It seems as though it won't work. If tactical combat would be in, there would be no need for a separate viewer - as you could just as easily watch combat play itself out in a tactical combat mode. I hope I'm horribly wrong though, I'd love to see some interactivity.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Seilore" reply="24" id="3517188"] So what were you looking for then? Were you looking to see the ships shooting multiple rounds of lasers before the missles impacted? I guess I'm still looking for what it was that you didn't like with it and what you would do to improve it? [/quote] Personally I had fleet commands in mind. Such as manoeuvres. Any sort of non-micro interaction with the battle.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Seilore" reply="19" id="3516983"] It was never going to be any different? [/quote] As far as I remember, Stardock promised to revolutionize tactical combat in GC3. Combat viewer, as shown in the stream, is definitely no revolution, not even an evolution.
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Gilmoy" reply="12" id="3516676"] Combat Viewer is pause-only [/quote] Oh well, I'm going to pass on this game I guess.
I'd love to see GC3 take the route of random tech tree. So that the player needs to improvise with what he's got in that playthrough or try to get additional technologies from other civilizations.
IMO starbases should not be warmachines themselves. They should aid the true warmachines, those who can project the power they hold, which are ships. Investing into an enormously powerful stationary defence is not efficient, as history has proven many times. Even Death Star was mobile... ;) Starbases should add bonuses to fleets that are otherwise unavailable to them, aiding in the defence. In this case they pay ou
Well, you're obviously missing combat. ;) Kidding.
It is a pain to be reading these forums on a phone.
GalCiv3 Forums
Dear lord, that violates everything a new game should be. In the same game I want to play as a bastardly backstabbing bastard and on an another occasion I want my words to mean something.
Me neither. But careful, this is not GamersGate (the on-line store), this is #Gamergate.
5M... Surely you can squeeze me a new comp in there, right? ;) Great news, BTW.
GalCiv3 Forums
Resource based economy does not exclude currency. Humanity had a resource based economy before currency was invented (two sheep for a cow...) but currency made it so much simpler that there is no going back. It would be just incredibly impractical. What currencies need to prevent speculation and value fluctuations is a resource that backs them. "Real value". Currencies went haywire when banks started to dish out money with no backing, a system that functions on trust al
I don't think this was meant to turn into another tactical battles thread. Just post your damn preferences as we were asked...
In general to all the questions; all features need to be available to AI and it needs to be able to use them. Diplomacy, research... If a developer is unable to make the AI use a certain feature, it is better if that feature is omitted. 1) I love the ability to win the game without killing everyone. So alliances and other treaties are my favourite. Diplomacy should not become a chore though and player should not be flooded with AI proposals and vice versa. Perhaps const
Yeah, just follow my lead.
Somebody has been tinkering with somebody else... :D
GalCiv3 Forums
Oh the drama. People, this is at least the third thread on combat. Everything that can be has been answered. We need to wait and see. What the hell?
GalCiv3 Forums
The achievement is only there to torment achievement-obsessed people. ;) Though all you guys, willing to participate in testing a game (any game) should be given rewards. I certainly don't have nor the time nor the will.
3D and battles: [IMG]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b348/SpaceVoyager/Smiley/dedhrse_zpsb4a995cd.gif[/IMG] Ascendancy was (is) a great game. Ahead of its time.
Galactic Civilization does not need revolution, evolution is more than enough when the game is already great. For me, fleet battles done right would be a huge evolutionary step, alone enough for GC3. Everything else is additional bonus.
Kickstarter campaign and the supporters made it seem as though the new campaign should be a simple routine, yet it turned into a new round of painful raising of necessary funds. Mrs. Arinn Dembo, Producer and Lead Writer for Kaiju-a-gogo, may has found the reasons behind the phenomena and wants to clear this up with previous pledgers. [quote]Recently a very good friend spoke to me privately about the current Kerberos crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo. Specifically, he was telling
And Fort Zombie was fun, albeit glitchy. Definitely a superb idea, I hope they do a FZ2 some day. But yes, SotS2 is the bane of Kerberos. They aimed too high and weren't able to finish the game and nobody seems to be able to forget that. And it also seems to be the only thing everybody remembers about Kerberos, as if SotS1 never happened.
We've seen this happen before, and it is happening again. After not reaching a higher goal on Kickstarter, Kerberos adjusts its aim and shoots at Indiegogo in a flexible campaign. Frankly, with a name of the game being what it is, succeeding on Kickstarter would feel a bit odd. ;) If you wanted the game at KS, there is a chance you may want it anywhere, so jo
Well, the incredible start led to an incredibly slow continuation... So, the project is slightly over half funded and needs your help. For the sake of world destruction, chip in and raise your Kaiju. There are more of them available now, do check the new info on the KS page. If you want to stomp that bank, it is now or never.
IMO every competition is good for the consumer. Steam brings competition both in terms of hardware and OS and both are very welcome. If Steam box will let me use it as a regular PC, I might even go for it...