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!!!
You people also watch way too much Star Trek!!!
Or as they had in Freelancer, use mines on a very very small scale to prevent access to certain things like a wormhole. These mines would move toward you if you came close enough to them. But they don't have actual usable wormholes in the game (other than the survey wormholes, which are more annoying than anything).
Ok, did a little research and found that photon torpedoes (or any type of torpedo) are classified as Semi-Autonomous Projectiles. Stated from nextgen tech manual:
"Since photon torpedoes are classified as semi-autonomous weapons, initial firing direction is not a major concern. Most firings involve direct fore or aft vectors, within ten degrees of the vehicle centerline."
So torpedoes do have guidance, use their antimatter warhead as propulsion until detenation. They can be fired any direction, but I would assume within 10 degrees in when captains want to fire, as to use less of the warhead and to not give the enemy the ability to do evasive maneuvers.
The photon torpedo will accelerate to max cruising velocity of +0.75 x launch velocity / speed of light. The photon torpedo cannot go into warp.
"The multimode sustainer engine is not a true warp engine due to its small physical size... Rather, it is a miniature M/A fuel cell, which powers the sustainer coils to grab and hold a hand-off field from the launcher tube, to continue at warp if launched during warp flight by the starship."
Phton torpedoes have a range of 15 to nearly 3,500,000 km's from the starship.
So I suppose it would be rather similar to a missle, or a guided bomb... although they usually classify it as a projectile (from what I've found), although that is pretty much the same thing.
Missle sounds too old skool for a futuristic space game, maybe they should use Energy Weapons, Mass Drivers, and Projectile weapons instead... sounds a bit more realistic than using missles, chaff, ecm, etc.
Even ignoring the technical... inadiquacies, the name is just wrong: Torpedoes are for use under WATER. Anything that goes in the air or in space is called a MISSILE.
I like that! It meshes perfectly with my idea for a recruitment system:
Every turn, the computer takes your recruitment number (RePs), multiplies it by each planet's approval rating, maybe divides it by some other set number to balance it out ( I won't even attempt to come up w/ that number right now) and applies it to that planet's population. The number produced from this equation(sp?) becomes the number of soldiers enlisted into that planet's army.
The number of soldeirs recruited per planet per turn should range from the low 10s for very low-recruitment civs to the 10,000s or even high 100,000s for very high-recruitment civs. Note: Numbers may need to change in order to achieve balance/realism. Note 2: These numbers are based on the assumption that while 1 "unit" of population actually represents 1 Million people, 1 soldier "unit" actually represents one soldier.
The base ReP number is treated like all other numbers e.g. affected by political parties, racial abilities, etc.
You can build improvements like recruiting offices, conscription centers for evil civs, etc. that raise your RePs @ the planetary or civ-wide level, maybe even a galactic resource or anomaly.
There is a slider on the Domestic Policy window that sets your recruitment spending. Note: 0% Recruitment spending does NOT equal 0 RePs. It's like the colony propeganda slider from GC1. It is one way, albiet probably the main way, to add RePs to the base stock each player is assigned @ the start, along with improvements, maybe anomalies & resources, and techs.
After each turn, recruited soldiers are stored on the plantes they came from, just like regular popolation, maybe with a cap that cam be raised by "military base" improvements, techs, or other stuff.
Maybe have a lag from when you change your RePs to when those changes actually appear, since soldiers need to be trained for a few weeks.
Transports can carry soldiers from one of your planets to another, when they do so, they drop off their passengers, enter orbit, and when launched can pick up more soldiers.
For invasions, the soldiers from the transport fight to the death against the soldiers on the planet. If the invasion succeeds, the planet's population stays the same, and the surviving soldiers become that planet's soldiers, but maybe some invasion tactics include killing a certain % of civillians.
If they did that, they would probably need to add in such a thing as 'resisting civilians' which would hurt planetary production and research, as well as economics, and no influence would be generated until the 'resistance is stomped'. Civilian resistance would be based on how 'happy' the population was before you took it. If approval was at 50%, then only that 50% that was happy would resist.
Good idea. Maybe have a % of the population go away depending on approval, to symbolize the loyalists heading into the hills or somewhere.
Big topic.... didn't read it all. There's one issue I've been thinking about though, (NOTE I am not a veteran player and thus my suggestion may already be present in the game)
There's no reason (as far as I can see) to have fleets of mixed-sized ships.
Once I research the next size hull, everything I create is that size. Naturally if I see an attack coming and only have time to spit out a smaller ship I'll do so, but it's rare that I force myself to have mixed fleets of fighters, corvettes cruisers etc. My suggestion is as follows:
Give unique bonuses to each size of ship.
Lasers/beam weapons are more or less instantaneous. Guns on the other hand take time to reach their target. Since tiny hulls are smaller targets, they'd get a good % chance of not being hit by gun weapons. Small hulled ships would also receve this bonus but it would be reduced. Similarly, after a ship has a speed rating of "X" or highers it would also gain that % chance of avoiding a gun hit.
Large and huge ships may get a % chance of weathering beam weapon attacks better, small ships are more adept at fighting other small ships, gun weapons may be better for puncing through the hull of a capital ship etc. It would be much more rewarding while designing a ship to really think about tactical situations. Maybe design a bomber for capital ship engagement and deploy it alongside a space superiority fighter. Create a large capital ship bristling with lasers to defend your missile gunships.... missiles could even be granted the first strike due to longer range.
I like the idea of each hull having its own bonuses, as well as an "accuracy" component to weapons. It would be great if someone better acquainted with the combat aspect of the game could flesh this out a little more.
The reason is that large-size hulled ships are fundamentally better per-unit-cost. They pack more firepower per-unit-logistics, they have more Hp per-unit logisists, and they cost less than the equivalent Hp/firepower/logistics of smaller ships.
You don't need to add a % chance of missing (the game's combat has enough random factors, thank you). You just need to make the smaller ships more efficient in some way. For example, a fleet of medium hulled ships could have more firepower than large hulled ships given the same logistics. However, the medium ships would be more expensive overall. That way, a player who is limited in logistics but brimming over with production can focus on smaller ones. If that's too much, you can replace miniturization techs with hulls, so that there's a real competition. That'd require ditching that silly "sizemod" thing that makes miniturization far less useful than a new hull.
Alternative, have specialized modules that can only be installed on ships below a certain size. A "Tactical Maneuvering" drive would give the ship greater base defense. A "Tactical Assault" module would allow the ship to gain a bonus to attack. These modules would need to be small, since they're going on smaller ships, but so long as their buffs are sufficient to make smaller ships valuable, they would be worthwhile.
Personally though, I'd go with the first one: making smaller ships more logistics efficient. Large hulled ships can be more cost-efficient.
While your points are valid, fleet combat would need to be redone for there to be any chance of anything other than huge hulls being worthwhile (apart from the TA modules, at least).
What random factors? Everything is predetermined based on attack, defense, and HP. If you do 1,000 battles using the same ships, they will always turn out exactly the same way.
Uhm, no, they won't.
Both attack and defense roll from minimum value (0 before luck, which only applies to attack) to maximum value (and in the case of DA+TA each weapon rolls separately).
Oh? I have to admit I don't know that much about the combat aspect of the game: I prefer culture-bombing.
I agree, to make units have advantages and disadvantages makes the game more interesting. I had a post a few pages back somewhere that mentioned something similar, they could add where a ship you make would become a certain 'class' and each class would have an advantage and disadvantage. No class would have nothing associated with it.
Hence, if you add the fighter class to a small hull, it would gain 'increased firepower vs. medium and higher hulled ships, and gain an increase in defense if in a fighter fleet', yet would 'have less defense against corvette classes'. Adding a class would be the same as adding anything else to a ship (module, weapon, defense, etc) and would have a cost associated with it.
Same idea as Spearman has more defense against horseman... type thing. This would make small hulled fighters much more effective against larger hulled ships. Yet there could be a large variety to choose from to really spice up space battles and keep people thinking on what the best ship to build is.
The only thing is, most of the time, 'very close-pitched battles' don't happen too often. I have had a few (actual quite a few) in my current game, only because the Korath had their ships decked out pretty much the same as mine were. So it always came down to who had more ships in their fleets. Or who had more 'bigger ships' in the fleet.
But most of the time, the AI isn't smart enough to combine 2 fleets together and attack en-masse a turn later. Usually battles are rather lop-sided (and usually against the AI). Most common time where it is the other-way-around is if the AI attacks somewhere on an immense galaxy, and catches the player off guard because that player is not paying attention to a spot way back in the back.
This is the reason why Stardock NEEDS to make weapon and defense research something that all civ's need to do on more of the same time-scale. To keep all civ's somewhat competitive.
Something I just thought of based on an otherwise unrelated "Stealth" comment earlier -
Active and Passive sensors and Ship 'Noise' - Anyone that has ever played "Red Storm Rising" is aware of what I'm talking about - Some ships are big and active and you know where they are a hundred miles away.
Others you may notice because they are a bit quieter than the ocean around them. Or you may glide right past one another until you hear the torpedo launch.
It would add a strategic dimension not there at the moment, for component to make a ship 'brighter' from a sensor detection aspect - sure you can build Battleships and Dreadnought - and the other side can see exaactly where they are too. Think maybe something is getting throught the crack? toggle on the active sensors and light them up.
That would be realistic, add some startegic depth to the game, and of course forst and foremost -
It would be sooooo cooooool!
Jonnan
I know tyhe game has some random factors in battles, what I was talking about wasn't random. I'm talking about bonuses in certain areas so that these 'random rolls' have tangible benefits.
Isn't that kind of the point? It's a whole new game we're talking about, not another addon. Everyone's already screaming for tactical combat to be in the game so I can guess that fleet combat with either be player controlled or at least be revamped in some way.
What I'd really like to see is something along the lines of what Star Wars: Rebellion did for their combat: tactical fleet combat where maneuvering to get the best shot was key, IE bringing your guns to bear as quickly as you can (most guns were along the side) only with this game there's so many more options for weaponry. What I see in more detail is:
- Large area to maneuver, ships starting far enough away from each other that they need to get into position to fire.
- Groups can be created and deployed before the fight begins (a la total war)
- Ships can be selected, grouped and given a formation or selected on its own
------------------------
- Damage is based on where your guns are: if your weapons are lined along the sides, broadsiding while you maneuver through or around ships will give a bonus to damage, if your weapons are concentrated near the front more damage is to be had by keeping your ship in line with your target. This could be the big "tactical" aspect of the game, allowing a smart admiral to win a battle over an otherwise superior opponent.
- Certain 'terrain' like asteroids, nebulas etc could help in creating an advantage: parking your ship in a nebula would hide your ship until yours fires, and any ship firing into it would see a damage penalty from reduced accuracy.
- Ship speed helps not only in movement points but in manuevering, which is the crux of tactical combat.
- Depending on where the shields /hp boosters are placed, there are better ways to engage ships: if an opponent's ship has its guns and armor along its side, try to send whatever its targeted as bait then attack from the front.
-------------------------
- Tiny craft get a +50% chance of evading gun weapons, +20% to evade missiles (due to fast speed)
- Small craft get a +20% chance of evading gun fire
- Large and huge craft get bonuses to negating laser damage and are on the whole the best logostics-to-wepons ratio, but are beasts to maintain.
- Ships in orbit require no maintenance (is this already in the game)
- Missile weapons get the first strike due to longer range, but ships could have a command "hold position and defed" where they'd focus their weapons on destroying incoming missiles. The longer away, the beter chance they'd be knocked out (unless a fighter carries it and gets in close)
- Laser weapons are overall the most accurate and best for eliminating fighters, but are generally weaker.
- gun weapons pack the most punch but have a better chance of missing smaller/faster targets
About the tech tree...............
There should be certain pre-requisite techs for the majority of them.
Such as Doom Ray. It would require Massive Scale Building, Discovery Spheres, Supreme Miniaturization, Etc.
And more advanced techs should only become available after a certain period of time. Sortof like in Total War, where gunpowder is first created in the year 1239 and no one can build gunpowder weapons until after that time (1243 since the gun foundry takes 4 years to build).
So Banking Centers would only become available after year 2234 and Stock Markets would become available after year 2241 or something like that.
Turns should also be counted in months (at the least), weeks is way too short. It should be counted in years at the most. Thus making the waiting periods for aquiring certain techs more bearable.
Also certain civilizations (based on creativity, racial traits, etc.) would get access to certain techs much faster.
So take the Drengin for example. They would have access to weapons techs much faster, but it would take them a longer time to be able to research stock markets. The Thalan would be able to build the Industrial Sector much quicker, but they would not be able to access Discovery Spheres for years. And the list goes on.
Does anyone see what I'm getting at with this?
So more like GC1's tech tree.
GC2's tech tree does support multiple prerequisites, but it won't show you in the tree what the other prerequisites are (although it shows on each prerequisite that it "unlocks" the tech in question), because GC2's tree wasn't designed with that in mind.
This is an interesting idea, but I'm completely in opposition to it at present. Who are you to dictate how fast we can research? Or anyone else, for that matter.
Yes, that would make the above a somewhat better idea. Turns were months in GC1, you know. Months do seem like a good timeframe.
Okay, now that sounds like a good idea.
I still don't like the whole "you can't research hyperdrive until 2228" or whatever thing, though.
I second reviving the GC1 tree!!!!!!!!!
As for the other conditions, I am opposed to the idea of certain techs becoming available at set time intervals. However, I would like to see other conditions such as finding a certain anomaly, or mining a specific resource/building a specific improvement. Also, more resorces that allow you to do special things and build special ships, sort of like in Civ 4.
Like, a miniaturization resource, a speed boost resource, an asteroid mining resource, a terror star resource , a planet quality resource, a soldiering resource, a loyalty resource, and a production resource to name a few.
And some resources that allow to you have special modules that you can add to your ships, only if you control that resource though, and those special modules that may already be on your ships only work while you continue to control that resource. E.g. Super Sensor Resource, if you mine it, it unlocks a Super Sensor module that you can add to your ships (that gives, say +2 sensors). If an enemy destroys your Super Sensor Resource Mine, your ships will still have the module, but lose the +2 sensors ability (unless you recapture the mine).
GC3 and the TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC ASPECT!
This has probably been said before, but I will say it again, since I feel it is important for GC3. Having all 'pure open space' is probably the most realistic, but takes almost any type of Strategic Play out of the game completely. (Make it an option during game setup... Amount of crap in galaxy: Dense, Full, Average, Sparse, Empty).
Just as example (not comparing), take Civilization (or many other types of those games), the main element of strategy came from the terrain. Mountains provided excellent defense, as did hills, rivers gave defense when defending on the other side, terrain made chokepoints and oceans divided territory, making it tougher to invade from the other side. These things often made the difference between VICTORY and DEFEAT!
I loved looking over the map trying to figure out the best way to overcome a superior enemy, or to defeat an opposing force the best way possible... because there were so many ways to do it! Civ3's WW2 Global mod made by Rocoteh and many others (myself included in some aspects) was a masterpiece of history which really made you use terrain to it's fullest ability to gain advantages.
Now these things can't directly apply to GalCiv (for obvious reasons), but many of their ideas can be implemented. Developing different kinds of space 'terrain' would not be too difficult, as there are many 'exotic' theories abound about various types of voids, matters, and all types of stuff that could be used.
You could have Interplanetary Space, Heliopause, Interstellar Medium, Interstellar Space, Subspace Corriders, Antimatter Clouds, Nebula, Clusters, Nova Remnants, Dust Clouds, Intergalactic Voids, Dense Asteroid Fields (other than the mining ones), Star System Belts, Solar Winds, Star Forming Regions, Exotic Matter Fields, Hydrogen Clouds, Energetic and Large-Scale Galactic Center, Filamentary Structures, Spiraling Magnetic Fields, High-Radiation Areas, Galactic Walls, Arcs and Space Threads, Paranormal Time Fabrics, Cataclysmic Variables, Gas Streams, Ionized Clusters, Lyman Alpha-Blobs, Dark Energy and Dark Matter Regions, Fractures in Space, JUST TO NAME A FEW! There's almost an endless variety!!!!!!!!
It wouldn't make the map some crazed messy looking thing, If graphics are done right, you would hardly notice the differences, they would be subtle, yet they would be there!
EXAMPLES:
1. Solar Winds would be like rivers, allowing you to travel slightly faster when in their path and more slowly into them.
2. Filamentary Structures would act like 'defensive barriers' giving ships on the other side a defensive bonus if an attacker has to cross the filament.
3. Voids would give increased sensor range since they are completely empty. (Voids differ from Space in that Voids are perfect vacuums).
4. Nebula would be incredibly dangerous regions to enter and likely to damage/destroy ships (would be good to create game chokepoints).
5. Asteroid fields and Star System Belts (like the Kupier Belt) give defensive bonus to ships. The list could go on and on.
IM TELLING YOU! Much better than making every ship, and having every ship fly through nothing until it reaches it's destination in nothing... this would create the TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC ASPECT to the game, that it is currently missing!
Hell (I know it says I am very evil down below, but really i'm not), to take it a step further.... as what could be similar to earth roads, which allow faster travel... eventually you should be able to set up certain inter-planetary space routes, which allow ships to travel slightly faster from planet to planet.
A Constructor would set up certain modules and beacons along the way to assist ships travel speeds (similar to a worker building a road).
These types of things are a must... so that way ALL civ's can better defend there territories! If you start to invade one portion of their empire, and that empire has space routes constructed, they will be able to bring over reinforcements faster. These things would also create more of a 'FEEL' that it is your empire that you have constructed and worked hard to keep together.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
