Ok sometimes it seems to be working now. Which is a step in the right direction. You must of done something, to give it a jump-start, because there was no way I could get it to work before. I'll have to keep an eye on it.
For some reason I can not get hard line returns, whether I type it in or paste, or whether I use plain text mode or pure HTML mode. It's getting to the point where it's very annoying and not wanting to post here anymore. [Hard line return should go here.] But on to the point... [Hard line return should go here.] Very clean and professional without all that clutter. [Hard line return should go here.] Unlike many big name companies that takes 15 min. just to figure out
How about adding gunnery skill. . Buildings that you research and build on planet surface to increase gunnery skill. So weapons may not strike 100% of the time. To start weapons hit ratio with basic gunners training would be between 80 to 100%, and as you increase gunners skill, ratio works it's way up to 100%.
Sometimes for me it wont even take hard line returns, very annoying. The thing is it does not happen all the time. Just checking for HLR. Like now, it wont take.
I love RTS games multiplayer. I know I may be taking this a little bit out of context, but... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------hard line return------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It soun
It's weird, I just don't have this problem on other forums.
I give up.
Why wont this give me hard line returns?
Early tech level weapon types have a chance of blowing up mid fight and end up taking a chunk of the ship with them... Its too much isn't it? No, it's not a bad idea, but I think the percentage of them blowing up should be very rare, because it can get a bit annoying if your ships were constantly blowing up... you know, how some devs like to o
All this makes it quite hard to do a satisfying tactical combat for the game. I wouldn't be satisfied of a simplistic MoO3 move and shoot system, nor a quite complex Total War like system with it's useless autoresolve and weak tactical battle AI. Tactical combat should be an enhancement, and not the main point of the game and it also shouldn't be the way to win by m
But if the system would be changed in complexity to something just a tiny bit like homeworld tactical combat (for example) an accurate autosolve would be nearly impossible. Well one thing it does not have to be like Homeworld tactical combat, I don't believe RT is the way to go, but then it doesn't matter what I think... I'm not making the gam
ships would be placed on an 8X8 or 8X10 "chess board" Good idea, though it has been done before to a certain degree in a colonization type game can't remember the name now something like Kingdoms or something. Battles were resolved by placing infantry, cavalry and canons on a grid and you moved one man at a time, or I think you moved one man at
ROME TW was a joke if you auto resolved. GCII auto resolves now as it is.
But I also felt I HAD to play out remotely close battles myself in order to ensure success because I wanted to win the game More to the point, I don't want players to feel like they have to play the tactical combat battle
Of course Stardock is considering tak combat for Galciv3. In another thread, Frogboy said he even voted for it in the poll. Yes I read that thread, Amen. And yes I agree, that's what the poll says "Which feature in a GalCiv III would you want the most? ", I was just try to make a point with that comment I made, but thanks I really appre
Doesn't anyone want something maybe a little different then the same old same old. There are parts of TB battle like in MOO2 that did not work. Part of it was in some cases it was to easy to wipe out the other side (I guess this is a problem with all games to one degree or another), and for some, did not like the micro management. RT battles has it's flaws to, things like baby-sitting all your units, and that feeling of the clock is ticking got to click mouse, how fast can you go. So
I'm wishing in GC3 you could pick RTS Tactical or TBS tactical and you choose which you want to use or not use it at all during game setup. that would make everyone happy. 1. TBS like Moo with it's extremly simple mechanics, move, shoot, move, shoot. 2. RTS Conquest Frontier Wars. 3. Not use Tac Combat. NOW THAT would make everyone happy. <
Can we get past "I don't like TB combat", "gee I hope they put in an option to turn it off", "I hope their not going to put in TB battles in GCII or GCIII" This post is not about whether you like it or not, it's not about whether they should put it in or not. It is about if they are going to put it in then what would you like it to be, and to discuss what would be the best way to put all those ideas together to make it work. I'm beginning to think some of these post are automated. Som
100% turn based takes us 15-20 years back in time Civ IV is 100% turn based. In fact even GCII is 100% turn based, so why not stick to turn based? Sneaker I think my point was that you have two stro
Turn based tactical? YICHHHH! I'd rather have no combat at all Who said you had to play tactical?
I'd like VERY SIMPLE tactical battles in GalCiv 3 And what I'm suggesting is you can have as simple or micro as you wish, it's up to the player.
There is a strong population that is against tactics of any level and the other such camp is in favor of something other than turn based combat. I have no idea what the percentage is. I do know that there are people that do want turn based battles, so I'm not sure if I can agree with you. The other thing is in my suggestion is you d
Once again I'm not saying tactical battles are going to be in GC2. What I am saying is If the poll is any indication that Tactical battles will be in GC3, then what type of tactical battles do you want in the game? I am suggesting a tactical battle that will appease everyone, or at lest attempt too, no more no less.
It's not that I am opposed to tactical battles, it's just that you would need to re-write GC2 to add them. So to be realistic it ain't happening. I like the current vision of GC2, it's great fun. Are you suggesting that I was referring to GC2, adding tactical battles to GC2? If so, I was not.
Please, if you DON'T want to be flamed, then read what has already been posted. Brad has given his views on TC, and it's irritating hearing the same old over and over again. Who were you referring to? If you were referring to me I never suggest I did not want to be flamed, if not then forget it. Of course not say I would like to be,
