What are the biggest gameplay differences between this and SoA2? I've played SoA2 a bunch already and enjoy it too. I already know about titans, the lack of a Dominion faction (yet), and that certain ship classes are switched around (like the sabre being a light frigate). I also have no problem with how the Borg operate in SoA2 (I don't mind overpowered Borg).
GalCiv3 Forums
Sins has some issues with the larger maps with lag, although SoA2 shouldn't be as bad since there are fewer ships and especially fewer fighters. Then again, my last Borg fleet had -4800 supply and -25 command points (with both fully upgraded, so something like 8000 supply and 41 capital ships), so those ship caps aren't exactly set in stone :P It may be trade ships too, but again I'm not really sure; I just noticed it more often in Sins: Rebellion than in the vanilla
If your talking about for mods and the like, then yes. I've already seen posts from the dev team on Steam talking about that as part of the reason this game is being released on steam. (From a post by Draginol on the steam forums) [quote]" Steamworks is central to our design It is my intention to have us utilize Valve's Steamworks to the nth degree during the course of this project. I was the architect behind Impulse::Reactor (Sta
[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="7" id="3453844"]4. The Ai can't move its ship properly. Both Terran and drengin have about 20 constructors, scouts colony ships, and snipers one tile outside their home world. They don't move and they're not a fleet and its getting bigger and bigger. I am about to take drengi with one transport and they still don't move. The rest of their planets are fine.[/quote] I've also noticed that you can destroy everything on that tile without u
I posted this to the steam forums and apparently it is a known issue. I also saw another post that suggested the population cap shown on the right side is actually the research value for a planet with the wrong symbol.
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="15" id="3453432"] Good should provide small intangible benefits (Like morale, or loyalty and the like) and a large bonus to "long-term" things like planet quality or something. Evil should provide many short-term benefits and a handful of long-term bonuses, while pragmatic should be a more balanced approach. imo[/quote] That sounds about right. Evil should be about strip-mining, pragmatic about controlled-mining, and good abou
Why did I ever open the steam forums... [e digicons]:S[/e] I think I may need therapy after reading the abysmal stupidity people threw out there. I never realized faith in humanity could fall so low...fortunately the forums here do a good job of bringing it back up again. [e digicons];)[/e]
I've also noticed the tooltip above planets shows a different population than the list on the right side of the screen. I tried to post an image but for some reason it won't upload. [e digicons]X|[/e] I think the list on the right is wrong, since it shows a lower population on new colonies than the colony ship brought there in the first place. <img src="C:\Users\Paul\Desktop
What identifies the population cap in-game? I thought it was food production, until one of my planets surpassed food production with its population. EDIT: This is a known issue
Sometimes the good and evil options in GalCiv2 were just terrible. Coexist with weird sea monsters for noticeable morale loss, or slaughter them for huge morale bonus; well, maybe it was for the greater good to kill them. Save the planet from a volcanic eruption and lose a bunch of money, or lose a billion people because they were dumb to build cities near volcanoes; yeah, my horrible genocidal empire decided to loosen up a bit here on the mercilessness. Normally I looked
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="111" id="3450729"] Don't be an idiot; no game, no matter how good you anticipate it to be, is worth skipping school for. Or work. Or weddings.[/quote] Wait what? Weddings? [e digicons]o_O[/e]
This is awesome. The GalCiv3 Alpha...comes out on my birthday. :D
Just so you know, if you save a game and reload it you can change the AI difficulty after the fact. That way, if you want, you can try using a lower-level AI until the early-game period is over then bump them up to unfair. One thing that's easy to do is to put off upgrading your fleet supply initially; don't. Getting the extra set of reinforcements is helpful economically since you'll be able to expand faster (barring the possibility that you run short on credi
I usually saw the Terrans taking over the galaxy (although the Torians were always pretty tough too). Love that their diplomatic advantage means they look down on everyone else and try to kill them all :P
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="44" id="3435806"] Quoting DARCA1213, reply 41the opposite? How can you or anyone think that? Because the devs have explicitly said so? Listen to the podcast I linked to earlier. At around 43:41 min., Paul Boyer (the Lead Designer of GalCiv 3) says: "We want to keep it simply. We don't want the game to become Gratuitous Space Battles. We don't want it to become a real-time tactical game. We're not making Rome:Total War. We're
I don't believe that they'll add real-time combat in GC3, but even if they did it wouldn't resemble total war or they'd have to devote a serious portion of the game towards it. The comparison of Total War to strategy games isn't a reasonable one, because Total War is made first and foremost for the tactical combat; the strategy element is made to support that, rather than the other way around (otherwise who would play a game with spear militia or hobilars?).
Sitting here waiting to comment that the Yor are starting to remind me of HK-47... and look at Madao4life's avatar... :P Also, for anyone confused with the idea of ship styles: Each race had different ship models, but every core hull design (what you start with when designing ships) and the faction components came from only 5 sets of different ship design components. The Terrans and Arceans used the same hulls and the same components, but they had diff
The biggest problems I noticed with the AI in tech trading was that they couldn't appreciate the strategic value of tech, only the technical value. Not being willing to trade impulse drive for equally groundbreaking tech like Harpoon I never made sense for a technologically-inferior race. The technical value of Xeno Biology was worth enough that the AI considered it valuable, even if they already had the subsequent tech (rendering Xeno Biology completely worthless). At t
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="skYeYe85" reply="4" id="3431664"] I just wanted to say, not to make the game too complex (like endless Space or Civilization V BNW). I would rather focus more on the KI and maybe make more testing. Also more focus on the Campaign would be nice. I cann't wait to see the new series of Galactaic Civilizations 3, really looking forward to it. Is the game also gonna be sold over steam?[/quote] And here I thought Endless Space and Civilization 5 were simple games.  
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="18" id="3433568"] Quoting Suomi Sotilashenkilo, reply 17There should be a minimum die roll That was already in GalCiv 2. It depended on your Luck ability. If it was 0, then the minimum roll was also 0. If it was 25%, then the minimum roll was 25% of the maximum value of your weapons and defenses.[/quote] I felt that a roll of 6 out of 10 would be fairer than a 0; using an ability to bring it up to 2.5 isn't exactly what I'm a
A few ideas I have, mostly regarding the tech tree. 1.) Bigger tech tree with overlapping techs. For instance, you shouldn't be limited to just one method of travel; you might have standard hyperdrive, wormhole/jumpgate travel, or even something similar to "sailing" through space on subspace eddies or some other sci-fi nonsense, which would allow you to travel faster on certain areas of the map almost like traveling on rivers. Weapons should include different v
[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="347" id="3420140"] Many Bothans died to bring us this information.[/quote] It's a trap!
Not sure how some people can't get it in their heads that tactical combat doesn't need to be advanced. Bringing up Total War is the apex of poor analogies to those of us who actually like the idea of manipulating combat tactically. Total War is NOT designed to be a strategy game; that was an afterthought which has received a lot more attention in Empire and onward. Total War was built to b
Sins Forums
Very impressed with this mod so far. I couldn't play until the rebellion version came out (minidumps [e digicons]8C[/e] ), but I'm glad I waited. Unfortunately I didn't understand that the Borg were deliberately OP yet, and had a rather hard time holding one off with a tossed-together fleet. Wasn't so happy losing half my ships to Klingon battlecruisers then watching the rest get assimilated by three spheres including the USS Defiant... [e di
No one mentioned the disruptive nanites. Cheapest gamechanger in the game. You only need one turret to shoot one shot at a capitol ship/titan to disable its passive regeneration for 5 minutes. Suffice to say, Rebellion added a ton of incredibly powerful abilities, especially AoE. The Kostura in stock sins destroyed fleets, and the first time I saw a hostile starbase was a sad day. It also startled me when I first got a supply pact and got an extra