I'm not sure whether forcing them to trade is consistent with lore so to speak. They seem to be a more independent type of race. Their ultimate goal after all is for the Yor to rule and all organic life to be eradicated.
[quote who="yarodin" reply="27" id="3421381"] It was just a suggestion to slow down the Yor if they really could settle on every planet type. This would be a huge advantage during the first phase, so it'd need to be compensated. Slow population growth was just one possibility that ocurred to me. I'm sure there could be other ones I just didn't think of. When I play Yor, I see to steal/trade tech increasing my economy and/or population growth.[/quote]  
At this point, all we can do is to wait and see.
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="90" id="3421217"] I'm not contradicting myself at all, I'm saying they might take the waste-of-development-resources route and make autoresolve battles end as well or better than controlled battles. It's "optional" in that you can control the battles, but "not optional" in that it's a waste of time to do so.[/quote] The evidence so far suggests that limited tactical combat has already been added. Regardless,
[quote who="Tridus" reply="87" id="3421162"] Also being a former WoW raider myself, the largest source of complaints was that the WoW forums were a cesspit of negativity that served no useful purpose. EVERYTHING was broken if you read them. Every class was too weak on it's own class forum, including the flavour of the month that everyone else was hating on. Everything was buggy. Everything sucked.[/quote] In general, I split complaints into 2 categories:<
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="85" id="3421145"] Of course there's a non-zero chance of full scale tactical combat being implemented. Not much higher than zero, but still a chance. If I was absolutely sure tactical combat had been ruled out, I wouldn't waste my time making sure my viewpoint was heard. And if you read the rest of the post the same way, there's also a non-zero chance tactical combat could be implemented in a way that would be an overall b
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="82" id="3421042"] That said, if tactical combat is added in some form, he has already said it will not be of paramount importance. I also think you can count on tactical combat, if included, being an option, which can be turned on or off at the start of a game (or maybe mid game). Another thing I know I can count on, assuming tactical combat is included, is that we won't get a full picture of what it will be like in
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="80" id="3421007"] I say from years of experience on the World of Warcraft boards - there are times when what you said is true, and even more times when it really is a few vocally disgruntled players. Having real data is the best way to distinguish between the two, and we don't have any real market research data to look at.[/quote] Being a former WoW raider myself, the largest source of complaints
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="76" id="3420811"] Elemental and the two free expansions serve to show you wrong :3 [/quote] Precisely. That is why the pro-tactical combat faction is willing to bring this subject up over and over again. [quote who="Gaunathor" reply="77" id="3420897"] Just because the devs are willing to make changes to certain areas, based on player feedback, doesn't mean, that they
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="72" id="3420784"] Quoting UnleashedElf, reply 69For a large percentage of the fanbase, tactical combat is the most in demand feature. Another large percentage (yourself included) seem to strongly oppose it. Again, assumptions. Based on the forums, a relative handful of users are demanding tactical combat. A different handful are dead set against it. The hundreds of thousands of users who aren't posting here hold opinions we can
Brad, how well will the UI scale with higher resolutions? Right now, playing GC2 on 2560x1440 does make the font look small. The issue will become even bigger once 4K monitors become more common and multi-monitor setups continue to increase in player uptake.
[quote who="yarodin" reply="24" id="3420083"] That's logic, but would give the Yor a too much an advantage during colony rush. They could settle every world in reach where as all the others would have to pick the worlds that are suitable for them. Either the Yor would must have another disadvantage during that phase (slow population growth or something like that) or they can not colonize every type of world - eg. radiation types because too strong radiation damages their "brain
Pretty much the only thing of note is that the Good vs Neutral vs Evil will be more sophisticated than in GC2.
[quote who="Martok" reply="55" id="3420098"] In any case, I don't think you have to worry. Brad has always had his own vision for the GalCiv series, and there's absolutely no way he'll ever allow tactical combat (however it's implemented) to dominate and/or be central to the game. [/quote] Pretty much this. I would imagine that if tactical combat is added, that it won't detract too much f
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="53" id="3420076"] I think you make unwarranted assumptions; I like tactical combat in other games. GalCiv is the go to game when a person wants a strategy game but *doesn't* want a tactical level. There aren't many choices out there that don't have tactical combat; the lack is a selling point for GalCiv, not a weakness to be fixed.[/quote] Assumptions? Given that the debate on tactical combat has spanned several
I am actua[quote who="DsRaider" reply="21" id="3419837"] Good ideas but here are some more. The Yor are inorganic so they don't require food. Instead population is directly tied to manufacturing. Also as machines they are adaptive and can colonize any world. Another idea is a race that prefers living in space and specializes in building colony starbases that increase the population of worlds. Hmm I would give an idea for Alterians but what the heck does cosmic energy
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="45" id="3419349"] That is covered in my post. If auto resolve ends about as well as you could do it yourself, why bother ever doing it yourself? Everyone will do the first few for the novelty factor, then skip them for the rest of the game's lifespan for the sheer convenience of it - i.e. a feature not worth the developer's time to put in.[/quote] Because a very large number of people will fight a la
[quote who="Hamshank" reply="12" id="3419387"] I like the StarCraft 3 race analogy. Having 3 distinct races has a longer replay value than 8 races that border on the same. Conceivably, this could be adapted to Galactic Civilizations 3 by having 3 sets of races that operate on similar mechanics but each race is distinct. No easy solution and not sure if this could translate to this franchise.; [/quote] We could also have a general catego
I mean it would look something like this: 1. Humans would be the most "GC2" like of the races. Strong diplomacy, average at most other things. 2. Altarians would have certain mystical abilities. That and they would be somewhat like the humans, but with their own ideals. 3. The Drengin would be unique in that their economy operated heavily on slaves (maybe from the other worlds too, ex: Torians slaves). Strong weapons and tro
[quote who="WIllythemailboy" reply="43" id="3419301"] Quoting 18Zulukiller, reply 42What are you on about we already have auto resolve in game as is. We have auto-resolve that is not optional. My point is about how idiotic it is to think "optional" will ever work out to actually be optional. Read it again until you understand the point.[/quote] As I said, it really comes down to if they put in an auto-resolve, how accurate the auto-reso
I think that it would be ideal if we saw a level of diversity on par with say, Starcraft, which had pretty different races. It would be very hard to balance though.
Probably the biggest issue I have with GC2 is that the races felt too similar. - They all had similar tolerances for planets (ex: ideal for 1 race is ideal for all) - Things like approval were similar (ex: for Drengin, perhaps conquering a planet should increase approval and give "slaves") - Emphasis was similar across the races (ex: culture was doable by all - nobody had a culture penalty) - The tech tree and improvements were a step in the righ
[quote who="12cfoster" reply="35" id="3418695"] Because either the Auto-resolve is better than you at tactical battles, in which case it would be most efficient to always Auto-resolve, or worse than you, in which case you should never auto-resolve.[/quote] Not really. It depends on how accurate the auto-resolve is. If it's within 5%, it's probably "good enough".
Another issue is that we need the AI to take advantage of the tiles.
[quote who="Tyrantissar" reply="21" id="3418213"] No, it is not that people don't want quality, it is just that they want to stick to their series as much as you would want your enhanced tactical combat. I am suggesting that this game is designers choice, and for the most part the majority apparently doesn't know the difference between quality and shitty games anymore, just look at the popular radio stations, the popular games and the popular movies and the popular TV series. No
Sins Forums
GalCiv3 Forums