I'll reserve judgement, I always do, but...

Well, I guess this explains how the economy went from a four-objective set of sliders to a three-state 'circle'...

Take another look. There are a lot of changes:

• there is a new Victory button in the top left
• the Research button has been renamed to Technology
• the empire-wide approval indicator is gone
• the buttons to the right of the mini-map are gone
• the third tab above the mini-map is now called Power instead of Civs
• the mini-map itself looks differently
• the Ship-UI no longer shows what special-ability the ship has
• the indicator to show the type of ship has been renamed from Race to Class
• the buttons at the bottom of the Ship-UI are different (Command, Go to, Pass, Details, instead of Explore, Sentry, Set Destination, Details)
• the Turn button now indicates whether you have idle colonies (there where no idle colonies in the first screenshot, so that may not be new)

I'm probably missing some changes, but those are the ones I immediately noticed.

I also don't see too much of a change regarding the sliders and build qeus.

The circle thingamajig is simply all those sliders in one form. And, if I'm to be honest (but not to pretty girls), it looks prettier, more user friendly and quicker to translate. It'll serve the exact same use, me thinks. One slider controlled the other and those controlled the others, etc.

As for the planetary build ques, apparently we're losing the ability to have seperate ones for civilian and military. While that very likely (only as far as we know now which isn't much) means slower overall build-up that still shouldn't impact the planetary specializations and their uses.

I do know that GalCiv 2's late(r) game had nothing for the civilian que to produce. It may have been removed or changed to something better.

I certainly look forward towards finding out!

Back when GC1 came out I saw lots of reasons why the two build queue per planet system made GC far superior to other TBS games (wish I could remember them now, but one of them is mentioned above).

FrogBoy, you were right to design it that way. If GC3 has a single build queue per planet system (like just about every other TBS out there), many of us are going to be upset by the way the change disrupts the game's enjoyment.

EDIT: Yes, of course, I will be patient and see what the Alpha and Beta Show me. I just hate the idea that something so significantly different from other games might vanish.

My view is that by the time the BETA hits (this Summer) we'll have a pretty good POV on the queue.  But having a single queue, so far, has made the game flow a lot lot better.

I doubt, however, no matter what, that you'll get planets having two queues. More likely, we'd make the star port exist on the main map itself where it would take resources from the planet it was attached to.

That would be fine, have to see how it goes. Is it possible to have the starport be connected to the star system, thus having one starport per star. So that it draws resources from all the planets from that particular star system. Although, this leads into a starbases... how will starbases function, what will their purpose be, will they act the same as in GalCiv 2? All I hear is that they will be cooler and more strategic... Will we get to design the look of the starbases from within game?

Whew. Sounds like it is covered. Good.

I see one problem with this. More than one Civ can colonize the planets of a single star system. In a five planet system it is possible to have 5 separate Civs contending for one starport. That would cause a real problem with which Civ owned the starport.

I think the idea of starports being separated from their planets is actually pretty good.

That could be an interesting twist of the dual queue Idea.

It also makes sense. You would think starships would be built in orbit anyway.

It Could allow one to destroy the starport with ships and besiege the planet.

Maybe, if needed/required, make the Starport an inherent asset within the original colony tile?

Well if we are to wait to reserve judgement then I hope you put a double build Que back in. There is no way one build Que could be an improvement not even with smart Ques. Hopefully what you will add to this will be worth it. This would be an example of a bad way to cut down on micromanagement. This is not a deal breaker on the game if there were enough of other improvements. Not to mention that Galactic civilizations 2 the ultimate edition was a good game anyways. I guess this is there ways to slow down the colony rush so the Ai would be more on par with the player.

By the way, it would be really nice if this time a bit more attention was given to grammar. Not only does this help giving the product a more "professional" feeling (Fallen Enchantress had amateurish grammar. "Party's", really? Leave those to greengrocers :p.), but this game is played in its original language by people abroad, and it's better to show them (/teach them) good habits. Playing games in their original language is a great way to improve language skills, provided those games' grammar is correct in the first place.

Stating "Party's" without the rest of the context does not mean Party's was grammatically incorrect. The scenario may have been that the party had ownership of the subject in the sentence which would make it perfectly correct.

There's alot to read hear. So can someone please tell me if we can still build improvements and ships at the same time or are we talking about the government sliders?

**EDIT** I see now. Only one thing at a time? That's. New.

DARCA

I wanna hear the answer from a developer about this.

I reserve my judgement, but am rather convinced allready 1 queue is better for gameplay and hard choice-mechanisms then 2 queues. 

Other than the *five* posts from one in this thread already?

Dual queue is seriously overrated.

Unless you have two sets of production points that can't be moved between the two queues, it doesn't really get you anything. If I have my production split evenly so I'll get a ship and a building in 10 turns, there is no particular advantage to doing that over putting 100% into one queue to get one thing in 5 turns, then 100% in the other to get the other thing in 5 more turns. In fact, splitting them is worse as by not splitting them I get to use one of the two things five turns earlier.

If you do have entirely separate production points that can't be moved between queues, you inevitably wind up with wasted production once you either don't want/can't afford to build more ships, or have no building upgrades left to do.

That is seriously flawed logic Tridus. You know the game doesn't work like that senario. There is only manufacturing spending now no more social production so two things could be made at the same time. How can you make it seem to be better if you don't know, I thought we were reserving our opinions till we've played it...Friend.

DARCA

How so?

Galciv 2 had two queues, so two things could be made at the same time. Lots of people in this thread seem to think that was great. That's the system I was talking about.

You do realize the irony of that statement in a thread where half the posts consist of "I'll reserve judgement, but I like the old system better", right?

I know you were not talking directly to me but if you read my earlier posts about the dual queue I think I made a fairly decent explanation of what I like about the dual queue in GalCiv2. You will also notice I never tried to compare it to what GalCiv3 might be because we do not know what it will truly be like.

I instead compared GalCiv2 to what it would have been in you had removed dual queue from it. And I have no problem saying It would have made the game less interesting.

Yep, and I have no problem with people making that argument. It's clearly a popular feature of the franchise. 

I do have a problem with someone criticizing me for making the opposite argument with a line like the one DARCA used. 

You get a million golden ghost coins for getting my name right Tridus.

what am saying is with the focus production button factored in, the time saved would usually be less than ten turns. And with so many variables in the game at different times. And every player being different, I found your example to be humorous. To suggest that producing two things at once was a hindrance. I felt it added strategy and realism when governments have social and military spending in real life. But all that is history now. If there were two queues with the new way production would be five turns regardless and two things could be made if it's at 100%.

 I want you to say what you feel. But the senario wasn't the best example.

As for the "reserve judgment" hypocrisy. It's because all we know is a good thing has been replaced with something untested and we are anxious to find out.

Tridus+DARCA= Canadian Han solo

The system isn't "untested". It's been the mainstay of strategy games for, oh say, ever. Which is why Stardock made such an impression with their double-queues. (I'm trying to find a joke in there somewhere...)

All the popular ones that everyone on here has waxed philosophic about use only one build queue. I highly doubt this is going to be some sort o' disaster regarding gameplay. I even highly doubt it will impact GalCiv gameplay much, if at all.

How many here use even a quarter of their planets to build ships in GalCiv 2?

While I indeed raised an eyebrow when I learned about the single queues I don't think the Stardock folks would change something merely to keep themselves busy.

About half in late game, where I spam constructors and transports for my galactic conquest efforts.