Not to sound negative but when do you ever zoom into a starbase? Ive never found the need to do that. Also Ive noticed in Dreadlords that the ships/starbases in the combat screen does not look as good as they do on the main screen (when zoomed in). Is this because youre more zoomed in on combat screen that you are on the main screen?
What are your thoughts? Aslong as the violence is simulated and no (real) person is physically hurt by it then I enjoy violence. Imo GC II would be more fun if it focused more on space ship combat and less on other things like espionage etc. However once people will start to get hurt then Im deadset against any kind of violence. Violence
Thats rather easily done. Ive myself coded a random map generator utility that creates random maps but with the option of setting quality, location and etc of homeworlds. Ive made mainly for when I play the Star Trek mod so the the Feds wont start right next to the Borg but if there is demand I guess I can polish and make it available.
I'll be getting vista, but I'm not doing it because I like vista. I'm doing it because DX10 is vista only, and I'm certainly leaving it for 6 months so it can "iron out the kinks"[/quote] Yep, this is the only reason for any gamer to get Vista. [quote]Speaking of DX10 there is an article on Firing Squad with Tim Sweeney Mr.UT engine himself. According to
Any gfx enhancements for the combat view? Havent seen the DA version but the basic version looks rather bad.
If one was to look at the decision tree, assuming there was one, you would see that Stardock took the safe route, and that they profited from that choice. So nobody can fault them for that. They made money, expanded their business, developed a good product. Alienated a small portion of a community rather then the majority. What community are you
But there's also the asteroids, the different planet types, the custom opponents, and the ship templates, to name the other really big feature changes. That's what I mean when I say that you dont understand the importance of multiplayer support in todays games. Asteroids and custom opponents I can see how it adds a new dimension to the game but s
Yamota, did you miss the part where Frogboy said that the Galactic Civilizations games for Windows are the only games that haven't had mulitplayer? No, why did you get the impression that I had? If you are referring to the statement I made where Stardock havent realised that multiplayer games is the present and future I was speaking in the contex
Well I guess I over reacted. But my first thought was, if they're flying the banner for Vista, they must be thinking about creating upgrades/updates in the near future that would require x10... Thats not a bad thing imo. It's about time strategy games put more focus on state of the art gfx and for the future dx 10 is what you want if you wan
Pirates objective would be to raid, not to destroy. So they should probably attack trade ships and nothing else. Pirates wiping out entire empires fleets just seems weird. If they could do that then why not establish themselves as a major "race"? Historically pirates have always been hit and run. They raid and then escape when the reinforcements arrive. Ive never heard of pirate ships taking on any countries navy head on.
I agree with Frogboy's position, as far as I'm concerned if you don't like playing AI then don't play computer games. To me thats the whole point of playing on a computer, So I guess the whole internet gaming revolution is something that have passed you by completely? An AI will not be close as good as a somewhat veteran player in any ga
I have to agree with some of the people in this thread. Windows Vista is all fluff. The ONLY reason I can think of that makes it worth the 200+ $ investment is DX 10 but Im not playing any games that support it and neither do I have a gfx card that supports it so right now there is no real reason to get Windows Vista, none.
So if I have original GC II I can purchase a digital copy of DA and I will be fine. k thanks for clearing that up.
Hopefully the large planets and large racial bonuses they start with will help, any feedback on how this is going would be great! I strongly doubt that this will be enough on huge maps with a houndred inhabitable planets but I will let you know for sure once I get DA. I know that in 0.4 the Vorlons and Shadows were a joke since other rac
Wait a minute, even though I already own GC II, I have to buy another copy that is labeled Gold and only then can I purchase and play the expansion?
HI all been busy getting my ass flogged in a game called Total anihilation. That is a 'real time' game, and as i get older, real time games get harder! Take the game known as starcraft for example. I used to be able to play that game when it first came out. Now, i am wondering if somone hacked my computer and changed the easy setting to 'insane'. I absolut
noone knows?
Do not be so sure. The Stardock team is pretty good at doing things the players have suggested and many of them scan the forums on a daily basis. Yeah Im sure they do. Didnt mean to imply that the devs dont care what we think but rather that there is no guarrantee that they will so people dont need to shoot down other peoples opinions like t
* Vorlons, Shadows and Firstones cannot build colony ships Huh? How will they be able to compete if they cant build colony ships?
I would definetly like to see better, more exciting combat, possibly procedurally generated battles (I know its hard Stardock but most computer nerds wet themselves when they hear those two words). More animations, maybe Homeworld style battles (but purely simulated, no tactical involvement) by which I mean ships don't take it in turns to shoot at each other, well, that is
Either way, the tiny hulls are obsolete right now entirely... yet, the AI still likes to build small ships even when the more efficient huge hulls are lying around. Yep, definetely something the devs should look into to if theyre not improving smaller hulls. No reason why the AI should keep using tiny/small ships mid/late game.
1. I thought MP was also one of those "most likely not added" issues... 2. Seems like tactical combat to me, disguised as new techs or more of a strategic approach. 3. Shouldn't even be an issue... "not fun" sounds really lame. 1. See kryos response to this thread: https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=132718#1026682 2.
Logical? Well havent really thought about the logical part. Im more interested in making the combat more multidimensional and I believe giving smaller ships a role even at later stages of the game, and thus encouraging empires to still build them, would make the combat more interesting as there would exist more choices. But if you really want to put a logical twist on it then it would make sense that small fighters, which has alot less inertia and size, would have an advantage over big
Imo the current huge map, 18x18, is too small. Space should be alot bigger and exploration is something that should happen even at end game so I was wondering if it is a big change to allow bigger maps. Like 40x40?
As the title says, name top three features you would like to be added after DA. The devs have said that orbital bombardement, carriers and tactical combat will most likely not be added so you cant pick any of those. I will start: 1. Multiplayer, enough said. 2. Enhanced combat without tactical combat. New weapons, technologies that are mainly for combat, larger combat area, formations, weapon tracking speed and so on. The list could be really long and it all d
