I forgot, and posted the quote before I remembered that I want to quote multiple people.

I at least would like to have some tech trees I can't research all at once. I would like to have an option of researching one faster, or multiple techs at once only slower as long as it isn't all of them.

quote who="Voqar" reply="23" id="3432779"]

Moreso I'd like to see something less rigidly predictable.  I guess it works well for games but the idea of knowing the future in advance (knowing the tech tree) and knowing exactly how many turns it will take to research a tech is kind of...silly?

[/quote]

Agree, but the how to do this is unfathomable. From what I have seen if you want something done you have to outline the idea. Please outline this, I would like to see the idea.

quote who="Voqar" reply="23" id="3432779"]

It's hard to get away from the tech tree since it IS a game and you need a logical progression thru tech.

[/quote]

I don't play strategy games that don't do tech research. If they get away from tech trees then I would get away from the game. This is the only reason I took Call to power over 1603 in 2002. Which led me to buy Civilization 3. Which led me to buy Galactic civilization 2 Dark avatar.

quote who="Voqar" reply="23" id="3432779"]

It might be interesting, since tech trees usually branch, to have some randomness in which branches appear, with extra research required to unlock additional child branches under a parent - something like this could dramatically affect how you develop but it might also be unfun and annoying too.

[/quote]

Agree that randomization would take a lot of fun out of the game. I wouldn't want to see that.

quote who="Voqar" reply="23" id="3432779"]

I'd like to see a system where instead of a tech requiring exactly X research points to unlock, that you instead start getting a chance to get a breakthrough and unlock it earlier.  (Probably have to up the costs of techs to compensate/balance/whatever)

[/quote]

Agree that is what I miss about Edison's lab in call to power. That is why I turn on creativity in the game.

Tell that to England who cancelled Charls Babots contract to invent the computer. Tell that to Mendal or the guy who got burned at the stake for claiming the earth went around the sun. Tell that to Carter who took the B-52 over B1-a. Tell that to Obama who canceled the electro magnetic lifters. Tell that to the government who originally told Jack Northrop that he had to stop working on the stealth bomber. Tell that to the government who cancelled the A-12 because it is to expensive. Tell that to the British who has to use helecopter ships as carriers because they are to expensive. Tell that to Obama who cancelled the Aries rocket. Why are we using Voyager instead of coming up with an interstellar mission. Why did we cancel the magnetic train and let the Germans invent it. Why did we not come up with cold fusion by not funding it when we could. Why are we using oil and nuclear energy when ther are alternatives. Why did we not make the F-12 there was no reason not to. Why are our biggest naval guns come from a world 2 battleship. Did you know that Germany could have used interceptors to stop the bombing of Berlin when Hitler felt V-2 rocket was how they were going to win world war 2. Did you know that Germany had the Mesmersmidt before world war 2. Did you know that Japan had a replacement for the Zero during world war 2. Did you know that Germany had a stealth bomber during world war 2. Did you know that through the Orion project our scientists think we could go to Alpha Century. It would give out a lot of nuclear energy. Did you know that we could of went could of sent a manned mission to mars in the 70's.

These are just a few examples of an empire having the technology and not researching it so we can't invent it. We could invent them if we want, but we choose to put our money in other areas. I'm sure there other examples. According to what you wrote does that mean that United states of america is not an empire since there are a lot of good techs that we don't invent that we could do whenever we want to spend the money.

If this means that there should be only one tech tree than I say no. I like how the game gives different tech trees to different factions. I like the idea that in this confine that it is being suggested that once a tech is being researched that eliminates other techs. I like the idea of multiple techs or tech points as long as that doesn't mean that I don't have a choice on what techs to research. I don't like the idea of random research because I like to choose my techs.

I really like large tech trees with lots of different areas to research, but being able to research multiple things at once sounds like far too much hassle. Yes, a huge galaxy spanning Empire would be researching multiple things at once, but this is a game, and it requires a certain amount of abstraction to be fun.

Stick to researching a single research goal at a time please.

Well, I imagine that the US is "researching" a whole bunch of things that probably won't come to fruition in our lifetime, because while the funding for various stuff exists, the funding might be too small for anything vital to be discovered. Personally, I love the idea of being able to research EVERYTHING, as long as there's enough to research - though I don't mind having predetermined paths, where picking one means the other will have a significant research cost associated to tech into as well.

Anyho, my idea is something along the lines of each player is given three "scientists", which you can assign to any available technology research. You can put all three of them into the same tech research, or you can split them up among two or three research techs. The player's penalty will simply be in the research speed - should the player put all his scientists into one tech, then she/he will gain it in the quickest possible way, however if the player chooses to split the scientists up among three different projects, then they will work more effectively and the player will gain three new techs faster than he would otherwise by focusing all scientists on only one goal at a time.

Amen.

In real life, you'd be researching lots of things at once. You'd also be building more than one building at once on a planet, and probably more than one ship at a shipyard. Modern construction isn't just some guys who build the entire thing, it's teams of specialists doing their part on a project than moving to another one while the overall project goes ahead. The people doing the electrical are doing that in one building, then going to their next job on another one while the first building is still under construction. Yet in games like this we build one improvement at a time, because it's a useful gameplay abstraction that works.

But outside of an economic simulator where that type of detail is the game, dealing with that stuff doesn't add anything. It's the same with research. Yes, in reality I'm going to have hundreds of labs working on dozens of fields at once, but having a game where you set 30 sliders for research and then might get one of them done by turn 40 isn't exactly awesome. To keep the pacing of the game and have tech coming all game long, techs need to come at a certain rate.

It's bad for pacing to get 3 techs at turn 30 instead of one tech every 10 turns, and it's a whole lot of extra complexity that isn't adding anything in particular to the game.

Having multiple trees where you can research one tech per tree doesn't really hold up well within the GalCiv framework. Keep in mind, the scientists are essentially performing research in city-sized facilities on technology that has to account for an insane amount of variables, keep them in check, harness them and then make use of those variables. The technology is complicated enough that it needs to be cross-referenced in different parts of space so as to account for different electromagnetic fluctuations, gravitational anomalies or what have you. They need to confirm hypotheses across several star systems before they can field a technology en masse. In other words, it's not something that can simply be pulled out of one's xeno butt in a matter of weeks (which I'm assuming is still going to be the in-game turn counter). I am not saying that in such a scenario other research cannot be carried out, that research however is not directly applicable to an interstellar empire (it will be smaller scale, such as finding out how to get rid of the stench after someone farts). What I am saying, is that these processes are complicated enough that a galactic level of research coordination is necessary to achieve certain goals. Lab space is also being used for smaller scale projects but the majority of the effort must be devoted towards certain set goals. In the interim, the labcoats that don't specialize in weapons will be doing whatever they want to work on but the need for their work will not be necessary until after the weapons tech finishes at which point they will be able to use the facilities necessary to drive an interstellar research effort.

I hope this makes sense.

Simple: create queue of several tech from any branches you want and let game automatically, and if you insist so much, sequentially research them. Should breaking point between research occur in midweek, then tranfer leftovers to next tech in queue, not next tech in branch. I don't need five diplomacy tech at once, I need one, and then one tech from lasers tree, and again, not five, just one, and after that just one tech from life support, not whole deck of life support tech. If my research cap allows studying all those under one turn, then I want to be able to study them that way.

As for time, well, what is the time US currently needs to build aircraft carrier? 2 years? If we take US as most advanced nation on Earth as referense, how long it should take to build the ship in future, or study something? Years?

What theory means without practice? Yes, in theory we know how to build fighters, but we studied them only to get to battleships. Sort of old joke - According to aerodynamic laws, the bumblebee cannot fly, but it is not aware of that, so it does.

Yes, this is a game, yes, there are assumptions and approximations, but by and large research cap is the only thing that could go to waste because of breaking point in "man-weeks" and there is no way to transfer it for next tech you want, not next tech in the tree. After all, it is already implemented, all I want is being able to pick sequence of tech to be studied, precisely to a stage.

Yes there is. If the tech you want finishes and you have leftover points and nothing in the queue, store them. On your next turn when you pick a new thing, apply those excess points. If you do have a research queue, just put them on the next thing in the queue and go normally.

This one is easy, other games have already solved it.

Only one thing remains then - to see that implemented.

I can agree to that. Would deffs solve the problem of research waste (save for that one final tech ). I base my approximations btw off of the Very Slow research time setting in GalCivII. Where a tech could take me 30+ weeks to finish at an average of 40-50% tech spending. As a matter of fact, I would like to see even slower research times on the lowest research speed setting in GalCivIII. I breeze through the tree way too fast on any other setting and even Very Slow seems to me like a joke at this point.   But that's just me. If the devs don't implement an even slower setting, I hope the modders do. Or I could learn how to xml and finally become a modder myself...

(Sidenote: If fml stands for f**k my life, what does xml stand for? My money's on xenomorph my life.)

Waste is one of those things that you want to eliminate because it tends to lead to very bad micromanagement at high difficulties. What happened in Civ (IIRC it was Civ IV) was on the last turn of a tech, people would micromanage to have as little waste as possible because minimizing it meant a bit more gold or production instead. The fix was just to have spillover to the next tech by holding the excess points. Without any waste, there was no longer a point in minimizing it.

This was entirely unnecessary micro, but at very high difficulty players will look for any advantage... even a tedious one like that. So it's a player friendly thing to do.

High five, mate.

I wouldn't mind researching multiple techs at once sometimes as long as I could go back to researching one tech faster later on. It really depends on the situation, There were times I wanted to research sensors, research, and economics at once. There were tunes where I needed to research farming, terraforming, life support, miniturization, engines, and missiles at the same time, so I can feel them when they want this ability.

This idea is similar to the tech point idea. I like this one to.

Don't mind researching multiple techs at once as long as this doesn't cause me to go through the techs quicker. I'm suggesting that multiple techs does not mean all the paths at once. I would like to not have that ability. Also considering this I would not like a faction with more tech paths than another one to have the ability to research more techs at once because his tech trees are more than someone else.

[/quote]

Maybe I don't know.

My question is how come on earth that when technology is getting better, and the world get's bigger the fleets get smaller not bigger. Why would this convept work bigger in space. I can see the private fleet gitting bigger, but I can't see the military getting bigger. When in truth not every city, town, or village in the united states builds military vehicles like they do on Galactic civilizations. When in truth we have more freighters and recreatuibal vehucles than we have military aircraft. This doesn't work this way on Galactic civilizations. I like the fact it works this way, but in truth it never did in the real world. People are talking about more ships when in truth the real world produces less ships.In all honestly just judging by the scale of the game, and considering that we don't fight a world war every time we turn around. There are thousands of cargo vessels we don't see because they are private. Just going off our navy standards, We would not be able to muster more than 1100 tiny hulls on any given attack. We wouldn't have not just for one fleet but for all our fleets. 15 large or huge hull ships. 120 small hull ships. Other than tiny hulls. We would not have more than 200 other hull ships. Sorry I don't have stats for medium hulls. This is closer to realistic for any faction considering that no one has a world war every time we turn around. Now if we were going to count transports in spite of the 200 million man army of china no one has used more than 20 million people on any given war. That means that there were never more than 1/100 of the entire population in any given war. You will no notice that these numbers are a little smaller than some of the numbers that people toss aroung. The 1/100 was a world war. Not your typical war. Galactic civilizations encourages latger scale war than what would happen for real, but noone wants to change that, so there is no reason to increase the ship building any bigger unless we include the private sector.

Agree this scale sucks unless you increase the techs by 40 times, and practically the number of trees by a lot more. Not quite 40.

I think it would add some, but not as much as some of my other suggestions that I either modified or stole from other people.

I would have to say that I don't want to see this on the game.

I agree with this except this would not be possible without something like the internet with faster than light communications.

The Que thing not a bad idea. I would probably use that as to set the bonus techs and creativity my way. That would also point extra points in the direction I would like to go.

That's actually my point where on the game on my home planet it would take three weeks. For the most part our industry matches our needs. If we don't need thousands of ships each day we won't be able to make them. Our advancement usually matches our ability to make ships. In a future we won't be able to run off thousands of ships per planet each day, so people should stop saying we would. There will not be an ability to make ships if don't need to.

This was entirely unnecessary micro, but at very high difficulty players will look for any advantage... even a tedious one like that. So it's a player friendly thing to do.[/quote]

Never thought this was a big deal as far as waste. I kind of want to see multiple techs, but I think there are better ideas as far as tech improvement. I do like the Que idea.

I was reading this list and I found androshalforc's suggestion that existing buildings give bonuses to researching technologies associated with them, i.e. farms improve farming and terraforming, etc.

Here's what I think should be done. I think there should be buildings whose only purpose that accelerate technology in a given field.

Weapon Testing Ranges for weaponry and defenses

Shipyards for advanced hull sizes and logistics

Think-tanks for Political technologies

Biospheres for Biological technologies

Perhaps more specialized, perhaps less.

Here is why I think this is a good idea:

It allows civilizations to have an advantage, yes, but in doing so it forces them to specialize. Specialization creates weaknesses, exploitable weaknesses in other areas. That's what's at the heart of GalCiv, being forced to choose a path for your civilization.

Well this forces me to change my game play a little instead of building things for the sake of advancing to a more important tech I'm forced to use it to.

I like the idea, but, IMHO, that would require partial, of not complete redone of research system. Well, in simplest solution it won't - if researching techs in parallel will require same amount of time, as researching them sequentially or individually, then parallel study will give same results as queue study - simple reduce of micro control. So, instead of jumping into tech page every turn you would go there from time to time.

But this wouldn't be real parallel study. To make it real, we need to have certain threshold on techs, and it should be impossible to study tech faster, than that threshold would allow, no matter how many scientists will be working on it. Should all tech be provided with that threshold, it simply wouldn't be wise to reorient your research cap on one tech. Also, to supplement this program, we could study our tech at once, all of them. Certain reallocation of workers should be there, allowing to boost research progress, but again, there should be threshold of workers too, to prevent "overcrowding". Or, instead of workers threshold, there could be inverted progress scale: say 10 scientists will discover tech in 200 days. 20 scientists will discover tech in 100 days (if we keep this part of scale flat), but 30 scientists won't uncover tech in 50 days, or instantly , all they could do, is to reduce time to just 90 days. 40 scientists will reduce time will be able to decrease time to 84 days, adding more scientists won't have any positive effect. Maybe only negative.

In this system, picking just one tech will be useless, and after certain point there will be no use to build more research stations, because there are no more room to maneuver there - you'll simply hit the ceiling of your research potential, even including possible boost from temporary increase of numbers of active workers on the project. In this case, every additional research station could be used for commercial use - allowing you to lend your research cap for other races.

To an extent this system is somewhat similar to SoaSE research system, with two main differences - SoaSE system had sequential tech pick-up, and research times had fixed values. Yet there was cap of research stations, allowing us to build different structures.

Although this part is not for me, I think there is something I'd like to discuss. On Earth we have constrains of space. That's why European trucks are generally shorter, and that's why they have cabs over engines, and their sleeper sections are smaller than those of their counterparts in US - you'll have problems fitting large US truck on some roads in EU, they aren't designed for trucks that big. That's why some trucks manufacturers offer specialized chassis, with reduce mass, lowered height, smaller fuel tanks, etc - simply to allow you to haul more cargo for same running costs. Yes, you lose in versatility, but for specialized companies or freights this could be saver.

Certain miniaturization comes from fees and taxes inflicted on us by our governments - smaller vehicle will be lighter, thus requiring weaker engine, consuming less fuel, thus offering lower taxes. For people living in cities and prefering to haul their butts in comfort of personal car, instead of joys of sweaty and smelly public transport, those microcars "fitting between two trucks without them noticing" could be solution. Not sure for northern countries with snowy winters and cold temperatures.

Anyway, every process has its limits. For example, tanks see little action because of their price, it's almost on par with helicopters, because of those electronics we now stuff into. Yet if helicopter require decent AA, and it is usually expensive, to be countered with, tanks can be stopped with mines, and comparison of prices between mines and tanks... You know, not in tanks favour. Even RPG/AT weapon prices are still lower, even if we take 1 tank= 9 RPG wielders ratio. And don't forget their fuel appetite - smaller, of course, than thirstiness of helicopters, but much greater than other vehicles. So first limit is price.

Second limit is physical limitations. For example, in tanks with loader in crew you have to give him around 160 cm of height between turret's floor and ceiling, to allow loader operate normally. Because of that you can't make tank lower. And there is another problem - disproportional increase of vehicles' mass depending on which parameter of overall dimension you increase. If you increase tank's lenght for certain unit, then tank mass will increase on 1 "point". Should you increase tank's width, then tank's mass will increase on 3 "points", and should you increase tank's height - tank's mass will increase on 9 points. So it's not effective to increase tank's height without good reason. Yet there may be no choice. For same reason there is limit of armour protection, and armament power. The former will require more powerful engine, thus resulting in fuel consumption, and the latter may require increase in overall dimensions.

And that's third limit - the bigger it is, the more resources it needs to be created. Yet sometimes there are no options to but build something big, if you want to install something big. So here we will have same problems aircraft engineers met - to increase range or speed, you need either bigger tanks, resulting in increased size and mass, and thus you need bigger engine, which consimes more fuel and eat the very same space you could give to fuel tanks, to increase range. And don't forget about protection you should give to elements of the aircraft, to make it less vulnerable.

Of course, in space we may ignore needs of aerodynamics, but what about ballistic? Should we give our hull proper angles to increase chances of ricochets, thus reducing overall thickness of armour plates, thus reducing amount of resources needed to build this ship, and either to make ships smaller, or to use inner space for something useful.

I'm not space engineer, so I can't provide any calculations on required strength of construction, to prevent ship from split up during extensive maneuvers or during combat, not sure if reverse submarine engineering would help.

How many Liberty series transports were manufactured daily in US during WWII? Almost one in a day? Even if one ship required what, 24 days do be made? How many planes, tanks? There was need, and we should be well damn ready to produce as much as our forces need, not as much as industry can, otherwise we'll meet same fate as Germany did.

Soviet "teenager", from vocational school, could weld eight hulls of T-34 in a day. Eight, highly skilled German welders required two days to weld hull of just one Tiger tank. Maybe one on one Tiger was oustanding, but what about one on sixteen? Don't like T-34, replace it with Sherman. Maybe that tank wasn't as good in duels with Panthers, but there been a lot more of Shermans, they were there when troops needed them, and in quantities generals needed them, with every piece of logistical chain, excluding practically any problems with maintenance and supply.

Germans had no recovery unit, capable to tow Tiger tank - they had to use another Tiger (or two), or several Sd.Kfz.9 vehicles. And don't forget, they had specialized railroad platform to ferry Tigers, and to load Tiger on that platform you had to replace caterpillars on them (and upon unloading you had to put "combat treads" again, do I need to tell it wasn't fast job? If that's not enough, they had no tankers to fuel tanks, only jerry cans. And Tiger needed 27 of them. Even then, operational range was under 100 km (off road). I doubt I need to say anything about Tiger's wonderful suspension, repairability of which was very low, or, at least, time consuming.

That's the example of industry capable to produce as much as it could, not as much as were needed. Also it is example of bad logistics and manufactureability. Strategical planning also.

Rather low manufacturing rates aren't problem when you plan to use things you built when you have the initiative. But when you don't...

If you accumulate all that waste we had in GC1, and, to lesser extent, GC2, you could be quite shocked of amount of your Research cap went somewhere where it shouldn't.

This is, to an extent, similar to Hearts of Iron system, when something built and used practically gave bonus to theory. In return, theory gave bonus to practice. So they kept each other moving.

This is quantitatively untrue.

To take simple assumptions: you have 50 RP output each turn, and each tech costs 200 RP.

Sequential research would put 50 RP per turn into tech 1, then tech 2. You would learn tech 1 at turn 4 and tech 2 at turn 8.

Simultaneous research would put 25 RP into both tech 1 and tech 2 each turn. You would learn both techs at turn 8.

Sequential research gives you 4 additional turns with the benefits of having tech 1. That means you can build a ship earlier if it is a hull size, weapon, armor, engine, or other module tech. Or you can start building structures on your planets 4 turns sooner if tech 1 gives one,

Correct. But if tech you just opened is only "passing through" kind of tech (i.e. it is not goal of your pursuit), or you need both techs simultaneously, having one for 4 turns earlier won't give you any advantage. Unless you would like to sell, or give it.

That "all or nothing" hunting for Red October is the reason why I would like to have threshold, limiting concentration of scientists on certain project. Or, in general, overcrowding everywhere, including industry.

Yes, I know many games follow sequential pattern, and many are quite successful. That's why I could go with queue.

Didn't quite say the Que idea was bad. I might of trivialized, but didn't mean it was a bad idea. Cutting down the level of micromanagement without losing the versatility is not a bad idea. I am saying that their are also other ideas I would also like to be considered.

It is kind of strange how unbalanced these tech trees become. No need to worry about farming, trade, industry, diplomacy, starbases, research, hulls, or defense intil you need them.

Scientists instead of points would at least be more colorful. Yes their should be a limit on the minimum tech time to bring balance.

I think it may be a good idea to cap things out to at least give the Ai to have a chance to catch up to keep a chalanging game.

until I read the rest of this I thought we agreed on this.

I'm game as far as discussing. I'm just not sure this came up because the number of suggested space ships for war I thought was unrealistic. Funny thing the above things are still discussed in space. Do we need this room it cost to much money that was the issue on considering private space for astronauts. Do we need this window it's  to heavy. The faster and farther we go the bigger tank we need the bigger tank we have the slower we go. Will this still be a concern who knows. Apparently there is a galactic reserve because everyone pays taxes with the same money. Snow or solar flairs what the difference.

I've talked to people and the tank requires as much engine power as a semi, but can only go 40 miles per hour, and is smaller.

Confused is this in agreement with me that some of the numbers that people tossed around like a planet producing 10000 ships a day as being unrealistic, or is this in argument with me, and you are saying that a interstellar empire would be producing like 150000 per day indefinately military ships as being realistic. I still stand that there are going to be way more civilian ships than there would be military ships. Even considering that in space stations everyone don't get their own spaceships, but would probably use wires or rocket packs instead to go outside for the most part.

agree

I guess this goes back to you could always make things better, but I would like to see some of my other tech ideas I stole from other people considered also. I guess this is an issue of the Devs.

I wonder at how much of this the devs read and how much of it they actually decide to implement. Not to say they can't read or anything, I'm just wondering whether this would actually sway their design decisions in any way. From what I hear, the Alpha is somewhat set in stone for the time being and I am unsure as to whether or not the changes made to the Alpha tech tree will be too significant. We are in pre-Alpha as of yet, so I'm still open to pleasant surprises. It just strikes me as a bit too hopeful to discuss changes of this magnitude to a nearly established Alpha build. The man hours and investment of resources required to put some of these ideas to work is likely too large for the risk to be worth it. I dunno. Just blathering here. Don't mind me.

:3

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head in respects to why these discussions seem to continue only between a very small number of individuals to such a drawn out extent without the rest of us joining in:

1). They like sharing knowledge.

2). They like talking.

3). They like arguing, sometimes taking an apposing position they don't really have just for the sake of argument.

Anyway, just let them ramble on. They are easily ignored. If StarDock has objections to them taking up so much space after stating their basic ideas, they will be the ones that will have to take action.

And, yes, I do believe (and have seen evidence with GC1 and GC2) that the devs do look at these forums and get the general gist of any idea presented and evaluate the idea for possible inclusion, either now or in a future release.

But I never said you said that.

All I was saying, that implementing natural parallel study will require rework of current research model.

Conventionality of games? Similar to, what's the name, Amulet of Mara in Skyrim? Wear it as long as you want, nobody will bat the eye, until you talk with that priest.

We do. Probably I just expressed myself in slightly different way from the one you've been expecting.

You sure? Abrams' engine power is 1500 HP. Leclerc, Leopard too. Only Soviet/Russian tanks' engines are a bit weaker, but tanks are lighter. Operational range is usually around 500 km, compare it with semi range - generally HP rating is 400-500, fuel consuption is within 30-35 l/100 km for normal conditions. Maximum weight of truck+trailer is 42 tonnes - just a bit under Soviet tank mass. With fuel tanks' capacity of 1500 litres, truck can go pretty far.

I haven't said anything about 150000 ships daily being realistic.

To understand what is "realistic", we need to know how big our ships are, what is their "MPG" rate, where and how they are manufactured (i.e. costs of getting ship on orbit, or getting materials on orbit to be assembled there), and hence - resources needed to make one ship. Even if we recycle a lot of existing materials (rememeber that conversation in "dyson sphere" related topic), will we have enough to produce said number of ships?

Those only "governmental" ships - one we build. What about those private crafts you mentioned? Those ships still fall under same questionnaire - how big they are, how far they could go, etc. 

Resources on hand will be ultimate limiter of our industry's productivity.

Should we have enough resources, then we need to know how much time it takes to build certain ship. That time, multiplied by amount of shipyards will be our planets' weekly productivity.

That's in plain theory. Because in time of war, private ships could be scrapped, or tranfered from civilian ownership to military, if they are suitable for that use. Industry could be reoriented for massive manufacture of military-related goods. After all, where are all those companies, from which we can buyout ships or buildings within 1 turn (month or week)? Are they somewhere outside and we buy things "out of sector", or they are on same planet where we are, but we don't have any control over them, other than offering them money? If they are on same planet (looks pretty funny for newly colonized world with low class), then their industry cap should be used during wartime, to boost productivity. If they are outside, then they still should be grabbed by the balls and used for all-out manufacture.

Heh, if it goes to Devs, then I guess it's safe to say it won't go anywhere - we're not investors, so they'll be making game as they see fit. And as long as they deliver - that's Okay.

2Lucky Jack - your sarcasm and correctness are so bright, I can see them through welder mask.

You have me mistaken sir. I don't dislike the fact that people ramble on these forums. Heck, from time to time the devs actually do look in here (Right? You guys do that, right? Hello?... You there?...) and maybe take certain things into account. Ultimately though, I think we're in the wrong forum for "developmental assistance" as it were. If the devs do have a problem with something, or if they are truly unsure about the public's view on a certain matter, they will put forward a question and look for an answer. Ultimately however, they call the shots because they have the skills and they are the devs. Not much we can do but be happy with what we paid $100 for... in advance... At least I'm saving money long-term on DLCs and I get to Alpha test (as soon as I get a new comp). That's something to look forward to.

(P.S. - To prove that developers listen to the public, EA is a good example. Read up a bit about the "Command and Conquer (recycled name) / Command and Conquer Generals 2" fiasco. They tried launching what was essentially a Pay-to-Play, online-only, no-singleplayer, DRM-loaded cash-cow that flopped horribly in crowd-funded Beta (those who prepaid got access). Enough fans started rebelling against what EA had done that the devs actually admitted to having goofed and scrapped the whole project back to the drawing board. (In reality, the marketing execs were the ones who likely made that call. Though I doubt they learned anything from the flop that was Command and Conquer 4...) I still have a hope that C&C Generals 2 still gets made and that this time it will be good. The realist in me however, knows that the likelyhood of that happening is so far under the grimy boots of the EA execs that C&C Generals 2 is less than a pipe dream... Stardock on the other hand has been pretty good to its fans so far and GalCivII was great so GalCivIII should also be great considering that it is at least 2/3 the same game as before. Pretty safe bet I'd say. I just hope that my word will eventually be able to carry some weight in the whole design process.)

They do read it, but there's a couple of problems with what's going on here:

1. They know a lot more about the game than we do, since they can see it and we can't. That makes a lot of talk around here totally useless in terms of feedback.

2. Take #1 and combine it with the forum trend of over-complicating absolutely everything, and at a broad level the advice of this place is pretty much always "add more stuff". That's all fine and dandy, but at some point they need to release something and decisions have already been made to exclude things (which doesn't dissuade people here).

3. In this particular thread, Rudy and Willy are having their own conversation about six different subjects at once, which I'm not sure anybody else is still reading.

Something similar happened with Dungeon Defenders 2. For some reason instead of a cooperative tower defense hybrid game (like Dungeon Defenders 1), they decided to clone League of Legends and make a competitive MOBA. Fan response was underwhelming, to say the least. Eventually they wised up and decided that a game callled "Dungeon Defenders 2" should probably be related to Dungeon Defenders 1 in some way.

I'm not overly worried about anything like that here. Things will liven up once the alpha hits, when we have some actual game systems to talk about and can give feedback on how the game plays. Commentary on speculation just isn't that useful for development.

Thank you Tridus for summing up my thoughts on the matter most eloquently.

Well I can always hope. I know this is wishful thinking. I noticed that Distant worlds and Endless space came out possible influenced from some of the comments on the Galactic civilization 2 forums. I also heard that they do read these posts. Why even make this post unless someone thought that Stardock might pay attention to this.

What can I say this is either Facebook or hear; otherwise, is play games. For the most part these posts has convinced me to buy Distant worlds, Endless space, and to look for 4x games on steam instead of Best buy. Which other wise I would keep looking on the shelves. The problem is that I don't know how to make a game, and I don't like the Spore game. I would like a crack at it though. It is salvagable.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 44

3). They like arguing, sometimes taking an apposing position they don't really have just for the sake of argument.

[/quote]

I did that with starbases. It took me a really long time when I finally realised that the only thing I cared about is that they need to look better. Actually Stardock have a really nice complicated starbase system. Other times I try to help people with their ideas. For the most part my main ideas that I care about is on the post of what 4x game you want. if you want to hear what I want for this game. This would actually give you an idea of what kind of stand I'm taking.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 44

Anyway, just let them ramble on. They are easily ignored. If StarDock has objections to them taking up so much space after stating their basic ideas, they will be the ones that will have to take action.

And, yes, I do believe (and have seen evidence with GC1 and GC2) that the devs do look at these forums and get the general gist of any idea presented and evaluate the idea for possible inclusion, either now or in a future release.[/quote]

That is actually what I want is for Stardock to give their opinions on this. Last I checked Stardock cares what I have to say.

Glad to hear that.

I would like to think that they would do that. There are always an expansion or update planned in the future.

Again nice to hear that. Now I know what stand you are taking if you way something like this again. I think a major tech redesign would help the game out. There is always an expansion if it is to much. As long as the Tech redesign makes gameplay better.

No this was said in 2003 by a truck driver. I don't know what exactly he meant. I do agree the fuel consumption is different. Thought about that. Tank is slower. If it has the similar power. It doesn't work as good for a tank as a semi.

A little to much if you send me the numbers to me I could send back the other numbers. if I had the numbers then I can crunch them in my head. I just don't have the numbers. What I go off of is just as realistic. No matter what the materials or if we can make them, how big the world is, or how advanced we are we keep making about the same size of military.

There was a Dev complaining that Stardock liked all my ideas a while back, so I don't know. They do need to remember that sometimes the company loose touch with what people want. Windows or the user interface is a good example. The scaling down of the Dos window, These are just a few examples of how the software companies don't understand what people want. It looks like me that Stardock realises that, and that's why they are on these posts. Is to see what John or Jane Doe thinks.

This is a main reason why I reply besides I have nonthing better to do. I would rather be working for these guys. I do have wishful thinking that I do make a difference.

That is probably the problem of being in your 40's. You got a chance to see how much the companies think they know what people want. When more often than not they don't understand what people are thinking.

This is my first Alpha I've been playing the game since 2007 I like the game.

That is true all we have until the alpha comes out is Galactic civilizations 2 Twilight of the arnor.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 47

2. Take #1 and combine it with the forum trend of over-complicating absolutely everything,

[/quote]

What else is there to say. I guess not everyone like people commenting on everything, and I'm sure you have a response for this to.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 47

and at a broad level the advice of this place is pretty much always "add more stuff". That's all fine and dandy, but at some point they need to release something and decisions have already been made to exclude things (which doesn't dissuade people here).

[/quote]

Well I think the more stuf would make the game better. If people don't like these ideas they can always say.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 47

3. In this particular thread, Rudy and Willy are having their own conversation about six different subjects at once, which I'm not sure anybody else is still reading.

[/quote]

For the most part. Other people are allowed to comment on these things, and sometimes they do. what can i say Rudy sounds a lot like me. I've heard him on the other threads. I hope the Devs are reading. Please comment on this.

Quoting Extant Faora, reply 47

I'm not overly worried about anything like that here. Things will liven up once the alpha hits, when we have some actual game systems to talk about and can give feedback on how the game plays. Commentary on speculation just isn't that useful for development.[/quote]

Can't wait until the Alpha comes out, and as far as some of the more radical ideas there is always an expansion. You are probably right to much wishful thinking.