Will Adjacency Tiles exist in Core Worlds in GalCivIV?
My approach with GalCiv3 was that I didn't really care about the adjacencies as I found them confusing so I just allocated Research to 1-8 Planets, Manufacturing to 9-15, Wealth to 16+.
My preference would be for there to be no adjacencies, but if the majority and Stardock would prefer them to stay, can I repeat my request that they be consistant? ie Offering One type of Improvement (Research, Manufacturing, Approval, Wealth, any others I've missed) whether something is built On Top of or Adjacent to that tile. I get the idea of the Improvement being better for building On Top rather than Adjacent to, that makes perfect sense.
I thought it was a cool idea but it killed me to be forced to put buildings in suboptimal locations and have to come back later with terraforming to make adjustments. It might be better just to have the tiles that give bonuses for putting certain building types on them.
I also do not like it. Planetary tiles are so big (like North America being two tiles) that the adjacency effect feels unrealistic and how broken up the tiles are in fact overwrites the quality of the planet.
Adjacencies are a huge pain and one of the things I like least about GC3 for reasons already mentioned.
I didn't like tile adjacency in GalCiv 3. I thought it made planet development too complex. Not just planet improvement placement, but also terraforming placement. I often put off terraforming planets until I had developed a bunch of terraforming techs, so then I could optimize how the planet was developed. Each step in terraforming expanded the range of what tiles could be terraformed over the last, so it was a good idea to hold off terraforming until you unlocked the good terraforming improvements, then pick a good spot for it, and then place the other terraforming improvements around it so you could develop a good region to build adjacent planet improvements.In GalCiv 2, you usually only had to worry about making sure that the planets had critical infrastructure (like starports). Then you optimized them to be a factory, research, or money worlds. You also didn't have to worry about the placement of terraforming tiles. A tile anywhere was just as good as a tile somewhere else.
I like the adjacency bonuses. It rewards consideration on what buildings to place where, rather than just plop stuff down in any position and the terraforming tiles are also another good consideration the player has to make. Anything that invokes player decision making and rewards good decisions is usually good imo. If they can come up with something better or refine it great but I think it's pretty good for the most part.
I enjoyed the adjacencies. It didn't matter much for support buildings (factories etc) but for the core buildings (space elevator etc) it really made a big difference. Planetary planning and setup is part of the fun for me (until late game where there are just too many planets, which is why I'm very excited about the plans for that here).
I'm sure that if there are adjacencies in IV or not, it will still be an engaging system.
I Like them.
I hope they stay, though with some modification. I think that it is silly that the game restricts which spaces we can or cannot build on in a warp science capable society...I think the game would be much better if each planet were such that you had X many usable tiles that the player plopped down. Unique planet things could be surveyed prior to plopping... or randomly discovered. But the player always had full control over where they built.Then I also think that the bonuses maybe need to be less, or have things that unlock them for more.The biggest issue with the adjacency was that it punished you if you didn't do it because the bonuses were honestly larger then they should have been.
Contrariwise to a few recent posts, I feel like the adjacency bonuses actually remove choice by creating a situation in which you want to just find the most efficient way to build improvements on any given planet and planet-wide bonuses might serve better in that regard and require less micromanagement, which is already a goal.
I have mixed feelings towards adjacency bonuses. On one hand it is kind of fun and adds challenge, but I think it clashes with the RNG planet generation. Personally, I think it and planet development both need to be reworked.
I like micromanaging my first 5-10 planets, but it is pure torture doing it for hundreds (or thousands) of planets. I'm curious to see how GC4 handles planets and galaxies, because I felt GC3 was strangely enough too small (but still too overwhelming with micromanagement).
There are adjacency bonuses in GC4 but the whole planet system is somewhat different and will be open to feedback in the alpha as we have a lot of different ideas on this.
I almost wonder if terraforming should be reworked. Like instead of opening up usable squares on the map, it either changes the planet globally or allows you to utilize hostile planets.
I do like the idea of zoning planets based on terrain and specialization (eg, you have a part of a continent that is grassland, it becomes a farming district, etc), but I'm not sure it works when lined up with a geographical map, adjacency bonuses, and buildings. One side of me finds all that very appealing, but another side finds it very frustrating too. A side of me prefers having buildings all just being in the capital, but they do work nicely with adjacency bonuses. I guess what I'd probably like would be a cross of MOO2/GC1 and the zoning of GC2/3 and MOO3.
I'd almost prefer zones to be more abstracted where its not directly tied to the geography of a planet map, but tied to the planet size/habitability instead (eg, a small arid planet you'd get 2 rocky zones, a medium terran you'd get 3 fertile, 1 rocky, etc). Maybe terraforming can be used to change the type/quality of those zones.
I think a more simplified form of zoning would work nice for non-major (resource generating) planets. Just zone it, forget it, and move on to the next planet.
I love the adjacency system in GC3, it's kind of a very fun minigame in the game. I love to plan and optimize my planetary improvements and to race for antimatter power plant with the AI. By maximizing flat production/research/credits output on good worlds and then amplifying that with citizens, government ships/mercs and econ starbases you can create planets that outproduce whole AI empires. It's just great!
For me, the planetary improvement system is one of the two main reasons that GC3 blows both Stellaris and Endless Space 2 out of the water (the other being the ship designer).
It never gets old for me, though I have to say that I always play with relatively few habitable planets in the galaxy (100 - 150 max). I could imagine that it gets tedious when there are thousands of planets.
In GC2 every planet unless it had an event that made it special was built the same way. In three you had to think about what a planet was gonna do based on how the tiles looked and what bonuses where there. It added something to the game IMO, but of course it could be overwhelming at times. We should remember the number of planets under direct control are suppose to be less in this game. We won’t be planning the building lay out for +150 planets but only core worlds.
I think adjacencies as problematic as they can be should remain.
How about adjancency bonuses depending on what buildings are on what type of landscape.
I’m definately on the pro side for adjancency bonuses. I would like to see the manufacturing bonuses more kind of like two. I’m not saying getting rid of adjacencies here, but even with them the manufacturing bonuses on factories are only good for the hubs, and that’s it. I’m not saying like they had before in three where all the buildings had the same bonuses, and then they gave us adjacencies. There needed to be a balance back then, but when they balanced it they kept going. What I’m saying we have something like with six adjacencies that the manufacturing is something like in two with a antimatter power plant, and six factories. Not so week like now. as far as micro management goes I like to play something like 50 planets in three micromanagement is not overwhelming. What got me about the wheel, and is getting me now. There are times in three when you could double click when instead stardock makes me use a button. I’m not saying remove the button. I’m saying have both option. One example is like when you pick a mercenary. The planetary screen when removing, and building improvements. Let’s first deal with the obvious micromagent solutions first. Before we dummy down the game without making quality of life improvements.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
