I paraphrased your quote it's done alot in America. It's hard to use quote buttons when I'm not using the desktop version.

Gaunathor: "I did. Several in fact, and I didn't see a single hint in them (or any of the other dev-posts), that there'll be tactical combat (whether turn-based or real-time) in GalCiv 3. Rather the opposite."

which is false we have discussed this and you keep defending that statement. We know there will be tactical combat in fleet roles, and the mysterious rates of fire, speed, evasion and accuracy which it's going to look a bit like real time but wont be. You contradicted. And Below \|/.

Gaunathor:  "All those new stats just mean, that the devs want to make how you design your ships have a bigger effect on how effective they are in combat. There will still be only auto-resolve and the Battle Viewer. You will not be able to directly control your ships during combat, but you can assign specific roles to them, which determines their combat-behaviour."

you're starting to sound like me.

Gaunathor: "Lastly, how does auto-resolve make my statement, that the devs haven't provided any hints in favour of tactical combat, false?"

  Your going in circles. Especially in your last post.

I am tired of this degenerate topic. Write a long article on what you think tactical combat means to you settle on one thing like I did so we can see what the other believes clearly.

anyone with and IQ over 1 can tell you don't know what you know when the quotes you cling to, contradicts each other. Gaunathor it's to early to establish yourself as a galciv3 expert wait till there is confirmation. From frog boy.

I have a feeling we are both looking at the same painting and seeing different visions.

Ok you are a smart guy and the last a bit I said could have been said with more eloquence. Sorry gaunathor. You are a bit of a expert, but we are all human.

sincerely DARCA

Same for Europe. However, you still have to make sure, that the message of what you are paraphrasing remains intact. That wasn't the case in this instance.

Okay then. Where did the devs hint, that there'll be tactical combat?

Fleet roles don't necessarily mean tactical combat. They provide a little tactical influence, sure, but you have no direct control over how the ships are going to fulfill their individual role.

How do more ship-stats equal (sort of) real-time?

I was asking for clarification, because this

made no sense to me.

Tactical combat means to me, that you have direct control over how your units are acting during combat. For example, when and where they are going to move, what their target is, and when and how they are going to attack.

I never said, that I'm an expert. Nor was I trying to infer so.

So do I.

It's private message time, no more arguing in front of the kids.

I don't see any reason for this. We are still on topic.

If you insist on PMs though, then count me out of this discussion.

Gaunathor: "Tactical combat means to me, that you have direct control over how your units are acting during combat. For example, when and where they are going to move, what their target is, and when and how they are going to attack."

yup I agree. Now we can move on to other forums and wait for the game. Arguing over unknowns and pride, gains us nothing what's coming will be hear soon and we will know then.

have a Sovereign Fate gaunathor, till next time.

DARCA.

I have to agree with Gaunathor on what he is saying, so far any quotes hint something more like the combat options in Distant worlds where all you do is choose how the ships fight.

Admiral that what we know and acknowledged, what this has lost is clarity. What do you guys think I believe?

and how did that message get in front  of mine, gaunathor? We must have sent them at the same time. This conversation reached it's climax a while ago.

This has been clarified by brad.

1. This is not a tactical game like Masters of Orion.

2. Ship design will be assigned roles.

Since they are talking about ship designs and not fleets this hints of preset functions kind of like of one of the options in Distant worlds. Now I got the quote I now no why I don't remember it. Auto resolve is what they currently do in Galactic civilizations. But there is a but which stardock has hinted at in two areas

first the Ai is going to build player ships.

Second ship types are going to be assigned roles.

This hints of predefined presets long before the battle like they have on distant worlds. As a requests I would like to see this being able to be changed individually. I'm not saying battle, but this is my usual request for both globally and locally.

Now, you have a legendary game like GC, very well respected within the community and the RTS crowd as always, is trying to convert that to RTS? Why is that btw? Why RTS people can't take a game for what it is? I like the afforementioned RTS games I listed for what they are, but never within my sanity I would try to even suggest they be turned over to TBS. Why is it the RTS fans can't just enjoy a game but also have to mold it in such a drastic way that it would be a reason for me to not play or buy it? I'm pretty certain alot of TBS fans feel likewise, as I've seen such discussions opened before.

 [/quote]

Being a Galactic civilization fan I would at least try the first game. I not sure how well this would work because you would have tp automate a lot of functions that you don't have to in turn base. This is because this is to big of a game for anything, but turn based. If you want to know how well this works look where this has been done in the past Sins of a solar empire. How well did this work not to good to my opinion. It worked adequitly. Now for the reason I just gave is also why they don't turn Real time Strategy into Turn based. It would be to simple like Spore, How well did that simplistc game do. Another reason is that turn based may be considered an out dated notion a opinion I don't want to share.

He's saying that he knows that this game Galactic civilizations will not be tactical combat.


Quoting DARCA1213, reply 51Write a long article on what you think tactical combat means to you settle on one thing like I did so we can see what the other believes clearly.

Tactical combat means to me, that you have direct control over how your units are acting during combat. For example, when and where they are going to move, what their target is, and when and how they are going to attack.

.[/quote]

Ok now I got q working definition. Does that mean Endless spacr is a tactical game.

You are either organized or have a good memory. .You no more than I do!

Not really, no. The beginning of the quote is something I said, and he misquoted. What I originally said boiled down to, that the devs haven't provided any hints in favour of tactical combat, but several against it.

It's DARCAs sentence that I have trouble understanding. It seems to say that, because there'll be auto-resolve, my statement is false. Or, put in other words, the devs have hinted at tactical combat, because there'll be auto-resolve. This makes no sense to me, and I'd really like to hear an explanation from him of what he actually meant.

It's only my definition. There are probably people out there, who would disagree with it.

I think the major stumbling block is that DARCA isn't applying Stardock's own use of "autoresolve". In GC2, the "autoresolve" toggle only controlled whether you saw the combat viewer mode of combat; if you autoresolved battles the losing ships simply blew up on the main map without showing the combat viewer at all.

It does make sense if you look at it without context; optional autoresolve would generally imply the alternative being not-automated resolution. In this particular case, it doesn't mean that at all. It is still automated, you just see less of it.

well gaunathor I've read all of this and all the links and at first ship role seems like nothing. But as the demanding voice that is tactical combat grew there comments shifted with what they said they were developing. Look at the DATES they change with time and stop bringing up that interview it doesn't help you they conflict in statements made. your dead wrong and DARCA1213 is right on everything. Fleet roles and those"ship-stats" mean alot on how combat will play, enough where the devs put auto resolve for players like you, and from one German to another that means tactical combat. And to define what that means. You will have a impact on combat like the majority of players want. So you forum stalkers need to stop pressing this issue like it's black and white, just because you don't want something different don't say it doesn't exist and try to take it away from those who want a game that's not boring and without depth.

DARCA1213 didn't miss quote you he added three quotation marks that's all and that confused you. This fool has been nice to you trying to tell you for days that he knows what he knows and and in the end you to both similarly agreed as your stance changed like on everything. HE MANIPULATED YOU THOUGH DIPLOMACY!!! You disagree at agreeing when you have no real idea what DARCA1213 believes when he said just about all there is to say. He's been very pleasant to you and you've been stubborn and blind. But I get it your not a people person.

I expect a reply that addresses none of your mistakes.

From the Fighters/Drones, Command modules and carriers thread: 

From Some Random inside GalCiv III talk thread:

We don't know much about the new stats and ship roles. Nothing has been stated or hinted that once combat starts we will have any say about what happens. Auto-resolve could simply mean that you can skip the combat video and jump right to the results screen, like it was in GC2.

And how do you know what the majority of players want?

You want to play a game with tactical combat go play one. I considered GC2 to be fun and with plenty of depth.

I don't understand what you are going on about with this part.

Have you no sense! Where is the Sovereignty in your words. right, wrong it doesn't matter as you said, I know what I know. And I believe in diplomacy, it works far better than fear, threats or any military. (but they do huge part in persuasion) Try reading a book on Confucianism, it will help you almost as much as other people.

there many times I wrote things and I rewrote them to sound better in this very forum for my friend gaunathor. (have slipped I am not a monk, nor do a agree with all Confucian concepts.)

If you don't know shut up, keep your sunset I'll have my sunrise. READ IT ALL, EVERYTHING YOU'LL KNOW WHAT WHAT AM TALKING ABOUT!!!! See what I saw and see the truth. That's what made DARCA1213 blood boil.

Fight for what you believe in. But I hope that tiny umbrella can handle Heavens rain.

Have a Sovereign fate Joe.

What are you talking about? You've offered no quotes to back this up of your own, now you're just trying to dismiss the stuff that you don't like so it fits what you want to hear.

That there's stats doesn't mean there is tactical combat. I mean, really? That's incredibly weak.

This is turning into a joke, with people using facts on one side and you with your thumbs in your ears going "la la la la not listening!"

TACTICAL COMBAT=FLEET ROLES=TACTICAL COMBAT SPEED+TACTICAL COMBAT RATE OF FIRE + TACTICAL COMBAT EVASION + TACTICAL COMBAT ACCURACY + ME BEING RIGHT = TACTICAL COMBAT!!!!!!!!

READ THE LINKS THEY ARE STATEMENTS MADE THAT SAY WHAT I SAY COMBAT WILL HAVE OPTIONS MAKING IT BETTER WHERE A SMALLER FORCE CAN BEAT BY A BIGGER FORCE THOUGH TACTICAL COMBAT!!!!!!!!!

THE DEVS KNOW THIS AND ARE PUTTING ALL THIS STUFF FOR ALL THE PEOPLE LIKE ME IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME FOR PEOPLE OVER FIFTY AND HAS NO SHIPS WITH GUNS!!!!!!!!!

The trolls are getting out of hand in here.

Lol. I wish I never made this forum, I learned a bit but the "ever want your own race in the game( not custom)" post is far more creative, expressive and insightful.

if someone can tell me how to remove this forum it would be helpful.

NONE OF YOU CAN READ LEARN A BOOK THE PATTERNS ARE THERE YOU JUST HAVE TO SEE THEM!!!!!!!!

I'M NOT UNREASONABLE OR UNFAIR OR A TROLL JUST LISTEN

TO WHAT I AM SAYING SO I CAN EDJIMIATE YOU!!!!!!

THIS TIME I'LL SAY IT SLOWER TACTICAL...COMBAT=FLEET...ROLES=TACTICAL...COMBAT SPEED+TACTICAL... COMBAT... RATE... OF... FIRE + TACTICAL... COMBAT... EVASION + TACTICAL... COMBAT... ACCURACY + ME ...BEING... RIGHT = TACTICAL... COMBAT!!!!!!!!

AGAIN I LISTENED TO ALL THE CRAP YOU SAID YOU KNOW BUT IN REALITY YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW I AM NOT UNREASONABLE JUST READ!!! READ!!! R!E!A!D!!!!!!!!

Stardock said this, today:

Try doing less reading between the lines, and more reading of what's actually written.

I think Ray's comments are an appropriate place to let this one end. Shouting at each other isn't going to be productive.