Reaction movement is kind of messy and that is the reason you tend not to see it in games. People don't really like seeing seeing the enemy acting out of turn. If it's my turn, I don't want the board moving around on me because that messes up my ability to make plans. That example in the OP where a enemy fleet moves into attack you on your turn would be more annoying then exciting I think.
I am going to muse that they might be doing call to power style combat.
I love the sound of expanded ship options. I love it a lot.
[quote who="Tridus" reply="337" id="3419731"] This thread's refusal to die despite it already being said there isn't tactical combat is impressive.[/quote] I think it's because a lot of people see the combat system in GC2 as a flaw that is holding a lot of other aspects back in how much depth they can have.
[quote who="jecy99" reply="2" id="3419491"] yes, exactly.. another thing that crossed my mind was cost.. Shouldn't it cost more to build a colony on an aqua world, all structures being underwater.. verse a normal world, that does not even need terra forming? but onto that side, what about unique buildings, and techs to improve the variety of planets.. Solar farms to improve barren worlds, O
I would love it is planets behaved differently based on what kind they are. Like if barren worlds couldn't support farms, or if ice worlds had trade resources like water that could only be found there. Kind of like how when in civ when you found a city in the desert, it will have a different makeup then if you founded it on the cost. It should be the same thing in GC3. If you found a colony on a desert world, it would behave differently then if you found one on an water world.
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="15" id="3418869"] Quoting Hamshank, reply 11 I disagree, because ultimately 99 planetary building choices that repeats itself every turn is displacing real gameplay, and distracts from the broader picture of whatever is happening Wait... so you disagree with me... but you agree with me?[/quote] No. Their post was right under mine. They where disagreeing with me and agreeing with you. I no doubt disagree
I am kind of thinking they will redesign the tile bonuses completely. Make them actual resources rather then vague bonuses. Like a tile now might be rare tiny partials that increase your mineralization. Maybe resources that have more then one affect. Like a crashed dreadlord vessel that has diffren bonuses based on what you build on it. Build a science lab on it and maybe you unlock a restricted technology. Build a space port over it, and all ships built on this planet now have +1 to ea
[quote who="Arcus2611" reply="12" id="3418841"]be allowing players to select multiple tiles and specify a single build order for all of them. Or having recent events organised into categories, for those rounds after you blow up a lot of ships. There are probably quite a few other simple tools that would help to speed up the game without having to delegate to AI.[/quote] Oh yes a ship queue would be a nice addition. It's so common in strategy games that I forgot that GC2 didn't
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="9" id="3418808"] Quoting nomotog, reply 8 Being able to automate some of theses repetitive tasks would be nice, but another question to ask is why are these tasks repetitive in the first place. If every time you placed a building on a planet, you where making a deep an meaningful choice, I don't think you would be asking to automate it. If planet management is even remotely similar to the way it was in Galactic Civilizations
Being able to automate some of theses repetitive tasks would be nice, but another question to ask is why are these tasks repetitive in the first place. If every time you placed a building on a planet, you where making a deep an meaningful choice, I don't think you would be asking to automate it.
StarControl Forums
[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="2" id="3417168"] Is this a new game that's coming out. Can U also tell me what's it's like[/quote] It's an old game that stardock is giving the reboot. Honestly we know very little about their plans. As a whole we can expect something like star control 2, but it's an old game so I expect changes and improvements.
I think I kind of like this idea. Space empires had something like this. It was a component called emergency speed I think. If you used it, then your speed would improve for the turn, but the component would be destroyed and have to be repaired.
StarControl Forums
The aspect of SC that I liked the most was how you could land on a planet and explore. The mechanistic weren't as good as I would like though. My idea would be to ditch the rover and move more to a star track away team style. It would start in space, you would scan the planet mass effect style. (ME took from SC so I think SC should take from ME.) Each time you find something of interest, it gives you a landing spot you can explore. Some landing zones would need upgrades before you would b
Differentiating weapons means making each weapon feel and function differently. There are about a million ways to do that. Maybe lasers work better when your so many hexes from a sun. Maybe missiles don't work inside a nebula. Maybe mass drivers have the ability to lower a ships maximum HP. You don't have to fundamentally change combat to have different weapons effects. Fundamentally changing combat should be on the table though. The target is more in depth combat and warfare.
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="22" id="3408983"] I'm curious to know if and how they're doing sectors, quadrants, etc. If the boundries will bisect hexes or whatever.[/quote] My guess is they won't have them.
Civ 5 could have done something where they spread out the citys over multiple hexes. Kind of like what GC dose with it's planets. You have all the planet facilities each on a different tile. One of the reasons I think that single unit per hex might work better in GC then it did in Civ5. I would also use the distant stars tight clusters set up. For much the same reason. I kind of thought of the space between stars as a space ocean because you needed to design ships with extra
[quote who="chuck1es" reply="203" id="3408268"] Simply making the different weapons actually behave differently would require some form of tactical ability as a result. Real-time control of each single ship may be a bit much. Yet that would make the combat turns faster than making it turn-based. I'm still sayin' that it'll be more like MOO3, where you control fleets seperately instead of ships singly.[/quote] I don't think tactical combat is
If you release a good expansion for Fallen enchantress with the name elemental in it, that could help cover up the old elemental search results?
If only you could just use the name legendary heroes, then you would be gold. It's a stand alone expansion, so no reason it can't stand entirely by itself.
[quote who="1xador" reply="21" id="3408068"] Quoting nomotog, reply 20leaders all being actual units you can move around. There was a big backlash to this in Elemental. Quoting nomotog, reply 20The hard part about letting the player react to an espionage victory is the espionage. It's all about being secret. This is why I like causing revolutions. It gives you a reasonable amount of time to react.[/quote] I love that aspect
[quote who="1xador" reply="19" id="3408062"] Quoting nomotog, reply 18 If they included something like a king unit, then you could have an espionage victory from successfully assassinating every race's leader before they can elect a new one. Causing the universe to descend into chaos. GalCiv usually gives the players time to react to the victory conditions. A coordinated assassination would be hard to react to.[/quote] I'm like picturin
[quote who="1xador" reply="16" id="3408055"] When you research the last espionage tech in the tree, you win an espionage victory. How is this different from a research victory? The espionage victory conditions I have come up with are: Corrupt X% of all production in the galaxy for Y turns or Setup puppet governments for each faction. This would be controlling enough votes to always win a vote. I am not sure how this wou
Yeps. It makes a fair amount of sense. I'm kind of wondering if things might be better if the barrens where more barren.
[quote who="Farplane" reply="9" id="3407932"] I'll have to throw my hat into the keep the micromanagement pool. I personally want to see some refinements geared at the late game, when you have in excess of 25 colonies, the management gets tedious, particularly if you found new colonies or conquer a new planet and you want to get it up to modern tech levels, or more so during war time and you need to continuously purchase ships or structures. id like to b
GalCiv3 Forums
Elemental Forums