Great oogly moogly!
Indeed!
I realize this pretty much goes without saying, but...
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1108.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh412%2FRotarrin%2FFunny%2FShut-Up-And-Take-My-Money_zpscde331d2.jpg&hash=11c4e7b5979f44e2b32020ab89767ccc85190069)
Thanks Martok, you sir have made my year 8)
Its through Steam so mark this day in the record books, I will install the beast and succumb to the darkside ;D
Have waited for so long, word was that it would never happen due to legal wrangles when Stardock sold everything but the kitchen sink. I will install Steam as soon as the new system is assembled and preorder it, screw the DRM, I will just have GCIII on one computer and build another DRM less PC for X-Rebirth and GTA V afterwards ::)
Darkspire
I'm assuming that is a cinematic trailer and not gameplay footage? I enjoyed GC2 a lot. One to follow.
article on spacesector
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2013/10/galactic-civilizations-3-announced/
So excited I forgot to post these:
http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq)
http://www.galciv3.com/ (http://www.galciv3.com/)
Darkspire
That's a definite first day buy! Thanks for the info, Martok 8)
Cool stuff. I have put some serious time into Galciv 2. 3 will be a definite purchase as well.
I am hoping they still have the custom ship building options, but this time around integrate an option to have the AI use created ships effectively too.
And I hope they do not go for a totally 3D map. More something in the vein of DW would be cool where panning is still 2D but you do have systems with individual planets in orbit around a sun.
And multiplayer!!!
yup, will buy this.
A little surprised about the thrilled response to this one. The Gal Civ games were "ok" I suppose. The cutesy graphics and humorous dialogue/text was a real turn off to me. The games had their moments, but I think the genre has surpassed them by leaps and bounds. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the new title can add to the crowded environment.
The trailer does look good though and appears to be taking a step away from the comical leanings of its predecessor.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 15, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
A little surprised about the thrilled response to this one. The Gal Civ games were "ok" I suppose. The cutesy graphics and humorous dialogue/text was a real turn off to me. The games had their moments, but I think the genre has surpassed them by leaps and bounds. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the new title can add to the crowded environment.
The trailer does look good though and appears to be taking a step away from the comical leanings of its predecessor.
One word, AI (or is that two in disguise?)
The GalCiv series has never really been surpassed in terms of the single player challenge as you stepped up the difficulty ladder, GalCivI was the first computer game that actually surprised me in its inventiveness (been gaming since 79), I actually had to check the game was not online, I have played every 4x since M.U.L.E and that series is one of the best examples of what an AI driven 4x should be, a benchmark that has often been emulated but never beaten.
Darkspire
Also, epic-sized maps and the ship design. 8)
I understand where Jarhead is coming from with the visuals & humor. The former didn't really bother me that much, and I liked the latter more than not, but I'll admit they did detract from the experience at times. I certainly won't mind if some of the humor returns, but I do hope GC3 goes in a more serious direction.
GalCiv 2 is seven years old so I'd have been worried if it hadn't been surpassed by now!
I may have to break my own day-one rule for this. GalCiv 2 was amazing. I hope we get the option to auto-build ships this time though; I want to kick arse, not play with Lego!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 15, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
The trailer does look good though and appears to be taking a step away from the comical leanings of its predecessor.
...but will the actual game at all resemble the trailer? I mean, the trailer looks great, and of course we all know that trailers have cinematic 'enhancements' that the game can't deliver... But if this trailer hadn't had "Gal Civ III" written on it, I would not have guessed it was part of the Gal. Civ. franchise. I mean, it just looks like a major departure. So, are we to expect that Gal Civ. III will look a lot more like Sins of a Solar Empire, with awesome 3D space battles etc., than it will resemble Gal Civ. II?
^This.
I understand the developer's need to get people all geeked out over this, with the cinematic trailer that has epic music and action and explosions and hints of some human crusade to commit some serious genocidin', but these kinds of trailers annoy me more than get me interested. I want to see gameplay, interface, GUI, that sort of thing, not pretty flashing lights and vague wink-wink-say-no-more dialogue.
Don't get me wrong - I have the GC II Ultimate Edition, and it's a fun play. If III is any good (and we get an actual trailer that actually shows the game itself), I might get it too. I just want info, dammit!
I've never managed to like galciv 2 but enjoyed galciv 1. It's looking good and it's a great news for the fans of 4x games. I like the fact that there are hexes now. Thanks Martok!
!!!!!!!!!
I don't have enough room for all the !'s I'd like to put!
I had just received an email from Stardock letting me know about
Galactic Civilizations III and came here to let everyone else know, but Martok beat me to it--as usual! ;)
Quote from: Darkspire on October 15, 2013, 12:03:26 PM
....Its through Steam so mark this day in the record books, I will install the beast and succumb to the darkside....
That's how I felt when I broke down and installed Steam in order to play
Warlock: Master of the Arcane, so I feel your pain. Unfortunately there's no other way to play many of the new games coming out without installing Steam.
But I do like the way Steam keeps games updated so I don't have to bother with them, although one of the first things I did after installing Steam was to uncheck the default setting to start Steam when I booted up my PC. And I always set Steam to offline mode when I quit playing a Steam game; that makes it possible for me to play Steam games when I lose my internet connection unexpectedly.
I could never really get into GalCiv 2, I'm not sure why. I know I missed having tactical combat. Hopefully, they will remedy this, although I haven't seen one way or the other yet. The last Elemental was good, so hopefully Stardock will do a great job here.
Galactic Civilizations III trailer = just a movie or actual game play?
Quote from: SgtRock on October 15, 2013, 11:21:45 PM
Galactic Civilizations III trailer = just a movie or actual game play?
Do not think of it as a trailer more like a firework display to announce that GCIII has finally been put into production.
Darkspire
I played GalCivII and liked the game well enough, but, really would have preferred mp.
GalCivII was my first 4x space game and I've been hooked ever since. I'm excited for all the enhancements that are being talked about in GalCivIII.
Does anyone know whether Kael is working on this?
GC3 will easily make my must-buy list. This is great news Martok!
lol, i bet he doesnt
Quote from: Martok on October 15, 2013, 02:01:04 PM
Also, epic-sized maps and the ship design. 8)
This obviously won't matter to a lot of folks, but another thing I like about the GalCiv series is the lore behind it. Brad Wardell has posted a fair bit over the years regarding the backstory he created -- one that's actually fairly deep, and which he wrote out at least partially *before* he ever made the first game -- and I'll admit it continues to hold a certain amount of fascination for me.
An example of what I'm referring to: The Thalans were one of the new races in GalCiv2...and they weren't added just for variety's sake. Brad hinted on at least a couple occasions that the Thalans traveled back in time to stop the Humans from destroying the galaxy, but he wouldn't reveal anything beyond that. I'm looking forward to finally finding out what exactly we do to doom the cosmos. 8)
The lore has been updated:
http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story (http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story)
Darkspire
Quote from: Darkspire on October 16, 2013, 12:54:53 PM
The lore has been updated:
http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story (http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story)
Darkspire
The Korx are gone. Well that's something anyway.
Thanks for sharing Martok. Add this game to my insta-effin-buy list. I'm really considering buying the founders version so I can get my mitts on the beat when it comes out, that's how strongly I feel about this one. I played GC1 and was entertained for a while. I never really gave GC2 a chance and prejudged it negatively. But this version looks like it's a must have game.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 15, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
A little surprised about the thrilled response to this one. The Gal Civ games were "ok" I suppose. The cutesy graphics and humorous dialogue/text was a real turn off to me. The games had their moments, but I think the genre has surpassed them by leaps and bounds. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the new title can add to the crowded environment.
The trailer does look good though and appears to be taking a step away from the comical leanings of its predecessor.
I couldn't get into them all that much either. They were too simplistic for my tastes. I see people saying the same thing about
Endless Space, but the latter has more of nearly everything. We won't even mention
Distant Worlds in such a comparison. ;)
Indeed. Distant Worlds sucks. :D
Quote from: Darkspire on October 16, 2013, 12:54:53 PM
The lore has been updated:
http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story (http://www.galciv3.com/databanks/our-story)
Darkspire
Thanks for the link
Darkspire! While most of it I knew already, I did learn a few more details of which I was previously unaware. :)
Quote from: W8taminute on October 16, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Thanks for sharing Martok. Add this game to my insta-effin-buy list. I'm really considering buying the founders version so I can get my mitts on the beat when it comes out, that's how strongly I feel about this one.
You're welcome! I'm thinking about getting the Founders version as well, if only to ensure I get all future expansions/DLC. I'd like to hear/see a little more in the way of the game's details, however, before I pull the trigger.
Quote from: W8taminute on October 16, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
I played GC1 and was entertained for a while. I never really gave GC2 a chance and prejudged it negatively. But this version looks like it's a must have game.
To be fair,
GalCiv2 does have its drawbacks (a couple of which
Jarhead has pointed out). I like the game quite a bit, but there are aspects of it I (and others, of course) am/are not fond of as well.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 16, 2013, 02:27:38 PM
Indeed. Distant Worlds sucks. :D
Burn the heretic! :P
Quote from: Huw the Poo on October 16, 2013, 02:27:38 PM
Indeed. Distant Worlds sucks. :D
.... Many hours of your existence into a black hole never to be seen again leaving you totally unaware of the timeslip ;D
Darkspire
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on October 15, 2013, 02:20:39 PM
^This.
I understand the developer's need to get people all geeked out over this, with the cinematic trailer that has epic music and action and explosions and hints of some human crusade to commit some serious genocidin', but these kinds of trailers annoy me more than get me interested. I want to see gameplay, interface, GUI, that sort of thing, not pretty flashing lights and vague wink-wink-say-no-more dialogue.
Don't get me wrong - I have the GC II Ultimate Edition, and it's a fun play. If III is any good (and we get an actual trailer that actually shows the game itself), I might get it too. I just want info, dammit!
Completely agree. The trailer told me NOTHING about the actual gameplay. That said I love GalCiv and this will be an instant purchase.
Thanks for posting Martok!
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 15, 2013, 01:28:40 PM
A little surprised about the thrilled response to this one. The Gal Civ games were "ok" I suppose. The cutesy graphics and humorous dialogue/text was a real turn off to me.
Such a Parade Rainer! :P
I actually love the GalCiv series, better than the last few Civs and better than any other recent Space 4X. Yes, the graphics could be cutsey (although I totally ignored the Hamster race) but it also had a hard, dark edge to it. Remember that the Drengin race had a enslavement building! What I loved was the very tactical nature of the game (being able to go for certain passive bonuses to really seek a particular victory path). I also loved the lego ship customization.
GC2 crashes a lot on my PC, but usually not until later in the game. I get into it and then thump, desktop. Did I save my games? Why no, no I did not, usually. :(
At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq):
QuoteQ: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.
Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7. Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 16, 2013, 11:20:18 PM
At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq):
QuoteQ: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.
Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7. Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...
I'd imagine this is a path that will be increasingly walked. Actually, BF4 has the same requirements. 64 Bit means a lot more memory to work with. DX10 pretty much locks out older, increasingly antique graphics cards from needing to be worried about. Makes sense from a dev point of view.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 16, 2013, 11:20:18 PM
At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq):
QuoteQ: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.
Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7. Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...
I saw that, but was not surprised: Brad had stated a few years back that whenever he got around to making
GalCiv3, that it would almost certainly be 64-bit, for the reasons mentioned above.
Also, I agree with
Arctic Blast: It's only a matter of time before most -- if not all -- mainstream PC games are developed as 64-bit only. For better or worse, that's where the industry is headed.
Of course, it's easy for me to be philosophical about all this, as my computer's hard drive is divided between XP and Win7, so I get the best of both worlds. ;D
Quote from: Martok on October 17, 2013, 01:33:29 AM
Of course, it's easy for me to be philosophical about all this, as my computer's hard drive is divided between XP and Win7, so I get the best of both worlds. ;D
Hard core yo!
^ I had to get a buddy of mine to set that up for me, but it was worth it. Now I can play both my newer *and* older games without issue. 8)
Quote from: Martok on October 17, 2013, 09:10:47 AM
^ I had to get a buddy of mine to set that up for me, but it was worth it. Now I can play both my newer *and* older games without issue. 8)
Lucky one...i wish i had that kind of buddy...
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 16, 2013, 11:20:18 PM
At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq):
QuoteQ: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.
Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7. Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...
Where did you get that 2015 date? I was under the impression that they were shooting for next year.
QuoteQ: Will the game require a network connection to play?
A: No. However, some of the AI learning mechanisms will require access to the Metaverse in order to perform analysis on player strategies. This will be optional and able to be disabled by the player but does require an Internet connection.
That will make turning to the darkside, regards installing Steam, worth it on it's own :)
That was supposed to have happened to GCI but did not happen, this will make things very interesting on the single player front, some of the folks who used to play were like Kasparov, having the routines downloaded and integrated to add to the AI will be a real challenge, the AI will become sentient at this rate :o
Darkspire
Yeah, that is a cool-sounding feature. Hopefully it works out like it's supposed to.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on October 17, 2013, 10:43:05 AM
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 16, 2013, 11:20:18 PM
At the risk of being a killjoy, I will post one tidbit from the FAQ at http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq (http://www.galciv3.com/game/faq):
QuoteQ: What are the requirements to run Galactic Civilizations III?
A: It will require a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or 8 along with a DirectX 10 or 11 compatible video card. There will be no 32-bit version. Most PC gamers in 2013 have this kind of hardware, and it allows us to create the best game possible for the majority of our customers.
Q: Why are you requiring 64-bit?
A: We want Galactic Civilizations III, and future expansions, to be able to handle extremely large galaxies with a very high resolution graphics and large data sets for the computer AI to make use of. It allows us to design the best game possible without being constrained by the limitations of older hardware.
I may be in the minority here, but I'm not running 64-bit at this point in time and am not that eager to upgrade to Win7. Maybe by 2015 when the game hits the market, though...
Where did you get that 2015 date? I was under the impression that they were shooting for next year.
SoM, I think the 2015 date is mentioned in the fansite kit.
Quote from: Martok on October 17, 2013, 12:19:24 PM
Yeah, that is a cool-sounding feature. Hopefully it works out like it's supposed to.
I once got all the way to 60 odd in the Metaverse, that's what the idea was / is, the player uploads there score for a game at the end but it was also supposed to upload the decisions and choices made by the player regarding the strategies employed within that score upload. If anyone can pull off turning that data into something useful I believe Mr Wardell can, when GalCiv came out some folks were on dial up modems still, broadband makes passing that data in amounts a reality with today's tech.
Darkspire
If they manage to expand the gameplay enough and implement some of the more interesting features like the AI strategy thing, then I'll probably give #3 a try, depending on it's post-release condition.
I figure, if they're only in Alpha right now, there's just no way they'll be all the way through Beta in less than 15 months. It'll probably be one of those "mad rush for Christmas release" things that gets pushed back another 2 or 3 months because these things happen in most IT projects...
One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others. This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion. The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems. :(
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on October 17, 2013, 10:34:59 PM
I figure, if they're only in Alpha right now, there's just no way they'll be all the way through Beta in less than 15 months. It'll probably be one of those "mad rush for Christmas release" things that gets pushed back another 2 or 3 months because these things happen in most IT projects...
Good points,
FAS.
Also, Stardock has a history of sometimes deliberately delaying a game's release so that it misses the Christmas release window, and instead comes out in the following year's first quarter. That way, they not only have more time to polish the game, but it also doesn't have to compete for attention during the busy holiday season.
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2013, 11:25:21 PM
One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others. This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion. The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems. :(
I'm always of two minds when it comes to this argument.
On the one hand, you certainly have a point about different races possibly needing/preferring different planet types to survive/thrive. And it would be cool to be able to peaceably co-habit star systems with other species.
On the other hand, though, if races don't require the same planet types, then there's much less need to compete for "territory"; hence, very little cause for diplomatic tension and/or war. While that would obviously be nice if it worked that way in the real world, from a gameplay perspective, most folks would find it pretty boring.
Also, a third point specific to the GalCiv series is that races preferring the same planets is basically part of -- and possibly even crucial to -- the universe's lore/backstory. To have species needing different planet types would require a fairly significant reworking of that backstory, which I suspect Brad is not at all interested in doing.
Quote from: Martok on October 18, 2013, 03:39:41 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2013, 11:25:21 PM
One thing I thought sorely missing from the previous two was proper planetary systems, varied planet types and races different enough to prefer colonizing types that are uninhabitable for others. This is essential in any 4X, in my opinion. The GalCivs were "one size fits all" in this regard and there wasn't much in the way of realistic star systems. :(
I'm always of two minds when it comes to this argument.
On the one hand, you certainly have a point about different races possibly needing/preferring different planet types to survive/thrive. And it would be cool to be able to peaceably co-habit star systems with other species.
On the other hand, though, if races don't require the same planet types, then there's much less need to compete for "territory"; hence, very little cause for diplomatic tension and/or war. While that would obviously be nice if it worked that way in the real world, from a gameplay perspective, most folks would find it pretty boring.
Also, a third point specific to the GalCiv series is that races preferring the same planets is basically part of -- and possibly even crucial to -- the universe's lore/backstory. To have species needing different planet types would require a fairly significant reworking of that backstory, which I suspect Brad is not at all interested in doing.
Conflict doesn't necessarily need to come directly from competition for habitable planets since any space-travelling race worth it's salt will want them all for resource procurement. Simply being in the same planetary system, and competing for resources there, is more than enough to implement friction.
What's more, it even makes conquest more difficult since it would take away the 'Occupation' option between certain races - leaving only extermination. The biggest issue is specific races laying claim to planets or asteroid fields they can't inhabit, but this is most often covered with cultural influence zones or something similar. DW started using influence zones to good effect, for example. The planetary types don't need to be exclusive, only add more dynamics to the gameplay.
Incidentally, someone's gotten in an early interview with one of the devs (credit goes to RooksBailey for finding it):
http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/18088/article/galactic-civilizations-3-interview-with-lead-designer-paul-boyer/
I ferreted out some info on GalCiv 3 concerning the design direction and team. Somebody asked if GalCiv III will stay faithful to the series, and here are three responses, the first from dev Mormegil, the second from Brad Wardell, the third from another dev, Abiessener:
Mormegil:
QuoteI am loving this thread.
First off, as the designer, this is perhaps my biggest challenge. Keeping the soul of Galactic Civilizations II, but making it better sexier, and feel new. I can't really roll out a big list of what has changed, and what has stayed the same… Yet. But I will let you know that keeping GalCiv, GalCiv, so to speak is my number one priority. This is not to say we won't have lots of new things, we have lots of new things, but they all have to pass a very simple test. “Does it feel like GalCiv”. If and new feature, or enhancement fails this test it goes back to the drawing board.Can’t wait to tell you guys more.
And
Brad Wardell
QuoteNo worries there, my friend.
Galactic Civilizations has been around for a very long time. It's as old (if not older) than Master of Orion (the first beta of GalCiv for OS/2 was released before Master of Orion 1 was released).
GalCiv II isn't perfect. I can think of a lot of areas we can improve on. There's a lot of really cool things we're doing with GalCiv III that make it even better than GalCiv II. That said, when the first screenshots come out, people are going to look and say "It seems very similar to GalCiv II except prettier". But that's because the core game play is still the same.
There are some exciting areas we can expand on thanks to improvements in PC hardware and also, admittedly, just having more years of being able to think about how different game mechanics lend themselves to new and interesting things.
When some of these new game mechanics show up in the betas, I think most people (as in 99%) will think "Oh yea, I see. This should have been part of GalCiv II actually." That's been my reaction when we start implementing some of these things. It's not just that they are great for GalCiv III but I kind of wish we had thought of them for GalCiv I and GalCiv II because they seem so obvious now.
and
Abiessener:
QuotePutting together a journal post that I hope you guys will like though, so that's something! Hopefully that should go up tomorrow.
Looking forward to that journal!
the Beta is available on Steam as Early Access (http://store.steampowered.com/app/226860/)
I had sworn off early access, but boy, howdy am I ever tempted to pick this up.
I guess there are still some playable races missing, as well as non-military victory conditions, minor races, and diplomacy.
$45 is a bit high for Early Access, although this would be a Day One purchase anyway. Still, I might hold off until diplomacy and other victory conditions are in.
Quote from: tgb on August 14, 2014, 06:32:24 AM
the Beta is available on Steam as Early Access (http://store.steampowered.com/app/226860/)
I had sworn off early access, but boy, howdy am I ever tempted to pick this up.
I guess there are still some playable races missing, as well as non-military victory conditions, minor races, and diplomacy.
$45 is a bit high for Early Access, although this would be a Day One purchase anyway. Still, I might hold off until diplomacy and other victory conditions are in.
That still sounds like Alpha stage to me. ???
But, that said, this is a must have for me. I might go ahead and get it and encase it in carbonite and store it with the many other games I have waiting to be played.
Yeah. Last few years it seems like the definition of "Beta" had changed. Didn't it used to mean a game that was featured complete but needed to be bug and play tested? Now games are marketed as beta versions that have l half the planned content
Don't have the time to to beta-testing...
i still might have to go for it; I have bought a few early access games now but i tend to take a peak and then wait for full release before playing though.
Quote from: mikeck on August 14, 2014, 07:43:37 AM
Yeah. Last few years it seems like the definition of "Beta" had changed. Didn't it used to mean a game that was featured complete but needed to be bug and play tested? Now games are marketed as beta versions that have l half the planned content
According to the developer's playthrough I just watched, the next build is supposed to have everything but the campaign (which I never play anyway) and new combat animation. They are shooting for October. I think I'll wait for that one.
Quote from: tgb on August 14, 2014, 08:33:04 AM
Quote from: mikeck on August 14, 2014, 07:43:37 AM
Yeah. Last few years it seems like the definition of "Beta" had changed. Didn't it used to mean a game that was featured complete but needed to be bug and play tested? Now games are marketed as beta versions that have l half the planned content
According to the developer's playthrough I just watched, the next build is supposed to have everything but the campaign (which I never play anyway) and new combat animation. They are shooting for October. I think I'll wait for that one.
Me too!
Am I barking up the wrong tree here?
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/ (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/)
In my opinion, with two major content updates incoming through December 2014, GCIII is not in beta state presently. I think its bad form for the devs to claim this is in beta state.
I'm also surprised at just how much this still looks like its predecessor, Gal Civ II. Honestly, if I had just seen those screenshots on Steam without any label, I would absolutely have assumed it was Gal Civ II. The Gal Civ III trailer seems to promise much bigger, much more impressive changes from the former game, but even if this is still in (pre)Beta, I just don't see how III is going to be much of an advance/improvement over II... -- ?
Quote from: mikeck on August 14, 2014, 07:43:37 AM
Yeah. Last few years it seems like the definition of "Beta" had changed. Didn't it used to mean a game that was featured complete but needed to be bug and play tested? Now games are marketed as beta versions that have l half the planned content
Agree. I don't think Jarhead is barking up the wrong tree in his Steam thread. The criteria of "Beta" used to be pretty standardized. But it seems the rise of "Early Access" is blurring these distinctions. Who knows, maybe in a few years devs won't even speak of "alpha" or "beta" stage anymore. They are clearly making their own decisions about what constitutes 'sufficient content' for "Early Access" these days, and those decisions vary pretty widely --
Quote from: sandman2575 on August 14, 2014, 11:17:19 AM
I'm also surprised at just how much this still looks like its predecessor, Gal Civ II. Honestly, if I had just seen those screenshots on Steam without any label, I would absolutely have assumed it was Gal Civ II. The Gal Civ III trailer seems to promise much bigger, much more impressive changes from the former game, but even if this is still in (pre)Beta, I just don't see how III is going to be much of an advance/improvement over II... -- ?
Christ, you're not wrong! I just had a quick look and it does look like GalCiv 2 doesn't it?
Along with the fact that this will almost certainly not be available on Linux, I'm probably not going to buy it after all now.
At this point, i am still very underwehlmed by what i see... :(
Quote from: Anguille on August 14, 2014, 01:39:19 PM
At this point, i am still very underwehlmed by what i see... :(
That says a lot coming from you.
I have GCII: Ultimate Edition and it's a pretty decent game, but no way in hell I'm buying GCIII if it looks and plays just like II. Hopefully those features/updated they intend to implement later this year come to fruition and change that perspective.
I'm not usually one to buy 'early access' games, though I do on very rare occasion. This won't be one of them. As was mentioned, the trailer sure promises a lot, but so far, the game itself doesn't seem to be living up to those expectations. The input in this thread seems to be corroborating that.
If that trailer is the end-all goal, then pffft, hell yes I'll buy it. But only when it is at that level. I'd rather play it complete than something that has missing parts, like getting an Aston Martin without an engine, or wheels, or seats, or windows. Fie and pox on that.
Perceptions out there do seem to vary widely on what a beta is, exactly, despite the actual definition of it. I'm grammar geek enough to get uncomfortable when people use words the way they aren't defined, or intended.
Quote from: Anguille on August 14, 2014, 01:39:19 PM
At this point, i am still very underwehlmed by what i see... :(
I have to admit that I too have been singularly unimpressed with what I've seen of GalCiv3 so far.
With the exception of switching from tiles to hexes, the game looks identical to its predecessor. Nor do any of the new features or gameplay changes/additions appear to significantly alter and/or improve upon the previous iteration in any meaningful way.
I think I'm just gonna stop announcing new 4x titles. Almost every time I do, I end up jinxing them... :-[
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 14, 2014, 10:59:13 AM
Am I barking up the wrong tree here?
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/ (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/)
In my opinion, with two major content updates incoming through December 2014, GCIII is not in beta state presently. I think its bad form for the devs to claim this is in beta state.
No, I'm right with you on that,
Jarhead. GC3 is still in an alpha state, not a beta. A very playable alpha, perhaps (although I can't vouch for that), but an alpha nonetheless.
Brave man Jarhead. I find the community interaction on Steam game forums to generally falls into two types of posters: the perpetual hate everything crowd or the unswayable "there's nothing to see here" fanboys.
If I'm not mistaken this early release follows the same type of schedule as Fallen Enchantress where there was an extended pay to participate "Beta" that really should be called an "Alpha" phase.
As far as the game is concerned, I'll buy it eventually. Turn based, 4X game; it's one of my favorite genres.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 14, 2014, 10:59:13 AM
Am I barking up the wrong tree here?
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/ (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031522303124/)
In my opinion, with two major content updates incoming through December 2014, GCIII is not in beta state presently. I think its bad form for the devs to claim this is in beta state.
I read your posts and you deserve a pat on the back for making a stand on the isssue. You are exactly right. I even recall Mr. Wardell himself explaining that alpha was feature uncomplete, while beta is feature complete. So it is a bit disappointing to see even Stardock jumping on the "hype beta" bandwagon.
Eh, as I've said elsewhere, gaming just seems to becoming increasingly disreputable. Nothing is what it seems anymore, and even the industry professionals are throwing all standards out the window as fast as possible. This isn't going to end well, of course. I have cut back on purchases quite a bit, and of those I do buy, I usually wait more than a few months for some worthwhile sale before grabbing it. I know others are doing the same. I just have very little trust in the industry anymore. Hence, I am not willing to risk my money by taking that blind leap into the unknown with a Day 1 purchase (or an "early access" title, for that matter). And even if the game is tolerably good, I am now so down on the industry that I can't bring myself to reward a dev with a 100% price point (in general - there are some exceptions, of course). :( I guess I am voting with my wallet these days.
As for GalCiv III: I loved II of course, so I will definitely be getting III sooner or later (probably during the last minute beta as you do save a few bucks, assuming the beta buzz in universally positive). Haven't really been paying attention to the dev cycle for this one though because, again, "early access" has never been my thing. But I agree: so far I haven't really seen anything that makes me jump out of my seat. It just looks like a refined II. However, knowing Stardock, the real magic will happen with the expansions.
Quote from: Anguille on August 14, 2014, 07:49:43 AM
Don't have the time to to beta-testing...
No time for love, Doctor Jones!
Quote from: Bison on August 14, 2014, 08:10:12 PM
Brave man Jarhead. I find the community interaction on Steam game forums to generally falls into two types of posters: the perpetual hate everything crowd or the unswayable "there's nothing to see here" fanboys.
I dunno. It used to be that way but I've been seeing an upswing in stable, reasoned posts for some of Steam game forums I've visited recently.
Sure, there is still some choad dropping a turd in many of the larger threads but the ratio is smaller than I recall from even six months ago. Perhaps I'm just visiting the right ones for that. Since I generally don't play shooters, platformers and 'twitch' stuff much, that could well be the case.
A very playable alpha does mean it is beta. As they implement the additonal features, things might still break. Better to add all then do the Beta testing.
I am not sure why people are slating graphics look much better than 2 to me.
Hexagons, people, not squares but hexagons.
Yeah, I bought in. I'm weak. GalCiv II and expansions have never left my hard drive, and this would have been an October purchase anyway, so I went for it. I've only played a few turns as a couple of races, but there are definitely changes over II. Here's what I've seen so far, for good and bad, although I may still be missing some.
The good:
Race specific tech trees
Individual planetary budgets in addition to the macro-budget setting (although by default they correspond to each other)
Almost all colonizable planets have traits that add a bonus or malus to research, growth, etc., pretty much forcing your colonies to specialize.
Morality trees - similar to the culture trees in Civ V, there are a lot more of those multiple-choice decisions when colonizing planets, only this time you are awarded points that can be spent to gain bonuses. A lot of them are specific like free ships or unlocking buildings.
Shipyards are now orbital structures that can be moved. They are funded by the nearest colony, and in systems with multiple colonies can be positioned so that they get funding from all of them.
Specific elements to be mined, although I'm not sure what their purpose is. I don't know if they replace the old culture/defense/etc. nodes, are in addition to them, or are needed for specific techs.
The not-so-good:
Planetary political parties and elections appear to be out
Likewise asteroid mining (although the element mining above may be the replacement)
Clicking on a star no longer tells you how many conolonizable planets it has. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I really disliked it at frist, what with it being so "gamey", but otoh I've come to rely on it.
No population sliders on colony ships.
In short, there are enough changes to II, and enough is the same, to justify a purchase if you like previous editions.
From what I've seen so far.
Someone (one of the developers, I think) posted this on the Steam forum, and since most of us spend as little time in that wretched hive of scum and villainy as possible, I thought it was worth reposting:
Quote
What's in
Ideology Tree - this replaces the alignment system from GCII. You have three ideology trees, Benevolent, Pragmatic and Malevolent, you can get points from colonization events and certain planetary improvements and spend them to unlock bonuses in a tree. You can purchase bonuses from any of the trees, you are not limited to just one. Also the colonization events have been balanced compared to GCII, as in the "good"option also gets you bonuses.
Hex Map - pretty self-explanatory, GCII used squares, GCIII uses hexes.
Multiplayer - it has online multiplayer, the maximum number of human players mentioned by the developers is 4.
Technology Specialization - certain technologies from the research trees will let you choose a specialization, usually from a number of 3, these will give you bonuses like +10% to manufacturing or research. You can research all of them if you want to.
Strategic Resources - on the map there are resources that can be mined with a mining starbase. These are needed for certain ship components.
Colony Adjacency Bonuses - planetary improvements give bonuses to other building that are next to them, ex. place two factories next to each other and they will both get a bonus.
New Map Elements - for example black holes that stop ships from traveling through them, or a nebula which can reduce sensor range.
Shipyards In GCII planets had a dual queue, one for building and one for ships, in GCIII you have space shipyards that build the ships, you can add multiple planets as sponsors to one shipyard.
There are also smaller changes, starbases now have a different look for each civilization, the research trees have been modified, improved graphics, more options to the ship designer, etc. If anyone thinks I missed something important tell me.
Things to be added
United Planet Proposals - the UP will be back, and this time you can make proposals on what to be voted on.
Fleet Combat Decisions - you will have a little more control on how combat will play out.
Originally posted by Frogboy:
Those who like the idea of designing carriers and seeing carriers in action in fleet battles I think will be happy.
Those who imagine fleet battles that play like MOO2 (i.e. where you're micro managing individual units) will be less happy.
Originally posted by Frogboy:
What you'll have here is if you have support ships in your fleet you'll be able to set up some battle options before the fleet battle begins. its hard to describe, it's a bit magic the gathering (select what you want to do at the start). but you won't be controlling the ships directly. The problem is that people would feel forced to micro manage their battles in order to get an optimal result.
100+ opponents in a game
Originally posted by Frogboy:
One of our objectives is for people to have the option to play new "Immense" sized maps where there might be hundreds of empires playing. We have a lot of different ideas on how to make this work (few people are going to want to have to select 130 opponents to play against). We might use Steamworks Workshop to allow players to share their custom made players and once approved have automatically added as additional AI players into games where a player wants to play a game with a truly insanely large galaxy.
Steam Workshop Integration - for easy distribution of mods. The game in general will be more modable, galaxy sizes, events, lots of things will be modable.
Regarding AI
Originally posted by Frogboy:
One of the biggest changes you'll see in the AI is data mining. Simply put, player ship designs and tactics are going to be stored on the cloud so that the AI can do data mining on it. I don't plan to actually design the ships this time around but instead look at the stats of the global player force and pick from that.
So the top Drengin player won't be the hard coded AI player I put in but more like the top rated human player.
Things that will not be in the base game
Espionage - the developers want to do it right and do not believe there is enough time to include it, maybe in an expansion
5 civilizations - Arceans, Torians, these two may return in DLC, Drath, Korath, Korx.
Terror Stars - not certain.
Thanks for posting that tgb. I wasn't a huge fan of GalCiv 2 at launch and skipped on the expansions, so 3 wasn't even on my radar. But after reading what Stardock actually has planned, especially the 100+ opponents and the way they are handling fleet combat, I think I'll give it a go when it releases.
I am disappointed by the lack of elections and asteroid mining. I could live without the mining, but the elections and parties gave some depth to the universe that I will miss. But, again, this is Stardock: I am sure we will see it return in and expansion with bells and whistles on.
Any more updates from those that have taken the plunge.
Quote from: FlickJax on August 24, 2014, 09:24:43 AM
Any more updates from those that have taken the plunge.
RPS recently did an impressions piece. As I suspected, this is an alpha. A polished one, but an alpha nevertheless.
I took the plunge on this Alpha but it'll be a while before I can get to it.
It's clear that terms like "Alpha" and "Beta" have been coopted and largely have no meaning any more. What matters is that it's stable, playable (mostly), and pretty enjoyable, limited as it is. I put enough time into it to get a feel for it, and wil go back when diplomacy and the other races are in in October.
Looks like you can pick this up for 50% off from the star dock store using code stardock50. Sounds like you get a steam code and only costs $22. Wonder if worth it now?
http://www.galciv3.com/store
Along those lines, can anyone advise I'm whether the game is featured complete. I'm not going to pick it up early if it is still missing diplomacy... for example
I read somewhere that combat wouldn't be added until December. Not sure about diplomacy. I do know it's not feature complete.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 18, 2014, 06:53:53 PM
Looks like you can pick this up for 50% off from the star dock store using code stardock50. Sounds like you get a steam code and only costs $22. Wonder if worth it now?
http://www.galciv3.com/store
Thanks Grim, just picked it up with this. The normal 10% pre-order discount just didn't tempt me but this did.
Only problem now is I've just got Endless Legends and it is rather fun, Endless Space is getting a new patch next week, I've just started a new Civ V game as Arabia, Horizon has just got an update, recently bought Warlock 2 on a discount, I really should be playing Distant Worlds having bought every expansion from the start, bought Civ Beyond Earth just after release with a 50% discount, have Pandora and its expansion and last but by no means least rather like Armada 2526 and should play it more.
Oh and by the way I've got to work for a living as well :)
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 18, 2014, 08:05:06 PM
Endless Space is getting a new patch next week
Really? That's great!
Diplomacy was added with the current build. As of December's, it's supposed to be feature-complete, with only polishing and balancing left to do
Quote from: bbmike on November 18, 2014, 07:38:42 PM
I read somewhere that combat wouldn't be added until December. Not sure about diplomacy. I do know it's not feature complete.
My understanding is "combat" is pretty much supposed to be another (boring) hands-off affair like before, so what does it matter if it's added yet or not? Just pick it up now if you can get it for cheap.
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 18, 2014, 08:05:06 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on November 18, 2014, 06:53:53 PM
Looks like you can pick this up for 50% off from the star dock store using code stardock50. Sounds like you get a steam code and only costs $22. Wonder if worth it now?
http://www.galciv3.com/store
Only problem now is I've just got Endless Legends and it is rather fun, Endless Space is getting a new patch next week, I've just started a new Civ V game as Arabia, Horizon has just got an update, recently bought Warlock 2 on a discount, I really should be playing Distant Worlds having bought every expansion from the start, bought Civ Beyond Earth just after release with a 50% discount, have Pandora and its expansion and last but by no means least rather like Armada 2526 and should play it more.
Oh and by the way I've got to work for a living as well :)
Heh. That sounds so very familiar... :P
Ha, we should all do a Powerball pool and when one of us hits it, we all share in the glory so we can do nothing but play games full time.
Err...and write reviews, of course.
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on November 19, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Ha, we should all do a Powerball pool and when one of us hits it, we all share in the glory so we can do nothing but play games full time.
Ah. To live the dream... :crazy2:
Quote from: Banzai_Cat on November 19, 2014, 12:22:50 PM
Err...and write reviews, of course.
Someone will have to double up to cover
Star's contribution.
Quote from: bbmike on November 18, 2014, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 18, 2014, 08:05:06 PM
Endless Space is getting a new patch next week
Really? That's great!
Also releasing a free add-on
Endless Space: Chronicles of the Lost with the patch and Endless Legend is getting a free add-on as well.
At £14 i had to get it, wont play till release though.
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 19, 2014, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: bbmike on November 18, 2014, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on November 18, 2014, 08:05:06 PM
Endless Space is getting a new patch next week
Really? That's great!
Also releasing a free add-on Endless Space: Chronicles of the Lost with the patch and Endless Legend is getting a free add-on as well.
Well, I'm off to re-install Endless Space now. :D
Quote from: FlickJax on November 21, 2014, 07:54:34 AM
At £14 i had to get it, wont play till release though.
I'm doing the same thing. I bought it yesterday for $22 and won't think about it again until the game is finished.
So I see this is currently 50% off again ($25) and a number of beta releases have occurred with an estimated official release in May.....for those that have previously bought in, any updated impressions? I am tempted to jump in since the pricing is right and not sure how many more times it will be this cheap before release, but seems to be really mixed reactions from everywhere I read.
I've spent a good amount of time with the latest beta patch update recently. It's not a bad game. My only minor disappointments are:
1. Each planet only has enough land slots on them for a limited amount of structures to be built on them. Makes for some interesting decisions but I feel too limited.
2. Which brings me to the number of habitable planets in a medium sized galaxy. There's not much. Once all the factions have grabbed what little is out there you're pretty much forced to go to war to get more. If you only got to grab say 3 planets and your neighbors have 5 or 6 good luck to you.
3. Combat. There is no tactical battles. You send your ships to fight and then watch a screen as the action takes place. Rock paper scissors pretty much.
On sale it's an ok game sure to entertain for a while. At full price I would stay away from this game.
Surely the number of habitable worlds per system can be tweaked in the game setup? It could in GalCiv 2.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on March 01, 2015, 11:34:05 AM
Surely the number of habitable worlds per system can be tweaked in the game setup? It could in GalCiv 2.
Hmm...I'm not sure. I'll have to revisit the new game setup menu.
I'm hoping this turns out to be a good game, because Stardock have hinted strongly at Linux support and are rumoured to be making some kind of announcement to that effect at GDC. O0
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on March 01, 2015, 10:17:07 AM
So I see this is currently 50% off again ($25) and a number of beta releases have occurred with an estimated official release in May.....for those that have previously bought in, any updated impressions? I am tempted to jump in since the pricing is right and not sure how many more times it will be this cheap before release, but seems to be really mixed reactions from everywhere I read.
I saw that 50% look again and came to same conclusion: without having tried it, it looks far too much like 2 did... and no combat as anticipated.
So I'm saving the x4 game fund and time for something in the pipe that grabs me. Stardrive 2, Mandate... possible
Thanks everyone...still pondering...but the feedback helps.
So.... this officially releases tomorrow.... is it any good? I have never played any of the Gal iv games. :crazy2:
Quote from: Barthheart on May 13, 2015, 08:27:12 PM
So.... this officially releases tomorrow.... is it any good? I have never played any of the Gal iv games. :crazy2:
It's very good. It doesn't break any new ground the way Endless Legend or Apollo 4X do, but it brings a ton of polish to the traditional 4X format, and if there's one thing Stardock knows how to do, it's AI.
I'm really excited about this hitting tomorrow.
I bought it last week, its already been uninstalled after two nights of play. I found the game play utterly boring and unimaginative. Most of the mechanics seem to be a copy and paste from Civilization. The galaxy set up offers a lot less flexibility then similar games like Distant Worlds. I loved GalCiv 2, so I knew what I was getting when I bought it, but I think its just proved the Civ model doesn't work for me anymore.
I have been playing the bèta's of this game and am pretty excited for the full release! There is one big advantage to the GalCiv series over other 4x space games: cracking AI!
Its unpredictable at times and very cunning at the normal and above settings.
It assesses threaths, forms alliances to counter those and is pretty dynamic overall.
Many of this is 'under the hood' of course and not readily aparent.
I do agree that 3 is a more polished and shiny version of 2 in a broad sense. But that is what most people wanted to get, so I don't think we can call that a bad thing. :)
If you liked GalCiv 2 and want the newest shiny then GalCiv 3 is a no brainer IMO.
I don't know why but I'm having great fun with this version. I enjoy it much, much more than the first two. O0
Was excited to give this a spin tonight until I came across this --
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/620713633846699102/ (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/620713633846699102/)
Apparently there's no simple way to remove idiotic star names like "Plentiful Steak" -- small thing maybe, but this kind of nonsense pi$$es me off...
Not including an option to rename or re-randomize names is a piss poor decision. I hate these sorts of founders incentives. They did it in Pillars of Eternity and if you read the wrong clickable thing it ruins the game for a short while. Jackassery.
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 14, 2015, 05:11:07 PM
Was excited to give this a spin tonight until I came across this --
http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/620713633846699102/ (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/620713633846699102/)
Apparently there's no simple way to remove idiotic star names like "Plentiful Steak" -- small thing maybe, but this kind of nonsense pi$$es me off...
Yeah, I wasn't too happy about that either. But the good thing is the star names DO NOT show up on the map, only the planet name (which you can change in game). I do hope Stardock changes the game so that you can rename stars.
Also, Stardrive 2 has the exact same problem- you can't rename stars in game.
Reading that thread there is a way to ceding the ml file that contains the names. Now it has 4000! names in it but it is possible.
Still on the fence because of the price.... Might have to wait for a sale.
Quote from: Bison on May 14, 2015, 05:20:14 PM
I hate these sorts of founders incentives. Jackassery.
Precisely.
I do like the race customization though.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aarcentral.com%2Fpics%2Fgc3c.jpg&hash=59f8dde56eeb5e45f4ed9a9474c87c9a131f3d2d)
Nice! Just looking at that calls to mind the menacing voice of Ricardo Montalban - "Kirk! My old friend! Still alive!" ;)
Just need to replace that pic with the one of Kirk in his underwear to make it official.
If the biggest issue with the game is the inability to rename stars, I would say that's pretty damn good.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/05/14/wot-i-think-galactic-civilizations-iii/
Great review over at RPS.
They like it but recommend that you play on medium maps or large (with scarce habitable planets) or it will be a chore. Seems basically an updated version of Gal Civ 2: which is good
GalCiv 2 was always one of my favorite sci-fi games, so I WILL be getting this at some point.
Question for those of you who have it: what has changed, if anything, with the battles? In GalCiv 2, the combat was just like Endless Space where it was a hands-off movie. Do you have greater control? I am not looking for an RTS, but I am curious if you can set fleet formations or other basic orders before the battle.
EDIT: Just saw that this is missing:
Quote3. What's missing:
Planetary invasion viewer - was reworked prior to release, will be added to the game in a free patch.
My purchase will wait for that. :)
I've finally started devoting some real time to this. Although there is something about it that makes me keep hitting the next turn button, like all Gal Civ games before it, there is something about the experience that strikes me as hollow and soulless and I just can't explain it or put my finger on why.
It has a great variety of planet types, each with bonuses and hazards. The space environment is full of anomalies to explore and strategic resources to exploit. It has a wide variety of technology to research. It has dozens of different ship types and hulls, and with the ship designer, vessel options are limited only by the player's imagination. Ship combat is pretty dull, though. No strategic or tactical options here. Victory or defeat is really just a matter of having more ships, more guns and more advanced military technology. This is a major draw back of the game. Even so, the total sum of all the parts should still make this a really good 4x game, but so far it only feels average.
I'm just about to start my first interstellar war, so I'll report back if that spices things up.
I find it a lot more fun than I or II for some reason, but yeah, it's still kind of easy to walk away from. And I think that ship design is much more difficult in this version. I can't seem to build a ship. Probably operator error but I've never had any problems in II.
Quote from: bbmike on July 05, 2015, 06:35:25 PM
I find it a lot more fun than I or II for some reason, but yeah, it's still kind of easy to walk away from. And I think that ship design is much more difficult in this version. I can't seem to build a ship. Probably operator error but I've never had any problems in II.
I'm finding that there are so many different kinds of stock vessels that there is really no need to even try to create your own.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 05, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
Quote from: bbmike on July 05, 2015, 06:35:25 PM
I find it a lot more fun than I or II for some reason, but yeah, it's still kind of easy to walk away from. And I think that ship design is much more difficult in this version. I can't seem to build a ship. Probably operator error but I've never had any problems in II.
I'm finding that there are so many different kinds of stock vessels that there is really no need to even try to create your own.
I do like to create an AWACS-type starship loaded with sensors and fast enough to keep up with my aggressors. The easiest way is to take a colony ship, strip out the colony part and fill the hold with sensor units. They are great for watching borders and identifying targets. And I often copy a vessel simply to recreate and rename it into something sensible, something more readily identifiable to me by name. Maybe I should name my Planetary Assault vessels the "Jarhead" class....yeah, has a nice ring to it. O0
Great idea with the AWACS type ships. I guess I need to get practical and creative. Also a good idea renaming ship classes to something more identifiable at a glance...Battleaxe, Fury, Knight, etc. just don't cut it.
Let me know how the Jarhead Class works out for you! :2funny:
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on July 05, 2015, 08:33:24 PM
Great idea with the AWACS type ships. I guess I need to get practical and creative. Also a good idea renaming ship classes to something more identifiable at a glance...Battleaxe, Fury, Knight, etc. just don't cut it.
Let me know how the Jarhead Class works out for you! :2funny:
Oh, the Dregins surrendered their entire empire the moment one crossed into their territory. :knuppel2:
I do find the technical gameplay bits nothing new at all. But the AI at higher settings is just great! Its Dynamic and devious. I think this is a great selling point of the GalCiv series.
As a 4x game itself I do agree that it is nothing special.