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?
When in doubt... steal ideas. Maybe not the classiest way to go about it, but you'd be wrong if you think "other games that shall not be named" went ahead without assimilating good content from others. Everyone is inspired by someone else. See what works well for those games and try to find a way to include it in yours. I can tell you there are a lot of things I like about "said other game", but there is also a lot that irritates me too. Try to find the middle ground.
As for other things;
Make the AI less aggressive; a big problem I have with GalCiv3 is it's less about diplomacy and, more or less, becomes a game about conquering others. Everyone is out to get you if they think they have the upper hand, even if it goes against their ideology. Try to include more diplomatic options and actually make this a diplomacy simulator, rather than another cookie cutter domination game.
Less micro; GalCiv2 was a far superior game in this respect. You added a lot of cool extra content for 3, but most of the time I'm trying to micro the best possible way to build on my planets. Too many different types of buildings is adding too much complexity to it.
More council events; it should be required to be on the council, and the council should have a lot more options to try and pass. It seems like there are too few. Most of the time I'm trying to decide which option sucks the least. Maybe even make certain options specific to the chair... Yor shouldn't be posing the same changes as a biological race would (such as morale bonuses).
Less dirty borders; the AI simply has no regard for sphere of influence, and the rush for resources and planets has them claiming well beyond their initial borders, in affect, causing the problems they eventually hate you for. Perhaps this could be fixed by adding a penalty to distance from homeworld modifier? Maybe this would make the AI less likely to try and grab something far away when they have plenty of resources and such closer to home. On that same note, less resources to cap wouldn't be such a bad idea either. They are too prevalent and not rare at all. Nearly everything using them too is kind of a bummer.
Tile bonuses; these should always have a benefit to the race being played, even if it's not something they use. Again, like Yor, why do they care about pop/farm modifiers? They don't, so those resources should instead have some sort of alternate modifier to civs that don't use them.
More custom rooms/portraits; i'd like to see a lot more official and unused options available (such as animated backgrounds/races).
I'll probably think of some more later.
I dont mind improved interface for less micro. I can see where that can still be done. But when some one is proposing less features for less micro. That ruins things. Lets not have less features please, but having an option to automate things, like we already have planet governors is good. Instead of getting rid of features how about fixing the ship list, so when you build from a ship start at the first previous ship instead of starting over. When you double click on a tech tree how about returning to the main screen. Ok im not suggesting global, or local options. Im sughesting them both for the planet scteen. This way i could set the governor the way i want everytime i settle a planet once instead every time. In the case i want to change this i can. If you are ocd stop this is not stardocks problem. Yeah planetary governor is a problem for this. That is not a micro problem. I noticed when i highlight improvements i dont always get a description make it where you do, even if you have to right click to solve this problem. Wether im in the planetary build que, or on the planet screen a double click should cancel the build. Before you dummy down the game at least try making the interface even better.
If you just assume the feature was never added in the first place, nothing is being taken away. Just because something was added doesn't necessarily make it a good idea, either. Did anyone have a problem with the way the game was before in this regard? Does adding a bunch of different building types with varying bonuses improve the game? Is this something that is really important enough to care about so much, over other potential changes? This is simply not the first thing I would have changed to make GalCiv3 better. There wasn't anything wrong with GalCiv2's method of dealing with this, so, IMO, it shouldn't have even been an issue in the first place. More features does not necessarily mean the game is made better. Again, it's just an added level of complexity that may or may not be needed, so I just don't see a reason why there needs to be so many of these, because it's far and away from being one of the reasons why this game isn't doing so well.
Hi,
I'd opt for introducing a mechanism that provides for some sense of internal tension and confict between competing factions/ parties/ houses. This is probably a DLC related topic but here's the sales pitch.
Right now you've got a good 4X with a bunch of suggestions to fine tune various aspects of the 4X experience. However it's a very outward focused 4X with a hollow centre. Stellaris and Endless Space 2 both have strong elements of internal conflict which go a long way to providing the story and player immersion that the drier, more mechanical, galCivIII 4x lacks.
As you've implemented citizens in Crusade you've got a really solid foundation for a fleshed out 'centre'. If each citizen was a representative of the various faction / party / house system in use that comprises the internal political landscape you'd have a ready made mechanic where the faction with the greatest number of citizens would be the dominant faction of the moment. Different factions could provide a range of bonuses if dominant or restrictions, eg. a Peace faction might not take kindly to being at war.
This is barebones stuff but you could really go town with your citizens and internal politics. It'd make the player see the citizens as more than just a bonus and you've got the potential here for all kinds of emergent stories.
I think it'd serve to elevate the citizens as a unique game feature, be a point of difference to the competition (where internal factions are anonymous blobs, not people) and provide the immersion that comes from internal faction tensions.
Cheers,
Z.
It’s my first time posting, I saw this thread and I wanted to chip in. I’ve played nearly 600 hours of Gal Civ 3, so it’s pretty safe to say I’ve enjoyed it and I’m grateful to you and your team for all the hard work you’ve put in.
I’m a Concept Artist by trade, so visuals and narrative are a big draw for me. When I’m playing a game that can sometimes last dozens of hours I want to feel like I’m living an epic story with nuance and not a straight A-B, me VS Ai.
A handful of ideas.
Dynamic minor races – Bring back the interaction. Make them meaningful contributors to your empire – give them skills they can bring to the table - more research, better spies etc. Make them a diplomatic source of contention. When other empires attacked a species I was on good terms with I wanted to be able to tell them to back off, I wanted there to be repercussions. Give them their own objectives and situations to be solved eg Minor Race A has been working on a secret project that requires X resources from you for completion which will then go on to be a benefit or detriment to your empire. Diplomatic issues between minor races and you/other minor races. Make them fallible – plagues that you have to research cures for or send scout ships out to retrieve resources for.
If they interact with me I feel like I’m playing in a living, breathing galaxy. When they just sit their quietly as they do now, they may as well not be there. It’s a shame not to make more of them as the stylised art style is gorgeous.
A static Galaxy – I get that there are events, and anomalies, but it feels like, once you’ve colonised a system, or met another minor race, beyond it being annihilated by the Ai, it’s always going to be there. What if stars had a small chance of undergoing change and impacting that system? Going red giant, or going Nova and leaving behind a black hole. It might be a hindrance, it might be a benefit, but either way your strategy has to change.
Limited turn based events – In X number of turns an Asteroid will collide with a colony world. Do you try to limit the damage or are ships in range that can intercept the asteroid? The shockwave from an exploding star is heading for one of your planets in X turns. Can you counter it with planetary shields, do you have to send colony ships to grab what you can. Alternatively a genesis wave is heading towards a dead system, get your colony ships there before the Ai to reap the rewards.
Dead Worlds – I’ve seen this come up a lot. I play gigantic maps generally and it’s always demoralising to find great swathes of dead systems surrounding my core worlds. Those first turns need to be about exploration and wonder, not chalking up one dead system after another. I want to feel like I’m progressing, not stagnating. Could we make these more useful? Probe the system, discover one time resource bonuses or buffs, eg Dead world yielded +5 Durantium. An artefact was found on Dead World Y which yielded a temporary research buff. Your probe accidentally activated a beacon whilst scanning a dead world that triggers one of the games mega events. The property of a star changes to something more hospitable and a dead system becomes a living one.
The gameplay of Gal Civ III has always been engaging for me and I prefer it over other big titles out there because of that, but some of the others handle the world building immersion better. If Gal Civ could do more of that I think it’d be a very well balanced offering.
I didn’t enjoy the new MOO for gameplay but I liked how they showcased their races on the various UI screens, how you got a chance to see them a little more and dare I say it, the voice acting wasn’t unwelcome. (probably a contentious one )
I like Stellaris for its variety in race and how the situation on an established colony can suddenly change. I like how it entertains epic ideas like Dyson Spheres and Ring Worlds. I haven’t played Endless Space _2 yet, but it looks expansive, epic, so I’m considering checking that out.
If it felt like there was more going on in Gal Civ other than me trying to annihilate or befriend a major race I don’t think these other games would get a look in.
I like a complex resource system as well, but the problem is that in order for it to work you need to trade, or you need to be the biggest civ and have everything. Right now, the AI often won't trade, which means your only choice is to be the biggest civ with the most planets.
That's why we would need a black market as suggested elsewhere several times already. There everything would be on sale, ships as well as resources, probably more expensive than when trading with other civs, but at least that would be a reliable source.
Having a Black Market appeals to me - it's an alternative way to, as you say, get what you need in terms of resources, ships etc. I see this working best as something Pirates operate and a good mechanic to flesh them out beyond being huntin' and killin' folk. Essentially, you have two choices with pirates: kill them or avoid them. I'd like a third choice: trade with them. Now, if you choose the third option than that's a black market. However, you're basically receiving stolen property at a higher price than if you'd bought that stuff legally and if the other races realize it's stolen property there will be some sort of diplomatic downside, either with one race or the entire UP. This could be the Terran being angry you bought the ship the Pirates stole from them, or UP sanctioning you because you keep delving into various black market despite warnings etc...
I like the idea of a black market for special resources. The prices would need to be substantial, though, high enough that using it would be a last resort.
A couple ideas. AI based game, not scripted.
1. Trade/Diplomacy/Immersion:
a. Allow 50 week trade options where I can negotiate with a producing AI player to provide example, 4 Anti-Matter per week for 2 Durantium per week. If we can reach continual trade agreements like this with another CIV it gives us reason to defend them and their resources against other CIVs, rather than now choosing a CIV to befriend based on strategic map location only or you like ones demeanor more than another.
b. Add an Alliance Hanger Bay that the player could pay to add on to an Allied Civs Mining Starbase so we can dock ships there.
c. If the CIV loses control of the resource, they could engage you diplomatically (mission like) asking your help to regain control of it. This could be extended to planets also. How much would an AI CIV fawn over you if you liberated their homeworld and gave it back to them?
I think these small changes would add benefit and immersion to the game.
Concerning trade, I see some players commenting that the AI never trades rare resources with them. Maybe you should explain as I have discovered, an AI player will never trade if they have less than 4 themselves of the resource, nor will they ever trade more than 1/4 of their stockpile of any resource. This is a hardset AI coding, that perhaps could be tweeked for personality for individuality. But that is how it is now.
2. Limited Rare Resources and Buildings.
a. Have more options, not less as some want on the forum. The solution is not to remove rare resource buildings, instead, with some of them, offer an inferior substitute of the building for the resource deprived. Not everything has a realistic work around. We need iron here on earth to make battleships and tanks, but an inferior battery for a cell phone can be made from non rare-earth metals.
3. Borders
a. Borders only exist if you enforce them. This is 360 degree spherical space, on a 2d map, making it all the harder. No changes necessary. That said.
b. Add the diplomatic option to instruct my ships, and/or survey ships to steer clear of a CIVs borders, either at affirmation of their request or my offering.
Closing.
Overall, you have made a very good game. I like the addition of rare minerals, citizens and ideology perks. On a graphical note, I would like to see a different sprite for pirate bases and a different formula for their implementation. Early game beyond exploration, lacks small scale battles or engagements. Perhaps some type of pirates or raiders based in or near your starting position could fix this.
I also agree we need more buildings requiring resources. I like the black market idea. I would like to see better diplomacy.
How about a subterfuge option for our spies funding pirates to attack a particular CIV. We dont need to control it, just fund it.
Evil races could allow pirates to operate from their "dead" class 0 planets. Why wouldn't evil be in league with pirates?
Could be put into your Pirates DLC.
Previously I mentioned that I wanted a simplification of the bonus/adjacency/production system because it is needlessly difficult creating a trap to AI and new players. I recognize this is probably not going to happen because it would present yet another dramatic change of mechanics.
Realistic stuff I would like to see.
1. Tweek/balance planet invasions. A transport with 3B population can conquer 10B without much fuss even when the invasion screen numbers suggest otherwise. It just feels like something is wrong with this.
2. Research production rollover. When research is complete I believe all excess research is lost. This makes me unhappy. Planetary production rollover would be nice but less irksome to me.
3. Increased diplomatic options. Every game I play just turns into conquest. If I don't have one of the largest fleets then some AI declares war on me. If I have the largest fleet then I should be utilizing it for more than just deterrence. I can't cultivate any meaningful alliance that will last. The AI pretty much just dogpiles the weakest civ over and over. In a game like Europa Universalis there is a lot that a player can do to cultivate friendships and alliances which allows for a wider style of play.
4. Starbase and planetary strategic zone of control. A mechanic so that a starbase/planet, appropriately upgraded, can restrict an opponents fleet from moving past it without engaging the starbase in battle. Initially a 1 hex adjacent zone of control for military starbases would provide the player with a large range of strategic options. Interceptor drones could upgrade 1 additional hex. Military starbases should only be buildable in your own influence controlled space or in neutral space. This is a strategy game after all.
5. Planets should always be automatically equipped with a full sensor package which upgrades automatically. It is silly that a small ship with sensors should be able to lift the fog of war better than an entire planet.
No, research points roll just like production points, but there is no tool tip to see it
Last I checked planetary production rollover is allready a thing, hover your mouse over the empty space in the build queue and you get a tooltip. Shipyard production rollover is also a thing, no tooltip though. Research rollover I believe exists, too, but the UI doesn't communicate this well. What's confusing about research rollover, is that you can't use it up immediately (different from ideology research points), but it is used when you are ending your turn.
Guess that just wasn't obvious to me but I am glad to hear (or I was just being dense about it). Is there a limit to the research rollover?
I don't think there is, but it's hard to diagnose.
Something that Exula said in his exulant first post prompted me to mention something that kinda bugs me. In GC2 you could see the relations between civs. I found it important for playing the diplomacy game. This is almost entirely hidden in GC3. It shocked me to learn, when I wanted Altarian to attack Yor, that the blue guys really admired the psychotic bots. It would be nice to have some place to centralize this info, with maybe an espionage-like report describing some of the particulars (like, they are trading; like, they have similar sexual appetites).
And there's a long history of "active" minors in GC2, mostly in mods. maiden666's Future Worlds has done an excellent job of giving them their own tech tree, though much of that is in service of Trade Goods which don't exist in GC3. IIRC, Tolmekian offered several variations on active minors, including letting them colonize - a very interesting facet indeed.
At present, minors are useful as annoyances, always nagging me to attack the civ that's bullying them, and as trade partners when the rest of the universe hates you. Not much else past the early game.
Given the mounds of research I get in some of my empires, I can force some Research build up and rollover by taking one tech at a time, then let it cue up along a branch of one tech type. I can then accumulate enough Research to completely fill up a previously untouched tech branch in one turn. Easy in late game. For example, I can leave the espionage tree alone then fill it all at once. If there is a limit to the rollover, it is big enough not to matter, even in extreme usages like mine.
I tried to do this at small scale when I first tested it out and concluded that rollover wasn't happening. Obviously my conclusion was faulty and I must have been doing something incorrect.
Thanks for letting me know just how mistaken I was!
>Research rollover is a thing.
>I like the idea of planets getting auto sensor upgrades. I mean, really...
>About diplomacy: I don't agree that the AI is all a bunch of warmongers. I find it possible to make friends in this game. Of course, you can't make friends with everyone in a single game, some of the races will be warmongers, and that's okay. I don't want the Drengin to sit there and watch me, as the Altarians, tech to a science victory with no fleet to defend myself. That's super boring. Unless I've made someone an ally, they really should be keen on attacking me if I'm defenseless, the AI should be opportunistic. Even the concept of an alliance is roleplaying and it's an AI that is not playing to win, but I think that is okay when it is a challenge and takes a lot of work to make someone an ally. Other than that one exception, I think the AI should be playing to win, and I know a lot of people feel the same way as I do - they want a challenge. This notion that most players are lazy and just want to win the game and don't want to be challenged is simply false. I'll prove it to you. Look at the sales of Xcom. Nuff said.
Well i dont like the idea of less different kinds of improvements.
Now as far as the base game. I thought it is great. That doesnt mean i didnt think the economy couldnt be fixed. It just got to some point your money would fet used up with stuff. Im not happy with low adjancencies. The yor needed help in the beginning. I still didnt like what they did to the yor hub. I still would prefer the planetary wheel on planets. I didnt like coercion it ruined the wheel. I didnt like administrators. So no its not like i pretend this never existed.
Ugh. I'm dying to tell you about what's coming in the next expansion pack! Some of you guys are going to loovvvve it I think.
Just my 2 cents here.
I am a long time fan of stardock and galvic. I have been playing your games for years and loving it. I got burned out on playing galciv though around the time mercenaries came out. I started playing stellaris after that and really liked that game. Just a week or so ago I pulled up galciv to play again and was really lost. I felt it was a completely different game than what I remembered. It may be just that people tend to not like change but it really turned me off. I played for a few hours and have not gone back to it yet. Based on this single experience I would not buy crusade at this time. I am not saying crusade is bad i'm just giving my honest first impression. If I go back and play it more I may find that I really like the changes made and change my mind.
I totally agree with an earlier poster that said you should have made this galciv 3.5 and sold it as a different sku. That way I could go back and play the game I loved and also try out the new systems in a new game.
I also miss the dev videos that paul and the team used to do going over the design decisions. I really looked forward to the videos during production and it helped me understand the decisions that were going on in making the game.
Humph. I'm dying to know, lol.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
