I think the tile is discriptive enough.
But for those of you who like to be specific ....
What new features do you want to see in Gal Civ 3?
Is there something that you want to see from Gal Civ 1 or Gal Civ 2, only you want it to be better?
Do you want it to have Real-Time, Control Your Warships, Space Battles?
Etc.....
So please respond.
ROCK ON!!!
I'm personally against non-linear functions because, to me, they're the sign of a lazy developer. Chess and Go have more depth than GC2 will ever have, and they're incredibly discreet and simple in their rules
Mastering a concept is about a reduction to simplicity. It's about finding the elegant solution, seeing the patterns and intersections in the small and letting them build complexity via interesting interactions.
Plus, other TBS games seem to have balanced gameplay without needlessly complex functions. Why not GalCiv?
However, I would be willing to live with non-linear functions if they would just tell us what they are. Complex functions is a valid design choice that I happen to disagree with. Hiding fundamental gameplay mechanisms is not a valid design choice; it's annoying and tedious. It's like playing chess against someone, but not knowing about Castling or En Passant and they do. It's unfair.
Morale actually IS linear (on a planetary basis, anyway), but only if you account for the effect of high population on the effectiveness of morale buildings. It's linear with an admittedly hidden variable.
Actually, yes you can. If you've seen the 49-50 transition, you can easily predict the 59-60 transition.
As long as the two outputs of planets (production and money) are independant of each other, the means to time-limit those outputs will need to be independant as well.
Technically, what you suggest is already present. Shipping people in doesn't improve your production, so that method only increases one type of planetary output. Same with buying buildings; filling all your tiles doesn't improve your money output (much). Only by doing both can you get your production up quickly.
Except that population is needed for influence and invasion resistance as well. And planets can be brought to full production faster than PQ-1. That's just the most common rush buying scheme. Theoretically you could get as low as (PQ-1)/2 turns.
Yes, but we're talking about GalCiv 3. Influence should be replaced by an alternate mechanism for subverting planets, preferably built into the new espionage model. And invasion resistance should be based on building stuff (again, not using up precious tiles), not planetary population.
Once those are gone, population has no purpose.
I'm with Sole Soul on the models - I'm all for a more 'elegant' economic model than we have now, but elegant != simplified, and certainly !<= 5th grade math models. Wrong (but oh so 'Intuitive') economic models are where we get into messes like the one we're in now in real life, and I'm not particularly keen on training my mind to look for the intuitive answers that don't work in real life - {G}.
With apologies, you seem to desire a simpler game than I do - which I'm fine with btw, I just don't want GalcivIII to become that game. I play computer games to do things I can't do in real life like run an interstellar empire, and anything that 'simplifies' that is detracting from the game I want to play. Contrawise, more complex economic models and so on that force me to actually develop my skills are great.
Jonnan
Alphonse, the game you seem to be requesting could not in any reasonable way be called Galactic Civilizations. It may even be a decent game, but it certainly wouldn't deserve the name.
Well, in reference to influence, influence should be based upon your empire as a whole, including population, trade, military might, manufacturing might, research ability, diplomatic ability, economic power, and even galactic 'wonders' should add a very small portion to influence. After all, these combined things are where a Civ's 'influence' comes from.
This way, the Drengin won't planet flip from you setting up one embassy. There military might will keep their influence at a reasonable level to avoid this. Torians would have huge populations to help their influence. Alterians would have their intristic research abilities to help their influence. The Yor... well who knows about the Yor, the Yor super-ability should be 'Multi-Tasking' or something, and they are very hard to flip anyway (so says the game, never tested it).
My first post to these forums, the title was simply one I HAD to reply to. Great game by the way. So oka-a-ay: What I would like to see in Galciv 3:
1. I agree with the need for cloaking. It is an integral part of the sci-fi mythology out there. What I would add to the previous posts though is that apart from limiting sensor range, I think cloaking should give a particular ship first-strike ability. Perhaps toward game-end one can even research planetary cloaking? (That is well towards the end of the tech tree and along with deeper knowledge.)
2. Automated constructors. Perhaps one can have a setting at a particular starport which would automate any constructors to automatically upgrade the nearest starbase. Please!
3. Either civilian starbases or alternatively habitation modules on economy starbases. And I agree with the idea of space-based starbase ship construction sites. Perhaps one can even make a deep-space research station for high-risk experimentation and research that every now and again goes kablooey.
4. It seems to me that when a planet has built everything it could, after a while morale starts dropping to unbearable levels. On a super-gaia level 26 planet with a lot of morale facilities that just gets very frustrating: having a people you cannot satisfy. Can you please mitigate that.
5. Perhaps some more animation sequences for different events: including galactic wonders, building one's first large ship; engaging one's first stellar folder, and some for other technologies.
6.Perhaps in campaign mode one can play a particular character that becomes a general or emperor and have a story line to follow, (as was the case in the first Imperium Galactica game?) Now and again one can have random events relating to his personal life coming up, and the story can follow some or other precurser artifact. Certain random events can follow certain technologies.
7. New ship classes?
Tiny - Scout class;
Small - Fighter class;
Medium - Cruiser class;
Large - Destroyer class,
Huge - Battleship class.
8. Humungous ship-sized space aliens that roam through space in herds for some gratuitous violence.
9. Tech trees that require more than one pre-requiste tech. Ultimate miniaturisation could for example have hyperwarp as well as supreme miniaturisation as pre-requisites; hypercomputing can have supercomputing and advanced materials as pre-req. I think that would add a new kind of 'wholeness' to the game and create new tech research strategies. It could even create alternate research strategies. Having certain techs, for example advanced weapons or advanced mass drivers would allow one to research ion cannons in stead of pulse cannons.
10. More anomalies of different kinds of which some that even have the same kind of effect, but for different reasons. Some with story-line animations?
Once again thanks for a great game. Except it steals too much of my time! But then again I am not complaining.
I just can't wait so that we can start the "what do you want in GC4" thread.
We keep some ideas for the "what do you want in the GC3 expansion(s) ?" threads
A proper translation....
There was no chance for me to get the english version so i had to install the german one. Sometimes it is really funny, sometimes it is confusing. The translation itself isnt that bad but especially the names of the civilications are really really stupid - better to leave them english. I suppose it will be better when the translations into foreign languages will be made by people from the countries were the game should be sold into.
Dont be angry about me, i love it.
I hope my english isnt as bad as i think...
I would agree even though I don't speak any "foreign" languages. How do you translate "Korath" or "Arcean" ? Or maybe they are not translated and they just look like they are. lol
You can pretty much do that now. Create a rally point on the base, then set a planet to send its ships there as they get done.
That is due entirely to the population on the planet. Never attempt to go above 20 billion on any planet. Most should never go above 14 billion. Stock markets yield a higher income than more population does, due to the ridiculous number of morale structures you need to keep all those people happy.
As a background "Immersion" item that I would like- a better system for autonaming resources.
I *hate* that the system as it stands give me complete unmemorable names, both for ships/starbases, and (To a lesser extent) for starsystems/planets.
A- The less necessary one first - I'm not sure it's necessary, or even if it would work in pratice the way I am visualizing it as an immersion tool, but I would love to see an attempt at an automatic naming system in which each empire had their own renaming system for starsystems - say, internally, every star is only 'named' by it's x,y,z coordinates, but is aliased once for the player when the map is created (What the star names are in that worlds tradition) and is then renamed permanently when colonized "We call it Vega, but the Altarians called it Mithranta, an ancient Goddess of mercy, and I guess they live there now . . . "), and then it's called Mithrantar from there on out.
I can see this not working at all - You don't want stars renamed all the time so you can't remember what's where. On the other had, done right, it seems to me that it ought to be feasible to make this something that reminds people of What's where - you 'know' if you see Vulcan, Andor, and Sol, you're in Federation space, even if Vulcan and Andor aren't the homeworld or in the same spot on every map.
B- An automated ship and starbase naming system that allowed the player to assign a 'class' to each ship or starbase design, and then assign a naming scheme to that 'class' and design that pulls information from the information, kind of like renaming a tagged MP3 file. Say your ship is Design is 'Constitution' and Class is "Heavy Cruiser", the full tagging scheme might be something like:
Classtags.Heavy_Cruiser="%Class%<br>Warp %Speed%<br>Range %Range% Parsecs<br>Attack: %Offense%<br>Shielding: %Defense%"
Designtags.Constitution="%Empire-prefix% NCC-%#1700% %file://\%Empire-prefix\%/\%Class\%.xml:Random%: %Classtags%" ",
Resulting in the system pulling shipname at random from the file UFP\Heavy_Cruiser.xml in your save folder, placing your cursor over a ship and getting something like
Warp 5
Range 15 Parsecs,
Offense 14
Defense 8
There are probably better ways to do that in xml, but that's the basic gist.
Edit: Obviously I wanted the same kind of options for Starbases as well. Maybe a tag to key in on closest system and name by starbase type "Vega Dilithium Cracking Station" or something.
Oh, and I *Still* want a toggle on the starbase and planet screens that simply toggles a Rally point, of the same name as the starbase, on and off. Then I can just toggle on a starbase and set the panets closest to send constructors to the Rally Point.
Beats the hell out of my German - {G}
I've already provided evidence that you don't need non-linear mathematics to create deep and compelling gameplay (Chess & Go). What evidence do you have that linear mathematics isn't sufficient to create deep and compelling gameplay.
This is a game; it isn't supposed to have any basis in reality. You aren't going to learn anything about "what works in real life" by playing GalCivII.
Further, the GalCiv economic model is no more or less wrong than any other TBS game. They're all abstractions and simplifications. It's better to use simplifications that are conducive to good gameplay.
Bluntly - listen, I play both Chess and Go (Chess very well, Go, ah, well, not so much.), they are both wonderful games, that teach strategy that is applicable to the real world.
But A - they are both highly abstract games. One does not have to feed the horse, pay the pawns, repair the castle walls, or buy the Queen jewelry. And that's the less abstract of the two - compared to Go, Chess is a tabletop D20 RPG port of Warcraft.
B - even with that in mind, I'm not sure I would agree with your definition of the logic involved. Have you ever *read* an indepth book of chess strategy? I have a book on opening positions 1000+ pages thick.
I have no objections to highly abstracted games, they're wonderful systems that allow people to play indepth systems, extrapolate, learns the psychology of their opponents, - but they're highly abstracted games, not simulations.
For some reason you've decided it's perfectly logical to go into a Magic The Gathering Tournament and complain "You know what makes a good game? Bridge! We should all play Bridge! Huh, c'mon, it's a great game! Trust me you really want to play Bridge!"
The annoyance the Magic players will start exhibiting may not be because they think Bridge is a dumb game.
Yes, I have.
My point is that Chess has very simple rules. Yet it is an incredibly complex and deep game. Is that in spite of the simple rules, or because of them?
The more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.
Despite all of GalCiv2's complex rules and functions, it is a much simpler videogame that has come the closest to achieving Chess-like depth: StarCraft. 3 races, not 12. 3 tech trees with only ~30 "techs" (buildings and research) in them, not a dozen trees with a hundred techs apiece. Slightly more than a dozen units for each race rather than "design your own."
More doesn't mean better. Indeed, as an overall design principle, something should be only as complex as it needs to be, and no more.
You're willfully misinterpreting my suggestion. My suggestion isn't Bridge over M:tG. It's more like YuGiOh instead of M:tG. They both retain the basic structure of a CCG (cards create rules, etc), but one doesn't have the incredibly complex timing issues that the other one has.
Now, I wouldn't necessarily go quite so far as YuGiOh (too focused on creatures and attacking), but M:tG's rules could clearly use some regression. As could GC2's rules.
The key to any good sequel (or expansion) is to take what was originally done, cut away the acrued cruft, add new features you think compliments the original intent, and polish that into a workable whole.
The problem with this statement is that what you "cut away" is basically the entire game. So far, you've entirely scrapped the population system, influence system, espionage system, economic system, anomalies, ethical events, combat system, starbases, morale, colonization mechanics, and probably a few others I've missed. What the hell is left? Stars and empty space? If anyone was going to rework a game that thoroughly, it would be easier to scrap the whole thing and start from a blank piece of paper.
I like Alfonse's ideas, although I understand Jonnan'spoint of view.
It's basically the whole having lots of control vs keeping things simple.
Basically, some people like a lot of fine grained tweaking and "bean counting", while others like to just have an abstracted, high-level view and don't really want to care about all of the details.
The trick is, of course, satisfying everybody.
Basically, where I'm seeing a lot of games in this genre headed is towards something that is automated by default, but you can still do the fine grained tweaking as well. You can have things like governors and other AI constructs count the beans for you if you want, and you can just manage the empire from 10,000 feet (or lightyears, in this case) and not care about the details. Or, if you want, you can tweak a bit here and there and optimize one part of your empire.
. . . and sometimes, yes, the fine grained stuff can and should be cut for the sake of keeping some simplicity. Very few people really want a game where you spend an hour tweaking everything before you advance to the next turn. The more complex the model gets, the fewer people will want to play the game.
. . . and of course, on the flip side, of course the game shouldn't be made trivial. One of the nice things about turn based games is that they do ineeed allow for more complicated decisions and strategies to be made.
I don't think that GalCiv should strive to become a complex simulator. I don't think that's really the goal here. Above everything else, it's a game. It should be fun.
Ah, but you have spoken directly to the crux of the problem.
Some of us find complex simulators fun.
I'm one of that "us," but a big part of my affection for GC2 is that it has strength both as a game and as a toy. I've learned a lot about how I can play *with* the game from people who *play* the game.
The Elemental project is in part building 'draft 1' of the engine for GC3. I'm seriously hoping that for 'the micormanagement problem,' one of the major advances will be pretty much what Cobra describes when he typed "...something that is automated by default, but you can still do the fine grained tweaking as well." The devs have talked public some about their UI approach being highly flexible, which sounds like it should have room for some strong AI assistance for the micro-averse players while also allowing detail freaks access to very fine-grained choices.
IMO, the best case scenario for both Elemental and GC3 will yield games that "Very few people really want" to play in all the different ways they *can* be played.
Except for the economic system and population (and colonization, though I don't know where you're getting that from), all of those systems were either introduced in GalCiv2 entirely or were substantially altered in GC2 compared to GC1. They even changed how the map works from GC1 to GC2, something I didn't propose.
So there is quite a lot of precident for substantial change from one iteration of the series to another.
They have about a dozen pre-designed ships anyone can use. But the Design your Own ship feature has to be one of the coolest damn things I've ever seen. It's almost more fun than playing the game itself, making some big bad boy ship and then watch it in action obliterate everything in it's path!
That's the real reason why the AI usually sucks in combat, because the 'predesigned ships' the computer offers you always are horrible, and those are what the AI uses. What makes the AI tough though, are the pure 'masses' of these ships they throw at you, especially on high difficulty levels, it's quite crazy.
What I really want to see is a Time Travel Ship... say you are getting pounded and are about to be defeated near the end game (after 8 years of playing 'game time'), just in time you are able to research the 'time travel' tech. You pump out an 'UBER time-travel capable mega battle cruiser' just in time before your last planet is about to be taken.
Then you have it go 5 years back in time, have to replay more than half the game again, and you destroy everyone with that single ship, and win.
That would be great! J/K by the way.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
