... it is refreshing to hear another voice with good and fascinating ideas. I was beginning to think this thread had been mined.

2) I find your discussion on economic systems intriguing. Originally, I had avoided the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism bit for fear of politicizing a perfectly good game. Clearly, one's assessment of the advantages and disadvantages to each economic system is colored by one's own political view of those systems. It is unlikely that the devs would wish to incite rancor among gamers who might otherwise be compatible playmates.

I am very interested in your Piracy ideas though and see some promising uses for it in a slightly altered view of economic systems. In my view of it, there would be three main economic systems: Capitalism which would lead towards a Galactic Free Trade, State-Owned Galactic Monopolies, and Piracy. There would be three military economic focus systems: Arms dealer, Mercenary, and Peace-Keeper.

For gaming purposes, it might be best to restrict an empire to one main system at a time, but if we could take it one step further, strategy gets interesting. Piracy is an excellent means of both supporting one's own monopoly and attacking the monopolies of others. As such, it can be used by a Free Trade economy to weaken a monopolistic opponent's control of the market. If we leave it completely open, a player may be able to be all things at once in varying degrees. 

As for the bonuses one gets from each style of play I see the following. Capitalism and Free Trade would have the diplomatic advantage but may suffer economically. Monopolies would have diminished diplomacy but enhanced profits from trade. Piracy would have the worst diplomacy but with some of the highest economic bonuses. Arms Dealers should have no trouble at all in forming economic treaties with other players, but struggle to form alliances while enjoying a steady stream of enhanced profits. Mercenaries would enjoy the biggest bonus to their economy but only while their services are needed in war while facing a diplomatic disadvantage except when negotiating with an opponent who is at war (assuming of course the Mercenary player has no contract with their opponent's enemy). The Peace-Keeper would receive zero economic bonus for services rendered save that if the war-effected economies are in open trade with the Peace-Keeper, intervention may return their economies to pre-war status sooner restoring nominal trade and income, but would also enjoy the strongest diplomatic advantage. Mixing and matching these to create your own distinctive playing style or as a means of adapting your empire to the evolving threats of the other empires would be far more engrossing than picking one and only one. Of course, if the game is to be playable, the devs must choose simplicity over complexity whenever possible.

5) I don't really think it makes sense to have one player command an allied fleet. In the multiplayer game, it runs the risk of making one player in a team focus on being the center of production while somebody else does the warfare. A balanced game shouldn't have that option. I stand by enhanced cooperation between players (even AIs) and no that does not mean they should behave as puppet empires. That would be boring. For multiplayer you need only three tools to accomplish cooperative strategy. 1- The ability to chat 2- the ability to ping a location on the map and 3- the ability for allied forces to occupy the same hex. Everything else we could add to enhance cooperation would be nice, but only those three are essential. 

Now for your other ideas

7) Mines? Again. No. Sure the devs can do as they like including mines. It is possible to make them a part of gameplay. Just as it is completely possible that the devs could ruin GalCivIII. In fact, mines just might be the best way to do it. Obviously, if you are on this thread, you have enjoyed the previous GalCiv games, right? They did not need mines to get your business. Many of GalCiv's loyal gamers are not at all thrilled at the idea of an epic space strategy game that inflicts migraines on those who waited patiently for the chance to play it. Maybe you can sweet talk a dev into making a separate mod for mine-lovers, that way everybody can be happy.

8) This one really tickled me- in a good way. Why not? Starbases already have the Interdiction Beam module that essentially does that, and the Super Isolationist Super Ability does something similar. So given the in-game precedent, why not? As I see it, it should be a module one may place on a ship or a space station. With additional research and increasing costs and power demands, the modules should be able to widen the field it effects, and or increase its effects in slowing the enemy down. Ultimately, I see an in-combat weapon that can trap an entire fleet of enemy vessels within a semi-permanent field. Of course, the ever cheeky technology descriptions should reference the Tholian Web of Star Trek. 

Since we are speaking of altering the navigational capabilities in game play, why not add in the ability (as an ultimate tech obviously) to build a wormhole or two? Wormholes should be costly to build and have a very strict logistical limit to one or two. Using a wormhole should require a module on each vessel that enters it. I say this because current understanding of macro-wormhole theory suggests that background radiation traversing the wormhole would create a feedback loop that would paradoxically cause the wormhole to collapse before it even opens. The work-around would require massive amounts of shielding around both ends of the wormhole to protect it from collapse and the means to limit the radiation emitted by the vessel(s) not to mention some means of shielding your vessel from any harmful effects of the shielding around the wormhole. Given the degree to which even one wormhole can alter the game, I also suggest that the wormhole only be possible by using a some precursor artifact(s) that randomly spawns at the beginning of each game.

9) I like the idea that the Terrans should have better power, and given the lore, it makes sense that they do. Of course, lore also shows that the Terrans were pretty stupid about letting their secret out. That order of magnitude difference should have, and according to lore did vanish after their power techs get in the hands of everybody else. The Terrans should still possess a minor advantage though (say 10%), even if it amounts to nothing more than energy efficiency of each module. Anything more than that coupled with their already enhanced diplomatic super ability and the Terrans simply become too powerful to defeat and nobody wants to play as anything but Terran.

10) I don't really get the idea of a flagship. Sure I can see its uses, but they are so limited and is not a game-changer, why would we want the devs to waste their time on it?

11) Teleporter weapons... This is where the sensible alternative to mines could be made. Using teleporters (or preferably an earlier short-range wormhole techs too small for ships), one could project the planetary defenses out an additional hex. Instead of mines, you would have mostly inert weapons platforms. Instead of minefields, you would have a few of these platforms widely spaced around a solar system. The planet then fires its weapons through the wormhole (or a special teleporter that preserves inertia). None of the weapons would actually be housed on the platforms themselves, since the weapon is fired from the planet. In that way, one can control for the inane impossibilities of mines such as the need for them to be ubiquitous in limitless space, and the mass needed for each unit as the actual weaponry need not be housed on the platform is it would with a mine. Of course that would increase the tactical value of a planet in ways the devs have chosen to avoid in the previous incarnations of GalCiv, so don't count on it. Furthermore, as cool as it would be in a novel or film, it would be annoying in a game. But then defenses always were the pinnacle achievement in our ability to annoy our enemies to death. Just not sure the devs are so enthusiastic about subjecting their customers to the same experience.

12) Covert Ops- I like the stealth and cloaking idea, but without a detection parallel on the tech tree strategy becomes lost in the haze of planets and starbases being traded and destroyed by invisible forces on both sides. It sounds like fun until everybody is doing it in the same game.

13) Active vs Passive sensors?- That may be gratuitous over-complication. Why bother?

As my final note, some ideas I have rejected might find their use in fleet combat. Mines, for example. Mining interstellar space is ridiculous, but a fleet that deploys a few tons of mines during combat might enjoy a damage-dealt bonus. I imagine that fighter drones would be more useful. In fact, drones could have many uses on ships during combat as missile defense, shield augmenters, administering repairs to the hull, and as mine sweeps. They could even be used as mobile weapons platforms of the variety mentioned in #11. And it would be entertaining to watch them cocoon an enemy fleet in a Tholian Web. For some reason, I see the Thalan's having a bonus in using the web, if it isn't unique to them altogether.          

Hotseat multiplayer is the one thing I really wish for, as for the rest I trust enough in the developers to make an excellent game, like GC2 was. Maybe make the economy a bit more intuitive, though and reduce starbase spam. ^^

2) Every system has its flaws.  Though I'll admit to an almost violent bias against capitalism, currently.  But ultimately, two things matter most to me in this game...first, a great wealth of open-ended strategic options, applicable to a multitude of victory options, all in fun ways...and second, that each race is truly distinct from each of the rest, and not simply a different arrangement of stats, and is not limited to favor certain types of victories over others.  In games like this, the destination or goal is essentially always the same, so the trick is to make sure the journey is as entertaining and diverse as possible.  Actually, there is a third tenet I subscribe to both in life and games...everything has a price.  And I don't just mean monetary.  The price of opportunity.  The price you pay when you see an opening in an opponent, and you could pass it up and risk never getting another, or you could take it and risk opening yourself to a counterattack.  You could do things one way, or another way, but either way you should have to give up something to do so.  You can't take one opportunity without sacrificing some other one.

To that end, having looked at all economic variants in real life, I've come to the conclusion that there are really only three mindsets on the matter.  Private ownership and control of resources (capitalism), governmental or public ownership and control of resources (socialism/communism), and essentially a total lack of ownership where everything is shared according to a specific set of otherwise loose rules whether you want it to be or not (piracy).  I figure a couple of capitalist nations, a couple of pirate nations, and the rest socialist/communist.  For the sake of interest, I think it would be interesting to see a "good" nation as a pack of pirates...the Robin Hoods of the galaxy, for the most part (probably the Altarians).

I find your ideas on the arms dealers, mercenaries, and peace-keepers interesting.  It would certainly fit in with the idea of having "nice" pirates.  Yeah, I'm a little fixated on that notion, and piracy in general.  It's a rare bird in strategy games of any sort.  Pretty much always, tax people, get cash.  I like the idea of using your military to just steal it from everyone else.

5) I agree, nominally.  But that depends on what you mean by allied fleets.  If you just mean fleets of allies that can occupy hexes and will wait their turn to combat the enemy on their own like any other fleet, then you're correct.  But if you're meaning that say, my fleet and your fleet should participate in a combat as a single unit against the enemy...then only one of us can issue the orders.  We might discuss what orders to give, but if we can both issue the orders equally, we have a problem.  Well, we might not, but nearly all other players will.

So, if it's just a, "we can occupy the same space, and take turns wailing on the bad guys" kind of thing, there's no problem.  But if ships from two or more different empires merge to form a single allied fleet, only one of those empires can actually be giving the commands, or the whole thing breaks down.

7) I don't actually have an interest in mines per se.  I just haven't found any arguments against them particularly valid.  The reality is, the game doesn't "need" anything to make it fun.  The main argument against it seems to be (excluding Tridus) that it would be necessary to mine vast swaths of space.  Which, I agree would be boring.  Much the same way as most play styles otherwise described in the GCII forums were extremely boring.  I detest min-maxing in the extreme.  Life has no perfect way to win, so it annoys me when games do.  That's why I like a lot of variables.  I like to see people figure out the "best" way to do something, and then instruct them on just how flawed it really is...with judicious in-game violence, preferably.

Suffice to say, I think they're viable if implemented correctly.  I can agree that Sins did not do so.  That is not how mines are intended to be used, but at least the game came prearranged with choke-points.  Regardless, I'll drop the matter, because I'm not a "mine-lover".  I just like options.

8) Yeah, there's really no reason not to include more well-developed inhibitor tech.  It's completely possible to bottleneck forces, even in the vastness of space, despite the copious litters of kittens and herds of cattle some have birthed at the mere thought of it.  Someone else mentioned that inhibitors are useless because one merely bum rushes them to take out the base, which sounds more like bad implementation and even worse player usage, rather than a problem with the idea.  If you can't get your reinforcements to intercept the enemy before they destroy the base, then it's not the failure of the idea, but rather the player.

Some have expressed concern that racially unique navigational modes is pointless and adds nothing to the game.  So I'm going to address it here, to that, I say this...the Drengin, using the "jump station" method, would be able to get every bit of speed every other race has, and would only have to spend resources on a good number of structures, rather than dozens or hundreds or even thousands of drives for individual ships.  This would leave them with far more power to devote to weapons and defenses.  It would make their ships significantly cheaper.  And all it would mean is that they have to build a star base (or chain of them) to reach a given system, which ultimately benefits them by peppering their space with heavily fortified battle stations and roving fleets of ships that are tougher and carry more firepower than everyone else's.

The same is true for those races that would use "jump ships" for the same purpose.  Their combat vessels would be cheaper and more deadly than everyone else's, though they won't benefit from the militarization of their own space.  They'll otherwise be able to expand as quickly as anyone else, and ultimately spend less to do it.  The jump ship is something of an achilles heel, but no method is without its weaknesses.  As I stated above, every opportunity should cost you some other opportunity.  The cost of embracing a particular option or idea, is that you don't get the rest.

Moving on to the wormholes...I've thought about that myself.  I don't think it should be a hard limit though.  Perhaps add another resource to the game regarding precursor artifacts?  Like Ascension points, you might have a precursor tech rating that you gather over time.  Though unlike Ascension, it wouldn't just be automatic, it would be like any other resource that you have to adjust for in your economics tab.  When you gather enough, you can support a single wormhole of a certain length between any two appropriate points within your own borders, and that wormhole is permanent and can't be changed.  As you research wormholes and wormhole support techs, your precursor rating cap will increase, and you can gather more to eventually build another, and so on.  Additionally, perhaps higher techs would allow for longer wormholes, but they should always be confined to your own territory.  Though I think some means of adjusting that cap should be based on the size or capabilities of one's empire.  So that larger, more powerful empires can have one or two more wormholes than smaller ones of equal tech level in that category.

I also agree that ships should only be able to safely traverse it if equipped with a special module for that purpose.

9) 10% is still significant, in my opinion.  The general idea is that even though all that tech got shared inadvertently across the galaxy, the other races have not completely adapted it to their own purposes as well as they might've.  Like the drives where they each do things a little differently, none of them have quite managed to make reactors and whatnot that are as fully capable as those of the Terrans.  I would cite an example in the real world, but that would just lead to pointless and incorrect arguments against it.  Suffice to say, Klingons, Ferengi, and various other species make rotten engineers.  Hand them a perfectly intact Borg transwarp coil, and they will either make ships that can barely make transwarp, or repeatedly blow themselves to Hades...or a little of both.  Same principle holds true in GC.

10) It's not as if it would be terribly time-consuming or difficult to implement.  Additionally, "kill the flagship" could be a new game mode/victory condition, like the one in Sins.  It would be the same idea, since your flagship would have significant advantages over your other ships of the same class, so it becomes a choice of using it when you want an assured victory, or in desperation...or just hiding it away in hopes no one blows it up.  Like absolutely everything else suggested by everyone, it's not at all necessary, but I think it would make life interesting.

11)  Not exactly how I intended such weapons.  Really more of a flavor change than an actual mechanical change in the game.  Why should I blow you up, when I can just disassemble you and never put you back together?  Granted, the general idea is that the target has to be over-imbued with energy until it flies apart into vapor anyway, but I'm not sure that's necessary.  It's a wild and unsupported idea, but I've always felt that proper implementation of electromagnetic waves, through bessel beam lasers and similar devices, could be employed in a manner similar to wave interference used in noise canceling devices.  Target the electromagnetic bonds between atoms, and literally *poof* no more target.  It would still take a lot of energy, but probably little more than half as much as trying to break the bonds by overheating the molecules, since it would be vastly more efficient.  But...again, there's no reason at all to think it would work.  Just something that popped into my head a long time back.

In any case, teleported weapons as you described would still be ok...they'd just have to be potentially offset by teleportation defenses.  Imagine teleporting a missile targeting your ship, back to the ship that sent it?  Though in the grand scheme of things, it would mechanically be a combination missile weapon/point defense module.  Basically one module that does both jobs.  Might be a bit much.

12) Covert Ops- I like the stealth and cloaking idea, but without a detection parallel on the tech tree strategy becomes lost in the haze of planets and starbases being traded and destroyed by invisible forces on both sides. It sounds like fun until everybody is doing it in the same game.

13) Active vs Passive sensors?- That may be gratuitous over-complication. Why bother?

12 and 13) Active and passive Sensors...is sort of part of the point of covert ships.  Active sensors can be scrambled by certain stealth modules, but are better at spotting others, and the opposite would be true of the passive sensors.  That, and the covert ships are intended as a counter to inhibitor fields...and minefields if they ever were to exist.  The sensors tree would be adjusted accordingly to keep the "arms race" properly balanced.  But ultimately, covert ships will never be as good at combat as actual warships.  The idea is that they should survive the battle and get away, not stick around and duke it out with a star base or full fleet.  It might be useful to prevent covert ship spam by forbidding them to be part of a fleet, or penalizing them for being in a fleet.  They would still be useful for their intended role, but wouldn't become the go-to ship type for the entire game.  Also, it's intended that a covert-equipped ship should be much much more expensive to build and maintain as a conventional ship of the same class.

Plus, this game needs a LOT more espionage options.  I don't like economic or influence victories...but I get a thrill from shadow victories without ever firing a shot...or few shots anyway.  In FPS games...I prefer being a sniper.  In various other games, I prefer being a rogue or similarly sneaky and completely dishonorable combatant.  If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you've screwed something up.  Covert ships could be dovetailed with any number of other espionage options found in a wide variety of games.  Perhaps they could even be altered to go with those long-range artillery weapons I mentioned.  Cloak, park a few hexes away from the target, snipe them.  The price...can't fire while cloaked, and immobile during the firing turn.  Proper use would require careful planning and good awareness of the area around the target, or you'll lose the ship every time.  Also, such a weapon must be reloaded at a base or planet after each firing...since it's not meant to be used that way.

Yeah...I like that.  I like that A LOT.