Greetings!
So the team is starting work on the next major expansion pack. But we also want to keep an eye on the base game.
Right now, the recent Steam reviews for GalCiv are pretty awful with most of the people reviewing it doing so because they don't like some of the changes in v2.5. So if there are changes you would like in 2.7 and beyond, this would be the place to ask.
The Steam review system is something I have and will continue to complain about because frankly, it absolutely destroys games. When it's less than 70, a game might as well not exist. So I'll be explicit, if you want us to keep working on GalCiv III, please leave a Steam review. If not, don't. If you already have, thank you!
As many of you know, I am AI biased. But I know I'm in a minority because there is another space strategy game outselling GalCiv III and, suffice to say, AI is not its focus.
It is clear that narratives in games matter. GalCiv has a quest system ala Fallen Enchantress/Sorcerer King. But we have tried to avoid doing that because we don't want the game to be a series of scripted narratives. We don't plan to change that position in the base game but we are looking at releasing DLC that will do that if players want it.
Now, the next major expansion pack focuses on politics and government. So we'll set all that aside for now. Otherwise, it's all open. What would you like to see?
Since you are no longer going to do DLC
So what your saying is I have to buy the next expansion to fix issues with the current game?
Yeah, that's going to happen...
Or mod, or get the latest review scores up.
So what your saying is I have to buy the next expansion to fix issues with the current game? Yeah, that's going to happen...
Not having politics or client states is not a "bug". If you don't want those features, then don't buy it.
The next expansion will be next year which will focus on politics and empire building.
Can you give us some crumbs on what Empire building entails?
Let's try this so perhaps the pricing concept will sink in to even the fanboys.
Ok, so company A (Stardock) sells a game for $40, sells some because their prior games didn't suck too bad (although Fallen Enchanterss sucked, IMO) I purchase said game because I enjoyed a few of their previous games. I get GC3, I play it a bit, it is so-so at best and I park it in my Steam library and go on to other things. I revisit it in another 6-12 months, read up on the DLC's buy a few to see if it helps - it is still so-so and tedious. I do back to play Stellaris and other stuff. Another 6 months go by and you hear of Crusade, which is supposed to fix many of the issues that cause you not to play the game. I am already down a fair chunk of change and don't really trust Stardock at this point. So I wait for a sale because I sure am not going to pay full price again (fool me once stuff). Anyway, a Steam sale comes up and low and behold I can buy Crusade for full price $20, or a new person can get the base game, all DLC's including Crusade for $20. I am pissed. Only when Stardock eventually - maybe another 6 months later does what all the other games do and prices the "bundle" based on prior purchases that the deal is acceptable. This is a matter of principle, and I obviously learned an important lesson on never and I mean never buy a game until the reviews are good, the game has been out for a year or so. Brad complaining about customers pissing and moaning about DLC pricing? How about offering the existing loyal customers "bundle" pricing based on prior purchases as an ongoing thing rather than a last ditch effort. Yes, this is a point of ethics and reasonableness and gouging loyal customers who would really like to support smaller developers but put up with this crap. Brad's thinking on this matter will sink the ship....there are only so many fanboys who don't care about getting screwed. And lest you think I am being unreasonable, if Stardock didn't throw a discounted emergency save the game sale to new customers I wouldn't be pissed. This is what the fanboys miss, basic fairness.
What you are missing is that games, all games, go on sale eventually.
There is already a “complete my bundle” offering on the Steam.
There is no principle in your post, Purdy. Whether we are talking books, movies, games, etc. the longer they are out, the less they cost. New releases cost more.
Also, DLCs and expansions don’t “fix” anything. They add new content or new features. The base game has received over 2 years of free updates to fix bugs or improve AI or enhance UI, balance gameplay and even add lots of new features. You didn’t have to pay a cent for any of that. But if you want new features and content then yes, you have to pay for it.
Also, consider this your final warning regarding personal attacks.
Perhaps limit pop cap based on planet class? Terraforming raises the class, so that would be a natural way to also raise the pop cap. Farms mostly can focus on growth (maybe be treated as markets once max pop is reached?), while cities could be a generalist tile (vs factories and research labs as specialty tiles). Cities could grant a smaller % boost to all (like leaders), where the factories/labs/markets can give a higher boost, but to just their area of specialty.
That's an interesting potential solution actually. In the original GalCiv your population was capped by the planet class.
I'm saddened by some of the goings-on here. I will say that I will probably not pick up any expansions until Christmas 2018, but that is for personal reasons. My 2018 is already spoken for--the whole flippin' year.
Anyway, at the root of it, IMHO, is that the free fixes/patches, etc., have been incomplete. Several on here would even be okay with a paid "fixes/rebalances" DLC, if one were available. Some here would not be, but they are basically not okay with something that does not exist. Galciv3's ideation has far outrun its implementation, and that I think is the source of a lot of frustration. A DLC that fixes 90% of the issues is still better than a free patch that only fixes 10%.
I'm really new to this game (only have maybe 50 hours of play time) but there are a few things I'd like to change. Or maybe these options already exist I just haven't figured out how to do them yet?
-Being able to jump to a colony on the map. I know you can zoom into the city but knowing where its located on map would be helpful. having the overview map center on a specific colony name would be useful.
-It would be nice to show the Race owner name when hovering over colonies, rather than just the banner, which can sometimes even be ambiguous.
-Being able to "repeat" build of missions like treasure hunt. It will save hundreds, maybe thousands of repetitive clicks per game
-being able to upgrade ships with unique items, rather than having to decommission them first.
-An in-game knowledge base/help. There is no help or doc in the game. Please check out the Civilization games and see how they did that. Its extremely useful.
Thanks
That would work for me. Once farms create enough food for their planet obviously Frogboy's idea is that any excess goes to another planet in your civilization - which is a good improvement BTW - but I'd like to see Food become Trade Good. This could be done in one of two ways:
1: The Diplomacy Screen - where you trade with other races and Food is listed under Resources.
2: Something that your freighter sends (the game is totally non-specific about what your selling from your freighter, just what you get in bcs for what you've sold. Maybe when you send your freighter off to find a trading partner, you should be able to say "Load Freighter 7 with x tons of Food/Minerals etc"
Yes Purdypog,
what a statement. Please go and play Stellaris which cost the double and has nothing content, lol. If I see the last dlc synthetic dawn which costs 10 € for 4 Pictures and a little story. Every noob mod has more content. And the game is so simple every single game is still exactly the same because you can only do one thing. Big fleet asap, attack lose or win, finish. You are sooo funny!!!
Do you write the same in the paradox forum ? "What f...ing price policy, I leave you and play Endless Space or some like that" Your post is an absolutely joke but there are people like you they can't anything else but crap, crap, crap!!!
May be it is for GC4 but I am against separate screens for managing and modal dialogs. It necessary to improve UI usability. GC3 UI is very close to GC2 - it is necessary to rework it.
The main map can be used more effectively used/interactive. Why it necessary to have starbase assignment in separate screen - for me it will be more convinient to do it on the main map.
Or chose ship to build on starbase - endless lists of ship to find appropriate one and 80% of screen is used for display ship (it is nice for first times, but if you are playing a lot you figure out - all this space of screen is not used).
And endless scroll to choose correctpondent item - build/ship and so on.... - it is not funny. May even if you display only icons with description on hover be more effective.
So there are a tons of UI things that can be improved. The main goal to reduce amount of steps/screen switch to perform actions.
Could you explain "modal dialogs"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_window
1. Military starbases-Race with ability similar to the vigilant ability- need to destroy nearby mil starbases before you can invade planets in the system with legions, their government is relocated to a nearby mil starbases. Maybe the mil starbase can be invaded by legions, ground combat inside the huge starbase.
2. New space bound race and ability-allows race to build starbases and live in them similiar to planets. They don't colonize planets but livein starbases, they can't survive on the planets because of gravity, weak and fragile race but highly intelligent. Higher logistics techwill unlock more starbases and modules/tiles for race to colonize and build.
3. Dead Worlds – Survey ships should be able to survey almost anything on the map, takes 5 -10 turns: dead planets, planets with moons, stars, asteroids, etc.
Random loot or small increase in research.
1. More admin. The lack of admin early and mid game is very annoying and seems to cause the AI to never have a lot of planets.
2. AI with cities. I have seen a few, but this is very few on normal. I hear of a worse situation on higher difficulty levels.
3. Some costs are outrageous. Citizens are one. Legion especially, which may be part of the reason they are so few garrisons if the AI does not choose Generals.
4. Those poor synthetics... Pop resource cost is too high. Suggested change would be half the durantium and add 1 or 2 Thulium(?).
5. Code organic races to build farm worlds on bread basket and thin atmo worlds. Both give a bonus to food. We use it, the AI should too.
6. Fix all the stupid data errors such as the bad ideology text. Is it 1pt per 2 turns or 1pt per 10? Text says one, data says another.
There are so many tiny bugs with the data I would be ashamed as a developer. Bugs are a fact of life with any software, but to leave them and not fix them is unacceptable. If you plan on doing another expansion but don't plan on fixing bugs... Well, I really like the game and I don't want to miss any future expansion or DLC because of stupid decisions...
Just my two cents.
Oh yes the data confusing! For example fleet logistic. I have now always the same fleet structur. Logistic is 100. But some fleets have 120/100 and some 93/100 but all fleets works!
My current test game is in turn 675. I eliminated 5 other species and overtake 57 Planets. There were not 1 city!
The faction ranking says iam the last of all but strong enough to be in war with the first 3 empires. They are sooo weak!
I don't understand that... The best enemy planet i found had 84 ship production! My best planet at the moment has around 700 ship production. Why the AI is not able to optimize there worlds like this?
I love that game sooooo much. I played it over 400 hours.
But those things HAVE TO FIX PLEASE!!!! (And there are much more things like this )
The best thing you can do is stop it crashing on saving a game or when autosave comes on or make it so the game loads in less than 2 minutes like it used to.
That is heavily dependent on how much stuff you have installed from Steam Workshop.
Well that sounds good, but I tend to binge play games sometimes 20 hours non-stop on the weekend; when a game is constantly on the same screen after several hours I can feel my brain turn to mush. You ever play Rome Total War 2 and auto resolve the battles? I felt myself becoming dumber and quit playing. All the improvements are done right from the campaign map screen. There is no visual stimulation to keep your brain active and it just shuts down. I also hate tooltips, and would prefer a new screen or least the sound of a darn click to open a small window the same size as the tooltip. Drives me nutz when you are scrolling through planetary improvements and tooltips get in the darn way. Prefer the option to click.
One race from the workshop and otherwise I play immense with 18 races, the rest of the game vanilla. I’m not sure on the processor but it’s i7 7820 hk I think. It was new in January with 16gb ram, gtx 1060 and a fully solid state drive. That means it’s software.
I always thought it would be neat to be able to split research per planet with planets having to meet certain criteria to even contribute to certain specialized tech. Ie Farming based planets able to research agriculture based specials, or manufacturing focused planets able to gain some manufacturing specific. just an idea to help spread out the research a bit and you can steadily progress in a diversified manner.
Also if you could re-position starbases albeit slowly and maybe with no benefit while moving except military.
and upgrades to add starbase hit points mid and late game, they just get wrecked even with full upgrades.
sorry for going on and on there.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
