Orion Adrian

Here's my thinking on the subject: because you have a ship designer, people want to use it in ways that make sense for a ship designer. Unfortunately the current ship designer is pretty much cosmetic. But given how neat the general concept is and how cool they are in tactical games, I think a lot of people are clamoring for tactical combat. Really they go hand in hand. It seems wasteful to have one without the other. Hardpoints, targetted sh

I've having some difficulties. I understand that taxation and production aren't tied together, but the relationship between production and allocation of production along Social, Military and Research isn't very clear. I can have production locked at a certain number adjust the allocation and get radically different results. What would be better is simply three bars that go from 0% to 100% that are independant of each other along with somethi

Now, Gal Civ has soldiering upgrades, upgradable buildings (and only limited room on each planet for buildings.. unlike Civ where you have everything you want), logistics, the size of your hulls, alignment (which will drastically change the flavor of your game and your strategy), and star bases. Once again, it really sounds like

Then... Go play an RTS where everything is scripted. Galciv and games like it are different. there is no story, You create it. And if you don't like the gameplay, which can be repetitive sometimes. Well, that's just a differnce in taste. Admittedly that may be a difference in taste, but even Civilizat

You can purchase small non-cosmetic upgrades that let a tank go into siege mode to fire its one cannon. Can you put more cannons on the tank? Can you add machine guns to the tank? Can you add lasers to the tank? What sort of defenses can you give the tank? Can you change what the tank looks like? Firs

The thing is, the original poster compared a 4x game to RTS games and an MMORPG. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I can go on and say how Starcraft has no diplomacy, it has weapon/ship customization, you cannot choose your alignment, you only have control over tactical battles and have no grand strategy options, you cannot

Not sure what you want when you talk about "Soul". It sounds like you want a game with a story. GalCiv is an X4 game, they dont tend to have stories. Comparing this game to Starcraft or warcraft is like comparing SUVs with Sport Cars. They are on completely different levels. Humans are humans though.

This case has been made many times before and it will likely be made many times in the future. This game screams for tactical combat even when other games don't. The reason, the ship designer. Civilization shouldn't have tactical combat because unit design isn't part of the game, but where you've gone to all the trouble to allow people to totally customize their units, you owe it to yourself to pair it with a tactical combat experience. The great varie

I've developed a problem with this game since I bought it; I can't stop playing it. The problem is I always find myself thinking around hour 5, "What am I still playing this game for? I've been bored silly for hours now" While this game, like may 4X games, creates a sense of "one more turn", but I feel it lacking in that I'm not having any fun taking those extra turns. I feel like a crack addict who has gotten to the point where the game jus

Not a different game. Wanting to add 3-point shooting to basketball doesn't make it a different game. It adds to it. Currently the ships just kind of look like flies buzzing around shooting in every direction. In this game the ship designer is the strongest part, followed by planet layout, but is currently lacking in every other area. Tactical combat would add to this game like field goals, free throws, and stolen bases add to the

This is no Civ IV. It's also not Warcraft III. It currently lacks flavor. The fact that a good 1/3 of the technology tree centers around smaller versions of existing ideas (size - 1) or simply better versions of existing buildings (hammers + 1) makes me sad. When they said the tech tree was bad in the late game, what they really meant is it was bad all around. These kinds of things really make me feel as if tech is a necessary evil in this game. You ha

Fighters only really work with the carrier idea if they are reliant on it for range and protection. Otherwise, the fighters are just escorts. That's the trade-off of the carrier; by themselves they are pretty much defenseless as are the fighers, but combined they make for a pretty nasty punch.

Realism doesn't have to be a factor here. Actually realism would really bog down the game; that whole faster than light thing. But additional metagames make for additional play. Think about how different basketball is with one (1) person versus five (5) people per team. The free-throw game, the three-point line all introduce additional elements that make the game interesting. Look at modern RTS's for inspiration on some of these elements. They gave up

Ideas for carriers: first strike; ablative attack (i.e. fighters die, attack goes down, they're built, attack goes up); extended range; Fighters also have the neat addition that they allow weapons to target different classes of weapons. Remember Star Wars. The Death Star was designed to counter capital ships; fighters took out other fighters. Weapons could be reclassed as a mix of fire rate, damage, and size. This would correctly

There's always the possibility that you have to pick say 3 areas. I think that could work out pretty well.

Well consistent prices in the beginning may lead to very similiar games with most cultures starting with the cheaper versions early game. What would be cool is additional abilities; e.g. collateral damage for missiles, damaging systems with lasers, extra planets damage with mass drivers.

I love this idea. It's something I've always wanted. What would also be cool is the ability to specify a percentage generic and a specific percentage. Non-targetted research would get a bonus; or targetted research a penalty depending on how you look at it. I think this makes for a much more interesting approach. Many games don't pay off flexibility sufficiently. This would be cool.

It seems to me that these should be reworked so that the total bonus is culmalative so that when you get a higher tech you get all the prerequisites; though it might be nice to prevent you from getting really high techs without the prerequisites.

Cloaking ships, cloaking mines, more ideas, better game. Remember the trade off that happens in most games: stealth ships can't have shields or heavy armor; they're especially vulnerable. Scout ships make for good cloaking scenarios. There's plenty of ways in which cloaking can be pulled off.

One, the tech tree needs more creativity. There's a wealth of ideas from decades of science fiction. Also I'd like to see more combination techs; e.g. something that improves mining and defense. Two, multiple requirements. Right now it's basically a bunch of deep un-related technologies. Which not only makes for a more boring experience, but also a more unrealistic one. Three, better planetary defense. It seems rediculous that you