General Joab

Wishlist

▼

Wishlist

How GalCiv III could improve GalCiv II

from GalCiv3 Forums
 
I enjoyed playing the previous Galactic Civ games. In fact, I am still playing II. There are a few things I would change though, if I could. Aside from things like better graphics and three dimensional maps or a fleet combat viewer that looks less like a four-year-old's bathtub war games a have a few more practical suggestions. Many others have elsewhere commented on ideas I share. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted those. What follows are still at the top of my wishlist.

1. Make Constructors and Troop Transports and Colony Ships reusable. They may have to return home to take on fresh troops and supplies and there may even be time/money costs involved but it should be cheaper and more flexible than building a new ship for each upgrade to a star base or a new transport for each invasion.

2. Like Influence victories, there should be an Economics victory path that follows banks and stock exchanges; however, rather than one leading to the other, they should diverge and become separate but essential tech tree paths to victory. The Banking techs should lead to Reserve Banking systems with the aim to become the Galactic Reserve Bank. Coupled with the Galactic Stock Exchange, and economic victory would allow the victor to gradually acquire the means to manipulate the economies of other races and ultimately to buyout entire planets in a way similar to influence but from an economics perspective. Advances in banking should allow for the diplomacy power of offering other races a loan as a bargaining chip. Banking could then be used to extort your enemies, or prop up the economies of your allies in a much more dynamic way. Becoming the Galactic Reserve Bank would then tie the entire galactic banking system to your empire granting you an economic share in their success. Stock Markets should afford you the chance to buy up major companies through their stocks and by so doing acquire trade goods developed by other races. Even if you cannot produce them on your own worlds, owning the galactic businesses that produce them among the other races would give you access to the profits they produce. By using banks and stock markets, one may ultimately own the galaxy without having a large empire, military, diplomatic alliances, or influence. If one may dispense with the single galactic currency, and in its place allow each empire to have its own currency, we can begin to see the value of building a Galactic Reserve Bank. While the currency values for all the races rise and fall based on their own economies relative to each other, the empire holding the Galactic Reserve would be the security they all use to prop up their systems creating dependency and the power to manipulate a currency war. Not all of these tools need to be present for the Economic Victory to function, but it would make the game a bit more interesting than an Ascension Victory. No offense.
 
3. The Ship Creator needs a rethink on modules.
Constraints should be focused on energy costs of operating the module, not on size. A power-hungry weapon may deplete energy to where shields and other components do not operate properly without adding more power generation. There would then be a power source for each ship whether it be fission, fusion, anti-matter, or zero-point energy. The more power-hungry a ship becomes, the more power generation must be built in.
While mass would not be an energy constraint for systems operation, it should be included for selecting the proper propulsion unit. A ship bogged down with massive weapons systems may not be quick or maneuverable without adding more engine power. Other than cost, what is the practical use of a fighter that is just as sluggish as a freighter?
As for weapons, consider adding range and re-fire values for the weapons. Longer ranged weapons may require more energy, better sensors, and have a lower re-fire rate but would allow for fleets backed by ships serving a role say more like artillery. If we want fleets to be more than just the number of ships in a stack, or their combined fire-power, hit points, and defenses, we need ships that can serve in different roles and excel at doing so.
 
4. Fleet Combat should allow some tactical input without micromanagement. For example, the AI should select the best strategy for success, but if the battle is a suicide mission, the player should be free to designate which targets in the enemy fleet are a priority making it possible to carry out precision strikes against a more powerful enemy. We should also be able to interrupt a battle to instruct our fleet to retreat. 

5. Diplomacy with other players or AI allies should include the capacity to designate targets of interest and the development of a cooperative strategy. If I have the best warships and weapons to fight the enemy, and my ally has a weaker economy that limits their ship production, I should be able to instruct my ally to build the cheaper Troop Transports to conquer the enemy planets while I supply the battleships to provide his fleets with cover. Also, allied forces should be able to form combined fleets, or at least have fleets that can occupy the same tile and jointly defend that tile as a means of shoring up allied forces. 

6. Finally, on the choices-driven Good vs. Evil ethical system, i have a thought. Good vs. Evil is too simplistic, but it is a good idea. Why not allow for a spectrum of ethical philosophies represented by your choices, and expanding choices beyond good bad and neutral? No choice should be neutral, and all choices should pose serious costs and benefits. Enslaving a race may provide an economic bonus, but also require significant military costs in terms of garrisons to keep the slaves under control as well as contributing to organized crime throughout the galaxy. In the past, enslavement was the only choice that offered any benefit to the player. Choosing not to enslave them should offer several paths with their own sets of costs and benefits. For example, you could choose not to colonize their world after all, and instead focus on diplomatic and humanitarian aid while providing them with protectorate status so other races do not enslave them. It may cost you a planet and whatever production you might gain from it, but you lose nothing to garrisons or organized crime, and it could provide a small economic benefit with the possibility of incorporating their planet into your empire at a later date via referendum or whatever. I understand the argument for eliminating it from the game entirely, but I think a more multifaceted philosophical alignment of multiple ethical views each with their own costs and benefits could keep this as an interesting part of game play. 
 
I am looking forward to your comments.
200,203 views 118 replies
Reply #101 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Rudy_102, reply 100

If we both agree on tactical use of mines (within fleets' combat), then I don't understand why we have this discussion. I never proposed blanketing space with mines (unless I wasn't that clear), I propose use of mines tactically, within combat (or right before it).

You launch them from your MRLS (or any other convenient launcher), but instead of missiles/rockets with conventional warheads you use cluster ordance, filled with mines, probably with proximity sensors, and launch them when you're in contact with enemy. The only difference is that when you launch ordinary missiles you aim at dealing direct damage, yet when you launch mines you aim at constraining your opponent movement. Imagine your opponent has ships with powerful, albeit short-ranged weapons. Now you place mines right under their noses, similarly to a way Hedgehoqs and Squids were used in WWII against subs trying to avoid ASDIC, or you turn around your ships and drop "depth charges", pursuing similar goals - to constraint your opponents movement, forcing him to change his course, and maybe, show his less protected areas. Because unless we talking about spherical ships in vacuum (this time - literally) I doubt it is possible to create ship equally protected from all directions.

Yes, of course he could destroy mines you laid, but every moment he is not firing at your ships is your advantage, no? And if they won't stop or shift their fire, they'll be damaged or, maybe, even detroyed.

Cluster munitions designed to hinder movement and slow down an enemy in combat would be an interesting addition, particularly with fleet roles and such. Pair that up with carrier ships, where you launch your bombers and then blast the area with your cluster mines, and you've got an environment where you tiny launched ships can move around more easily than bigger enemy ships.

Alright, you found a version of mines that I can get behind. :D

Reply #102 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 101

Alright, you found a version of mines that I can get behind.

With Starcraft's Ghost's voice: "Finally!". :jafo:

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #103 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 94
Tactical combat can be turn-based, and have zero disruption on the strategic element of the game.

Good joke. I admit I laughed out loud.

No one would be pushing for tactical combat of any sort if it didn't change the strategic elements of the game. Generally, that change is to slant all combat in the game to the advantage of the human player over the AI. Tactical combat, at least in most games, allows the player to consistently beat an AI opponent with substantially inferior forces. That allows the player to still defend their space with significantly fewer resources, which means greater resources for infrastructure and other uses.

Quoting Tharios, reply 94
So I looked in the thread you mentioned. And once again, the only supposed reasoning is, "I don't like it, tactical combat is for losers." Logic doesn't seem to be a priority for number crunchers, ironically.

Similarly, no one has yet made any argument supporting tactical combat other than "I like it, add it. Anyone who doesn't want it is just bad at it."

The problem it neither side accepts the other's arguments as valid. Nothing is going to change that, either.

Quoting General, reply 98
I really hate that we're still drumming the old mine issue. Why? For one, I really like some of your more sensible ideas, and frankly, I would rather talk about them.

Every time we finally get someone to accept reality and drop it, someone new comes in and brings it up again. Same with tactical combat.

Reply #104 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 103
Good joke. I admit I laughed out loud.

No one would be pushing for tactical combat of any sort if it didn't change the strategic elements of the game. Generally, that change is to slant all combat in the game to the advantage of the human player over the AI. Tactical combat, at least in most games, allows the player to consistently beat an AI opponent with substantially inferior forces. That allows the player to still defend their space with significantly fewer resources, which means greater resources for infrastructure and other uses.

That's not an intrinsic problem of tactical combat in a game, it's a problem with AI coding.  One I don't feel is a sufficient excuse anymore in the 21st century, and especially not in a game that will be released "when it's done."  It doesn't really disrupt the strategic element, except in multiplayer.  In which case, it's unlikely to do even that because the number crunchers will still get their way by refusing to do anything but auto-resolve.  And I do agree that it would be unfair, in current circumstances, to pit a player-controlled fleet against an AI controlled one.  So by default, all bean-counter vs actual player combat would be auto-resolved in multiplayer.  However, tactical combat does indeed add a wealth of otherwise unavailable options and depth of gameplay to this game, that would attract a broader player base without alienating the current player base.  You CANNOT claim that the bean counters will stop playing when they are still as free to let the computer do all the combat work as they've ever been.  Especially not when it will add more players to the base, and give a large segment of players more to do in the game.

While normally I espouse efficiency over materialism (so to speak), in this case, more really is better.  The game is essentially missing functionality solely because one group can't handle it.  It would be the same as if we let the AI run all strategic aspects of the game and had ONLY tactical combat for the player.  the game would be missing something because of it.  If you all want to skip out on part of the game, fine, nothings stops you.  But you don't have the argument to deny it to those who want both parts of such games.

http://numenta.org This, is why there's no excuse for poor AI.  And it's crowd-sourced.  If it would be too much to ask a small team to look into developing AI with this structure, while the rest work on something more conventional "just in case", then Stardock is not living up to its promise of innovative quality.  I'm not saying it has to be this, but there are options they could examine.  There's no reason for having an AI that is so dismal.

Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 103
Similarly, no one has yet made any argument supporting tactical combat other than "I like it, add it. Anyone who doesn't want it is just bad at it."

The problem it neither side accepts the other's arguments as valid. Nothing is going to change that, either.

Actually, there are some arguments I've seen as valid, the problem is that you've all contradicted yourselves, as I've said, by claiming things like; "Mines don't work in space in reality, so they don't work in the game.  But fleets work in the game, so that's ok even though they don't work in real life any better than mines."

Once again, adding tactical combat to the game creates a more fun experience for a sizable segment of players, and takes nothing at all away from the bean-counters except in multiplayer, where their preference will be the default anyway.  So why should we settle for a lesser experience just because some people want a less in-depth and less functional game?

Reply #105 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting General, reply 99
Wormholes- Yes limit the number of them. Why? They are a paradigm shift in maneuver and ultimately shrink the map dramatically. If we force ships to have a module to traverse the wormholes, then enemies not as technologically advanced in wormhole technologies will be unable to take advantage of the added maneuver and will suffer an extreme disadvantage. The ease with which a defensive fleet may be outmaneuvered with strategically-placed wormholes would render the winner of this arms race the winner of the game in 9 our of 10 games against equally capable opponents. It would be like playing capture the flag then then suddenly one side jumps on a bunch of dirt-bikes.

There are ways of dealing with that. One- all wormholes must have only two apertures. That is to say it only links two location on the map. Two- ships must be slowed somehow when using the wormholes. We can't have a ship capable of movement before entering, travel the wormhole, exit into a hub of wormholes, move to another wormhole, exit it and still have movement left in that single turn. It's one thing to be unable to outrun a guy. It's another thing entirely to have him popping up unpredictably out of random holes in the map. I've thought of a few ways to slow him down. One, ships must spend a turn prepping to enter the wormhole, and a turn prepping for return to normal space after exiting the wormhole. To make it even more interesting, require that ships traversing a wormhole remain inside it for two or three turns and that the destruction of either aperture while in transit through the wormhole results in the total loss of those units. It has to have an Achilles' heel.

Generally, that's what I was getting at.  As I said, any wormhole can only have two apertures, and both points must be located within the borders of the empire that builds it.  Additionally, I think it would be best to limit the number of wormholes by some resource or other statistic of the empire.  It should be a very tight limit, where every empire could potentially have one, but only the most powerful and vast would have more than two (as they should).

My suggestion to the movement problem would be that a ship must be immobile for one turn before entering a wormhole, spend a full turn inside the wormhole, and be immobile for one turn after exiting the wormhole.  Three turns to potentially cross your entire empire, sounds ok to me.  Also, it opens up that possibility you mentioned of popping a wormhole while a fleet is still inside, destroying it.  Doesn't do any good if they haven't entered, or are already exited on your own turn.

That said, if such a tech were to be added to the game, I would recommend nerfing ship speeds, or somehow further restricting how many you can pile onto a ship.  Why build such a transit method if you can build a ship that can go that distance in one turn normally?  Besides, ship movement in the GC series has always irked me.  If nothing else, drive speed and maximum wormhole length should be modified by map size.

Quoting General, reply 99
On #11 I suggest Ender's Game once again (the book). The little doctor as it is called for its initials MD which stands of Molecular Disruptor causes all matter to undergo a chain reaction of total dispersion. Don't mean to disappoint but electromagnetism alone won't disrupt the nuclear forces at work at that level, although they can certainly pack a wallop. 

Personally, if we want to imagine new weapons I have a couple suggestions. One would be a kinetically-detonated nuclear warhead usable both as a missile and a mass-driver. Nuclear material can spontaneously explode if it reaches a critical mass. By separating the requisite mass into two sections separated by a short distance that is then collapsed at high speed by its impact on the target, a nuclear warhead could be kinetically detonated. Essentially, one could be firing artillery shells that detonate on impact as a nuclear bomb. If used as a missile, a soft-tip would be nice as it could transfer the energy of the explosion as kinetic energy into the interior of the vessel pulverizing its contents. It would certainly make a persuasive argument for researching the point-defense part of the tech tree.

Also of interest would be Masers. Earlier last year the military unveiled the first ever maser, which is simply the microwave equivalent of the visible-light spectrum laser. This weapon is reported to be harmless to materiel and personnel but devastating to electronics, making it the perfect anti-drone weapon. As I wholeheartedly support the introduction of drones into the GalCiv ship strategy, I think it only fitting that we have a weapon specializing is little else. It could also be used to disable ship components that are not adequately shielded (another arms race). I can already see with relish the irony of drone-killing drones. Most exciting to me, would be the use of cloaked/stealthed vessels using masers in fleet combat to disable an enemy ship. Of course, the moment they fire the weapon, they would give away their position. Nevertheless, in the moment they have to strike, they could disable a valuable asset of the enemy fleet and thereby alter the course of the battle. With further advancement in this tech area, these ships could even board the disabled ships allowing your to steal the enemy ship rather than simply destroying it (or being destroyed by it). Note that this would be an invaluable weapon for a pirate nation. Something to ponder no doubt.

The nuclear forces don't bind an atom to the others in a given molecule.  The nuclear forces are what bind the nucleus together, and what bind the electrons to the nucleus.  What binds two distinct atoms together is all electromagnetism though.  Unless I've missed a more recent paper.  Regardless, the nuclear forces will at some point be as manipulatable as electromagnetism is, and could be as easily disrupted if that were the case.  The concept holds either way.  Much less energy required than brutally over-energizing the particles til they fly apart.

Actually, if you really want to make a devastating nuke, you'd want a timed charge rigged to the impact fuse, with the nuke behind an armor-piercing warhead in a hardened case, so that the outward blast blows the ship outward instead of away in one direction from the point of impact.  It wouldn't even have to penetrate far, just a meter or so.  But, ultimately, I suppose these types of weapons are, again, strictly cosmetic.  In the grand scheme they'll still do beam or missile damage, and still be stopped the same way, and still be balanced against weapons already in the game.

Now the masers...these I've heard of.  The natural evolution of cobbled together HERF (High-energy Radio Frequency) devices made by kids and garages over a decade ago.  Exactly the same effect, but with laser precision instead of being a broad cone.  I like the idea of having pirates use these to steal ships.  If their economy doesn't support hard militarism (which in most cases it shouldn't except for the Drengin), this would probably be the way pirates get most of their fleets.  I like it.

Quoting General, reply 99
I must also mention a new game coming out I was only recently alerted to called Planetary Annihilation (or something like that). No, I'm not plugging for them. I just couldn't help noticing a few aspects of the game that would be cool additions of GalCiv. For example, capturing a moon to rain down troops behind enemy lines in a surface war, or strapping rockets to asteroids and annihilating the entire planet. Sounds like fun additions to the game. I picturing a drone carrier ship with thousands of drones on-board entering a solar system but remaining on its fringes. From this safe vantage point it then launches the drones, not at the planet, but at the many asteroids in the system. The drones then attach to the asteroids and use their out-sized nav units and booster rockets to assault the planet with swarms of asteroids numbered in the thousands. Many drones will be lost, perhaps all. But the planet is unlikely to defend itself against all of them. The carrier may have exhausted its compliment of drones, but its dirty work would be complete. We might need an evil morality system to support such tactics, lest we be forced to admit that there are no rules in love and war.

I know the game.  Looks interesting, but I can't play it currently.

It would also have to be a high-end tech.  The drones and whatnot are simple, but engines that can move an asteroid of sufficient mass would be another matter entirely.  You couldn't just slap an FTL module on them either, because they're not able to withstand those kinds of forces, most likely.  It would take a lot of know-how to build proper engines, and to attach them correctly.  So I agree that it's an entertaining option that adds to the game...especially since they're removing terror stars.  But still, definitely an upper-tier tech.

On another note...why does everyone keep citing Ender's Game?

Reply #106 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 105
especially since they're removing terror stars. But still, definitely an upper-tier tech.

Can you point to where StarDock actually says this?

Reply #107 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 106
That's not an intrinsic problem of tactical combat in a game, it's a problem with AI coding.

You're wrong about that. How much advantage the battle control gives you is partially an AI problem, but it giving you one is an intentional design decision. If you lost horribly to the AI every time you played out a tactical battle, but broke even or won when using auto resolve, how often would you control a battle?

No one would consistently use a tactical battle system if it didn't give better results than auto resolve. It would be a lot of wasted time and cost you ships every time you tried. Sure everyone would play out a few battles at first, but only idiots would keep doing so once they figured out the cost. And features not used are simply wasted development resources.

Quoting Tharios, reply 104
You CANNOT claim that the bean counters will stop playing when they are still as free to let the computer do all the combat work as they've ever been. Especially not when it will add more players to the base, and give a large segment of players more to do in the game.

The "bean counters" you so enjoy insulting are the top tier players of the game. The ones that can beat the AI on suicidal and want it to be harder.

No one said the "bean counters" would stop playing. We have said that they would be forced into playing out tactical battles whether they want to or not. When people play at that level, every advantage is used. Invariably, tactical combat will give a better result than auto resolve, so the only reason a player would choose to use it is as a self-imposed handicap. Expecting the top players to do that is moronic.

Quoting Tharios, reply 104
While normally I espouse efficiency over materialism (so to speak), in this case, more really is better. The game is essentially missing functionality solely because one group can't handle it.

And there it is. "You don't want it only because you're bad at it." That is the mindset in common to every person who argues for tactical combat. By using it, you've discredited any and all other arguments you may have made. The people arguing against tactical battles generally play other games that have tactical combat and enjoy it, but think GC3 will be better off without it. I include myself in that group. I'm pretty good at turn based battles, I just don't want them near this game.

Quoting Tharios, reply 104
So why should we settle for a lesser experience just because some people want a less in-depth and less functional game?

Tactical battles do not in any way add strategic depth to the game. How well you control a particular ship in a battle does not in any way relate to how good you are at diplomacy, or building an economy, or designing and manufacturing the ships you want to control. Other than the difference in outcomes mentioned above, the strategic part of the game is not affected at all by the degree of control you have over your ships in battle.

Tactical battles add tactical depth, which is not the same thing by any means. Strategy is what you want your empire to do; tactics is how it gets done. We don't have much control at the tactical level of any other aspect of the game, and for the most part no one wants to. Would you want every new colony to be a miniature game of Sim City? Or every bit of diplomacy to be a 5 minute conversation with the AI? Or every government vote to play out like a campaign from The Political Machine? Or the ship designer to require a degree in naval architecture? I wouldn't, but since you're into tactical control maybe you would.

Tactical control of any of those game aspects takes development resources. More importantly, they take up playing time that could be spent on the actual strategic aspects of the game. Playing out a single battle with 60-100+ ships on each side (you did see the part about fleets being much larger than previous games, right?) could take hours in a full turn-based system. Alternatively, I could get through that battle and the next several turns with the same time spent - if I weren't forced to play out the battle to get the better outcome. Since I sat down to play a strategy game, I know which of those two choices I want.

TL;DR version: What you see as the lesser experience is seen as the better experience by a lot of people. Optional combat is never actually optional.

Reply #108 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 106


Quoting Tharios, reply 105especially since they're removing terror stars. But still, definitely an upper-tier tech.

Can you point to where StarDock actually says this?

Frogboy said this about Terror Stars:

I can't speak for certainty but it's unlikely that there will be Terror Stars available at the start of the GalCiv III campaign.

Interpret as you will. Since the plans were destroyed as part of the story, it seems likely the game won't start with them. But that's not definite for the sandbox mode, and it doesn't in any way rule out a return in an expansion.

Reply #109 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 104

While normally I espouse efficiency over materialism (so to speak), in this case, more really is better.  The game is essentially missing functionality solely because one group can't handle it.

You need to stop making stuff up. The game doesn't have tactical combat* because Stardock decided they didn't want it to have tactical combat. That happened before this forum was even opened.

I really don't get why some people have such a hard time grasping this. Total War: Space would probably be a fun game, but they decided they're not building that, and they did that long before asking any of us what we think. Hurling random made-up insults at the people you don't agree with doesn't help you argument, it just makes you into a troll.

*Unless it does, given that there isn't even agreement on what "tactical combat" means and ship roles in combat exist now.

Reply #110 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 108
Quoting Lucky Jack,
reply 106


Quoting Tharios, reply 105especially since they're removing terror stars. But still, definitely an upper-tier tech.

Can you point to where StarDock actually says this?

Frogboy said this about Terror Stars:

I can't speak for certainty but it's unlikely that there will be Terror Stars available at the start of the GalCiv III campaign.

Interpret as you will. Since the plans were destroyed as part of the story, it seems likely the game won't start with them. But that's not definite for the sandbox mode, and it doesn't in any way rule out a return in an expansion.

Brad never posted to that thread, nor is there any reference to any other thread in that thread. And in looking at that complete thread it becomes apparent that this is a case of someone saying it wont' be in the campaign but no one from StarDock clarifying whether it will be in the sandbox.

 

Again, we have a case of non-knowledgeable people perpetrating potential misinformation. Please provide pointers to where someone from StarDock said they are gone. Make sure to differentiate between campaign and sandbox.

 

Reply #111 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 110
Again, we have a case of non-knowledgeable people perpetrating potential misinformation. Please provide pointers to where someone from StarDock said they are gone. Make sure to differentiate between campaign and sandbox.

It's in this thread, the first reply. Tridus linked to a thread where Gaunathor posted the quote from Brad, and if you would have clicked on Gaunathor's link you would have gone to the thread I just mentioned.

Quoting Frogboy, reply 1
I can't speak for certainty but it's unlikely that there will be Terror Stars available at the start of the GalCiv III campaign.

The Drath homeworld was wiped out. But the Drath aren't necessarily extinct. 

As for the Terrans, that'll be explained in the campaign.  Suffice to say, the humans are pretty angry with the Drengin.

Reply #112 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 110

Brad never posted to that thread, nor is there any reference to any other thread in that thread. And in looking at that complete thread it becomes apparent that this is a case of someone saying it wont' be in the campaign but no one from StarDock clarifying whether it will be in the sandbox.

 

Again, we have a case of non-knowledgeable people perpetrating potential misinformation. Please provide pointers to where someone from StarDock said they are gone. Make sure to differentiate between campaign and sandbox.

 

Yes there is: https://forums.galciv3.com/448989/page/1/

It's the second post. As Rhonin_The_Wizard mentioned, it's linked from what I linked to.

And when it comes to campaign vs sandbox, I mentioned that explicitly in my post. I really don't know what you're complaining about here.

Reply #113 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Since these references, especially Brad's statement, are talking about the Campaign, not the sandbox, and since Brad specifically said he was not certain, and since he was talking about the START of the campaign, we shouldn't be saying that terror stars are gone in GC3.

+1 Loading…
Reply #114 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

This is actually humorous someone compares mines to tactics pointing to the things that won't be on the game. Mentioning that he doesn't like mines. He doesn't think it should be on the game. Then someone turns around, and rebukes him. Explaining the unrealism of mines on the game. The reason for making a mine post is to prevent people from hijacking other forums with mine conversation. I don't understand why people are so creative on non mine sites, but don't say much on the mine site. I also discovered that if I don't like what a site says all I have to do is bring up mines to change the conversation. I'm also talking about mines. I think it should or shouldn't be on the game.

Reply #115 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

On the topic of Terror Stars being in or out of GCIII...they kind of have to be.  Only one of the Precursors knew how to build them originally, and the Thalans destroyed the thing, and all of the data on how to build one.  Sure...maybe they kept some plans for themselves, but I doubt it.  It didn't even suggest that was a possibility, and everything about the Thalans so far suggests they're the type to want NO one to have it, not even themselves.  So if Terror Stars make a comeback in this game, that's what we call a "plot hole" and kind of a big one.  It would be bad story design.  And including it in sandbox but not in the campaign would be inconsistent game design (read; bad).

Reply #116 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 115
And including it in sandbox but not in the campaign would be inconsistent game design (read; bad).

I think that depends on your point of view. Aren't there races that are killed in campaigns in GC1 and are still available in the sandbox on GC2?

Reply #117 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 116
Aren't there races that are killed in campaigns in GC1 and are still available in the sandbox on GC2?

Not to my knowledge. There are only three civilisations who got "wiped out" in the storyline. The Xendar, which happened between GalCiv 1 and 2 (I also don't remember them actually being present in GalCiv 1), and the Drath and Korx, which happened in the DA campaign.

Reply #118 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 116
I think that depends on your point of view. Aren't there races that are killed in campaigns in GC1 and are still available in the sandbox on GC2?

As Gaunathor pointed out, there isn't a precedent for it.  And even if there were, it would merely mean they'd committed that mistake of game design before, but would still not validate it.

Bad design is bad design.  There's no "point-of-view" about it.  There's a broad inclusion of what's bad design and what's good design, but never the two shall meet and trade across the invariable line between the two.

But, since they don't seem to be in the habit of such things, it's not really an issue either way.  Good on you, Stardock, keep it up.