I've been playing since the game went gold. Here's my opinions on the game.
(Using 1.02 opt in atm)
I'm a little disappointed overall - I feel like I'm playing a beta.
All the game site reviews gave it excellent marks, but I see TONS of things they need to improve. I only purchased it when it came out because of the "NEVER AVAILABLE via DLC" ship parts pack, and honestly, I'm not even sure which ship parts those are. I only mess around in the designer long enough to make a sensor boat or a forger that can go really really fast to the other end of the map.
UI elements need a lot of improvement. I find myself using auto-hotkey so I can tell the game to do things like purchase the rush option (which is something you really need to do a lot of if you're specializing planets)
You can't easily select "next idle ship", next idle colony, next colony almost done with construction, etc - there should be options for things like this.
When telling my ships to survey or explore, it'd be really nice if I could tell them to STAY OUT OF ENEMY SPACE unless we have an open borders treay.
Constructors - holy hell, these suck. I've crashed the game numerous times just trying to get these guys to come out to my starbases. Had some starbases really amped up I thought for defense and such and the AI just swoops in and kills them - totally made me ignore starbases for my next couple of games.
Scrolling in the planet list - if I scroll where there is text, it takes forever, but if I scroll where the planets are it's tolerable.
Sound is buggy as hell. It works fine for a while, then it doesn't. I've never finished a game and heard the sound on the victory 'movie'. I might as well just turn off the sound for this game.
Crashes - oh.. the crashes.. This game likes to crash a lot. Especially after I've spent 20 minutes in the diplomacy screens working out deals for the AI's starbases or colonies. CTD after CTD. Save early, save often. Most of the crashes aren't reproducible, and I don't feel like making support tickets (besides they'd just say take out your custom race mod, etc)
Typos. 1.01 and 1.02 did fix a lot of these, but I still see some. It's just discouraging that the game went gold and they didn't go and fix the stupid typos.
"Enter" on the Shipyard screen does not equal "Done" like it does everywhere else
Desperately in need of more / customizable hotkeys.
BUG - You can queue upgrades for all your ships even if you don't have the money. This will make you go negative, and then the game will modify all your sliders for money. You know -those sliders I meticulously set for each planet because they are all specialized.
Map Icon / color should not be locked into the race settings. If I want to change it each game, I have to copy my custom race and change it.
Now, some good points
The game is VERY Mod Friendly. I've made a custom race that gives me a head start on the map.
I've practically eliminated constructors by having 1000 of them built into starbases once they're built (yes, the AI gets to use this too). Now the only constructors floating around are the initial builders. (there's enough stuff floating around late game we don't need 50 constructors confusing it more)
I've made starbases a LOT harder to kill (again, for the AI as well) by ramping up their initial Hit Points.
Even with all the crashes, I still keep playing the game. I'm always thinking "Oh what thing can I tweak next to make it behave the way I want it to?".. I've finished with conquest, peace, research, and ascension victories. I can't seem to win with an influence victory.
I'll think of more - is this constructive? I want to give my feedback where it will make a difference, but I don't feel like making numerous tickets.
FrogBoy, with all due respect, every forum I have ever participated in has had rude people and whiners. Every forum. Stardock's rude people are incredibly polite by internet standards. So he called your game "a steaming pile" on release, so what? He mocked the beta process, so what? Let it go.
As a developer you have to allocate scarce resources across an ever-widening list of needs and you have to make a decision to release the game. If you don't do that you're going to go bankrupt. Having said that, you have to acknowledge (and have acknowledged) that GalCiv3 is not the game you want it to be. It wasn't at release and it isn't now. That's why you've got people still actively working on improving the game.
If the game isn't where you want it to be (with everything you know about the sausage-making process), then how can you be surprised that some people are disappointed with the state of the game? Some people, including myself, suggested that the release be held off to further polish the game, but you didn't do that because economically it didn't make sense. Judging by the sales, that was a great decision. So own it.
You were very public in the beta process about how the GC2 we all know and love was the product of a long series of expansions and patches, and that the original game was a mess. GC3 is in a much better spot than GC2 was after release. So what? That's not the standard you, or anyone else, is holding this game to. Be proud of that.
The screaming, unwashed masses don't understand your grand vision, so what? It's your vision and you're in a position to see it through (if you want).
This is your forum, and there's nothing that says you have to feed the trolls here. If you don't like what a person is saying about the game, don't respond. There are numerous threads in these forums talking about features and mods, tons of positive feedback, respond on those threads. I expect that if you don't seek out and confront the trolls then you'll find participating in these forums is much more enjoyable experience.
You are correct. It is much worse. You have made it a point to interupt several threads with you strident complaints that do come off as saying the game is broken. When you get confronted about the way you presented possibly valid complaints, you responded with even less courteous language. Then you respond with commennts about personal preferences and you were trying to help and the world always misunderstands you. The world understands you just fine. You obviously know how to speak in literate gamer hyperbole, therefore you know how obnoxious and conversation killing it is. Therefore I cannot see anyone in any business needing to be courteous to you in return. Stardock has been much more courteous to you than you will ever deserve, and you will always see it as an attack. Anyway, whatever good things you had to say have gotten lost in the shrill noise generated. That part is a shame, and it isn't Stardock's fault. It is most obviously yours.Just so you know how someone else would frame it. Do what thou wilt.
Take a midol. I am no making it personal neither should you. Nobody should be dismissing feedback or ending discussions with feedback in them that include the developers. Just because someone on here can't speak intelligently doesn't mean all developers need to sink to that level. I like the game a lot but there is a clear divergence between the reviews and where the game, actually played is really at.
I can say I had CTD`s after release but since beta 1.01 everything runs fine and stable. But of course further patches are always welcome.
Plenty of people are making noise and that could be a good way to put it. Both of these issues are just nice to haves (yes i would like them too) but have little impact on game play
The excess mfg and research points DO go into the next project. Luck has nothing to do it, works every time. There are issues with the game but these are total winny nits.
I completely disagree. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But please try to remember that's what it is - an opinion.
I also have to disagree, I find the game every bit as much fun to play as the reviews suggest and that it does have a few minor flaws forgivable because of it's size and scope as reviews also tend to mention. I think the professional reviews are a good reflection of the game at least in my subjective opinion.
As to the idea that stardock continuing to keep a team working on the game is an admission that it was not ready for release or that they don't think the game is good as is. That's nonsense, Stardock have always continued to add to and tune their games long after release, look at GC2 if you want proof of that. It is simple Stardocks policy not to abandon their games upon release.
Perhaps the biggest flaw I've noticed is that the AI has two big issues; it is terrible at forming proper fleets, often sending ships piecemeal to die, and an inability to protect planets from landing forces. Though the latter is likely, at least in part, a symptom of the former.
I agree which makes them a pushover. They need to be a credible threat, not dump a bunch of resources into something that can be picked apart piecemeal. I mean great is some AI do attack like that, break their forces into 50 different task forces, and then recombine just before an attack, but if they all handle it the same and all handle it poorly well that is no good. No good at all.
Guess I must be playing a different game.
Or, well, a different difficulty level. On challenging I got hit in two straight games with stacks of 9-10 ships (we are talking turn 50-100 or so, I wonder if they use a different logistics scale or something!), sometimes escorting transports. Very dicey situations developed. And they didn't just come straight at me they sometimes raided from behind me. Every time I left any are unguarded some raider fleet weaseled their way in. It was nasty to lose 2 or 3 starbases and a colony before I could respond, and when I did fight them they weren't packing pea shooters. Bloody mess; well I beat them but I definitely could have used a "bigger boat" or 10.
Perhaps I didn't load the "pushover" race mod? Hmmm, I have 96 factions might have missed it.
EDIT
Forgot to mention the fairly frequent message I got when getting ready to assault one of the AI colonies: "Defended by 17 ships".
WOOOOOSH!
As to the AI, there's a core problem of complexity and completeness. The more complicated (and sophisticated) a strategy the AI employs the more likely a single mistake or unanticipated event will make that strategy seem foolish. That was a the core of the problem where the AI was not properly developing its planets (it was trying to be clever by waiting for new techs, but then the tech they wanted wasn't ever researched because the research priorities changed). And that's likely at the core of the problems with sending ships piecemeal to die rather than making fleets.
A slight change in parameters might result in that same behavior being overwhelmingly effective.
GC3 is larger and more complex than GC2 and that increase in scale means the opportunity for the AI to fail has grown exponentially.
First time player here. Overall, I'm enjoying the game. I'm playing as the Terrans on an immense map. I think I'm about a quarter ways through the game so far. The Krynn have attacked me without provocation! But I'm holding my own because my ships outclass theirs.
Here are some of my thoughts:
To be honest, with respect to visual appeal, I think I like the GCII map grid layout is a little better than GCIII's. I just like having territorial and starbase boundaries as rounded or circular in contrast to the sharp, angular hexagonal layout.
Great space battles! They're definitely better developed than GCII's. I had another idea for weapon visual effects, if this hasn't been done. If you recall the first Star Trek movie, I really like the effects of the V'ger probe's plasma torpedo: a ball of light surrounded by a buzz of electricity. Instead of exploding, ships destroyed by the torpedo are enveloped by a blanket of light and electricity and then disintegrate into nothingness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpfspdqGwEk
Perhaps this is something I haven't found in the interface yet, but in GCII, I liked being able to set a rally point to a point in space. From what I found in GCIII, rally points can only be set to planets and starbases.
Another thing that might be handy is a quick map reset feature in turn 1, like what Civ V has. I like having games where my empire starts roughly in the centre of the star map. I find it more fun to explore and encounter other races that way. A quick map reset feature would be helpful, rather than constantly returning to the main menu to start a new game.
I too have been experiencing crashes. Also, there are bugs with hot keying ships to be sentry (so i can actually click next turn). I have also noticed some diplomatic bugs (very hard to confirm. Seem to think I have ships in there territory when I don't (I checked for scouts/survey ships). The economy setting sphere thing has some delays/"wonkyness" sometimes when adjusting it. I despise the new trend of releasing games early. Hopefully we keep seeing a healthy continuation of patches.
I have no doubt they will patch it. As they also release several expansions packs to compliment the original game, standalone packs and well the history of the series is very good here. The Expansion packs have been very good at adding depth and expanding as they should on the original game. I also do not like the trend of releasing before the product is polished a.k.a. done. But everybody's done meter is different. I think you have to play it without trying to test anything just to note where the product is strong and where it is weak.
Missing Diplomacy options, Trade lockouts, Fleet management, AI behaviors such as repetitive tic like message relays, and constructing of their empires, they have some weaknesses, while some of them seriously are annoying the ones that affect the challenge of the game are the most serious. While not catastrophically broken they don't present the same level of kick ass as in previous iterations.
What I think they do get right is the size and scope of the largest maps, the fact that you'll play for weeks or months even and it can literally become the defining experience for someone into PC games for a season. I really also do like the depth of the ship construction and when they get the battle viewer to focus on ships it will be even better. Maybe they will work on developing an actual tactical command system which could give you control over the big battles if you want it. I also like the 6 hex system over the 4 sided grids but overall I feel the default number of resources is too high on the map. I will be working to lower that in the next game I start.
It would have been nice if creating races was faster/easier as well. It takes a good 5-10 min per race to add. When you can add up to 128 that is a substantial time investment for all that individualism.
If anyone is experiencing crashes, fist I apologize that you are having issues with your game. We want nothing more than to get those issues fixed. Thank you to everyone who has submitted an issue with support, those crash dumps are gold to the developers. You may feel like if the game crashes for you that it may be as simple as running the game to get the crash ourselves, but it's solid for us, as it is for most players. That doesn't remove our responsibility of getting it fixed for those that are having issues, just that your help in getting us the details would be great.
If you have a save that reproduces a crash, those are even better (because not only can we see the issue, we can use it to test the fix).
Thanks.
Like I said my crashes got fixed after beta 1.01. But maybe increasing the pagefile did help too. I don`t know.
I'd like to give some feedback on the AI actually. Good and bad. And I want to start by saying that the AI is spectacular considering how many rules it has to play by and how many factors it has to take into account. But, I think the economic performance isn't quite up to GalCiv2 yet. When playing GalCiv2, I remember playing on the hardest settings and having the AI economies outpace me. Thus I was left up to my strategy to win the game, because I was outclassed economically. I couldn't produce as many ships as the AI, I didn't have as many planets, etc. However, it's different with GalCiv3.
I'm playing a game right now on the hardest settings, and I'm outpacing everyone economically. Part of the problem is I don't think the AI is playing as efficiently as I am. None of their planets seem to be specialized. And planet specialization is crucial given the new mechanics. Here's why - GalCiv3 is all about the ships. Let me explain.
I believe the shipyard mechanics are the key difference in GalCiv2 and GalCiv3 strategies. In GalCiv2 I don't remember being able to create planets as powerful as I can in GalCiv3, mostly due to the new adjacency bonuses. And since planets lose their effectiveness to contribute to shipyards with distance, it makes sense to place shipyards near powerful manufacturing planets. In fact, in my games my planets are split up into three categories: Manufacturing, Research, and Wealth. This is nothing new - players have been doing this since GalCiv2. But diversifying your planetary abilities was also an option in GalCiv2, and a valid one. It's simply not in GalCiv3 because of the shipyard mechanics.
Because of the distance loss in manufacturing, there's really no point to having diversified planets. Planets that are far away from shipyards are better off focusing on something that will not be degraded by distance, like research or wealth. Now, you might say that you can build a shipyard at every planet if you wanted to, but I would counter that the strategic advantage of having ships produced in smaller numbers, but quickly, outweighs the advantage of being able to produce a ship anywhere, but with a long wait. Especially when it comes to exploring and colonizing new planets. This may explain why I have more planets and resources than any of the AI players. So I have huge manufacturing complexes, usually on planets that provide the most adjacency bonuses. I couple that with manufacturing starbases, and I have incredibly powerful shipyards.
The rest of my planets I focus on research or wealth. And since I don't intend to divert their manufacturing to shipyards, I build only what manufacturing is necessary to quickly build up my research or wealth on that planet.
The AI just doesn't get this. I see many AI planets I conquer where there's no attempt to specialize the planet. I see AI planets where there are no uses of the adjacency bonuses, or at least not wise uses. I see AI planets where some of the tiles (sometimes half) are not being used. It's like the AI decided that there was a higher priority than filling the planets with buildings. But that's a fallacy. Due to the adjacency bonuses, the AI should prioritize ALWAYS filling its planets with buildings. That's the only way you can build strong manufacturing and research bases.
I commend Stardock, and especially Brad, for the constant efforts to improve the AI. Honestly, I'm surprised it's as good as it is. I know that me describing good AI, and actually programming it, are two entirely different things. I'm not arrogant enough to believe I would even know where to start on the task myself. I just hope Stardock will read this though, and decide to put a renewed emphasis on the economic aspect of the AI. Particularly in the specialization of planets, since I believe it's the key to GalCiv3 domination, and an area where I believe the AI may still be playing by GalCiv2 rules.
I play against Godlike and Genius exclusively, with the former more so than the latter, vanilla races and copies of vanilla races only. If you're attempting to insinuate I have very little GC3 game time or experience, let it be known you are barking up the wrong tree. I bought it during the beta, helped with testing, have put out a few very small mods (I in fact beat SD proper to a minor AI tweak that is included in 1.02), plus have a, perhaps small, amount of 167 hours of gameplay under my belt. My criticism of the AI stems from games that last a minimum of 80 turns.
With that out of the way, I have yet to come across an AI actually defending a world outside of 2 drones that the Paranoid trait gives. Outside of this lack of fleet behavior I have high opinions of GC3's AI, this just happens to be a very particular sore spot on my end.
I would agree with this. Honestly if the AI just did the following:
1) Forgo all building upgrades until every tile has a building (including terraforming).
2) Build buildings in group. Or at worst, just build the same build on every tile as a shortterm crutch.
These alone would give the AI a big boost. Once it can build with the same power as a human, it actually has a chance to be competitive.
Specialized planets or grouped buildings, and fleets with max logistics. Two small changes that would give the AI a chance.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
