I couldn't care less about multiplayer, but I have to admit that I'm a little unnerved to hear about a previously-advertised feature being cut this early in the development process.
The point I was trying to make was primarily in response to this [quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="33" id="3424179"]I don't have a problem with surrenders cause I just shut them off anyways.[/quote] which I took to be response to people asking for improvements to surrenders. While I personally have never been bothered by AI surrender behavior, if there is a problem with it then Stardock should address that for GCIII, not just give us the option to shut
I don't know why anyone is arguing about whether evolving blue skin makes sense when we're talking about a species that was created by an evil cosmic being crashing into their homeworld, then experimented upon by Sufficiently Advanced Aliens (TM) .
I don't really have a problem with AI surrender behavior, but I don't think it's ever a good thing to have "turn it off" as the only solution to a problem.
Also, this discussion about factions raises another question: is there any possibility of having genuine "alternative" racial images in some fashion? The static portraits GalCiv II offered were kind of weak, and there weren't even any for the races added in DA. From a customization perspective, it would be useful, and it would also give us a chance to get a broader picture of each race. Incidentally, this still hasn't resolved the now 7-year-old mystery of what happen
In a number of my TA games, I've noticed that the AI Terrans and/or Drengin seem to be suffering from some kind of ship-building bug where their Defenders use a random medium-hull template for their appearance instead of the normal Terran or Drengin defender template. On a few occasions, I've even seen the Terrans use custom medium hulls that I had saved earlier for their defenders. This only seems to occur when I'm playing with mods enabled, but I don't actually have any mods
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="65" id="3420705"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 62 We'll have to come up with some new galaxy size names since the top end galaxy sizes will be much bigger. Dropping these innocuous one-liner bombshells makes me so angry. You know so much more about the game and it drives me insaaaaaannnnneeeee D: Now you know how I feel each time people reference something from the Founder's Vault.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="8" id="3418820"]There are six in total: 5 is used by the minor races, and 3 is used by the Dread Lords.[/quote] Yeah, I know, but I didn't bring the other two up because it's not really relevant to this issue. And I set the Yor to AI 11 primarily because it's 1) much less of a bully than AI 8 (the Yor are Super Isolationists, so I don't think they should be as conquest-happy as the Drengin) and 2) apparently a better researcher (wh
[quote who="jecy99" reply="4" id="3418708"]I have seen people talk about separate AI's does each race have a unique AI?[/quote] There are 4 basic AI personalities: 7 (used by the Drengin, Yor, and Korath), 8 (Terrans, Drath, Thalan, and Krynn), 10 (Torians and Iconians), and 11 (Altarians, Arceans, and Korx). Each race has its own variant on the basic personality, but no one seems entirely certainly what the precise differences are - the big ones are between the 4 top-level person
Actually, it's been known for a long time that the AI personality 7 (which the Drengin use) is bugged in regards to colonization. The Drengin seem to get the worst of it, in fact.
I know all that, but since it's mostly a handwave to explain why population grows so fast, it's not really that satisfying an explanation.
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="5" id="3415923"] Quoting qrtxian, reply 4 To be honest, I just want a system where my 100% good race doesn't have to, for all intents and purposes, commit genocide every time it invades a planet. Frogboy said in this interview, that they are replacing alignments with ideologies. So, no Good vs Evil anymore.[/quote] That's not really my point. I just think it's kind of ridiculous that I can be playing the Altarians,
Honestly, it really is best to play each campaign on the version of the game it was designed for. Even with the bugs fixed, the new rules each expansion introduces can wildly unbalance the previous campaigns - this is especially bad with applying the combat system from DA onward to the Dread Lords campaign.
[quote who="ParagonRenegade" reply="13" id="3414931"]They probably achieved a technology singularity in the time since Galactic Civilizations 2. Basically an exponential increase in processing power and technical ability.[/quote] Actually, according to the information up there now, the Yor already achieved a singularity event in the form of their "upgrade" by the Dread Lords. Of course, nothing limits them to just one (and we know it's their end-goal), but I'd guess more that
Now that I think about it, at least part of the issue with the Precursor Ranger is probably specific to TOA. It was upgraded to use similar stats as the rest of the Arnorian ships introduced for the campaign, without the event itself being altered, so it was as likely to appear as ever but was much more game-breaking. I'm pretty sure the Precursor Ranger in DL and DA used the same (much weaker) stock "Ranger" ship type as the Lucky Ranger.
Look, no offense, but are you aware of the edit button?
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="319" id="3412512"] Quoting qrtxian, reply 311I'm pretty sure "if you're expecting to control individual ships as in MOO2, you may be disappointed" is officially stating it. The door has certainly been left open to some kind of additional player involvement in combat, but it sounds like all-out tactical battles of the sort some people want are definitely not happening. When I see "if you're expecting to control individual ships
[quote who="mattiscool555" reply="307" id="3412231"]People are going to hold out hope on this until it's officially stated but I just don't see it. If anything I could see indirect tactics but I just don't see players controlling ships in any capacity.[/quote] I'm pretty sure "if you're expecting to control individual ships as in MOO2, you may be disappointed" is officially stating it. The door has certainly been left open to some kind of additional
Hallelujah.
This discussion about the Precursor Ranger brings to mind the one change to the system that I think is absolutely necessary: a clearer distinction between ordinary random events and mega events. Some of the "ordinary" events are pretty game-altering, while some of the mega events aren't that significant.
As mentioned elsewhere, I'm resuming this in an effort to try and finish it before GalCiv III comes out (also, being based on a completed game means I don't have to wait to get yet another new mouse). Bumping so I'll know where it is when I finish the next post. In the meantime, here's the map mentioned but inexplicably not uploaded in the last "real" post: <img src="http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee492/qrtxian/humans4-1.jpg" alt="" widt
[quote who="Lucky Jack" reply="256" id="3410438"] I am also wondering if another factor is weighing in on this discussion. Let me start this one by stating my preferences in playing GC: I prefer conquest victories to the exclusion of all the other types of victories available in GC1 or GC2. So could we please start a poll of the sort, "I prefer conquest victories and want tactical battles" or "I prefer cultural and technology victories and do not want tactical battles" or <<< name yo
[quote who="Phazon88" reply="206" id="3408605"]If you have tactical combat, generally it almost always ends up being that player intervention is superior to autoresolved combat. The player feels pressured to fight every single battle himself to get the best result.[/quote] Yeah, that's the problem with the whole "make it optional" suggestion - you can never really balance it. There's actually a few cases I can think of where it's easier to let the computer auto-re
[quote who="TweetyLeaf" reply="179" id="3407681"]Why is people so interested and concerned about this ? [/quote] Again, speaking for myself: because this would be an extreme change for the worse. All of the things you mention - diplomacy, events, planetary improvements, and so forth - are things where there are lots of possibilities for improvement. That can be exciting to speculate on and/or offer suggestions about, but ultimately in most cases it's going to be a matter
Part 18: The Arceans' Last Hurrah? The first clue to the way in which galactic events had suddenly altered came at the beginning of November 2234, when the Torian ascension victory countdown suddenly increased by over 20 weeks. Two weeks later, the Enterprise-class TAS Columbia discovered the cause: an abandoned ascension crystal floating in Torian space, obviously once home to an ascension starbase. <img src="http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/e
