Moo1 was fun but the sliders were a pain and the way ground combat was done was very simplistic like galciv model :/ So you likeed the MoO 2 two system where it took minutes to manage your planets better than the MoO 1 system where it took seconds *and* you didn't need to exit the galaxy screen to do it? That's whacked. MoO 2's combat wa
Cool, another Star Fleet player. Have you also tried the Staflight series by chance? I know that I didn't get very far with Star Fleet 2 until I read the manual, and that's coming from playing Star Fleet 1. Maybe you are quicker at learning games than I am.
Forget MoO. And everybody pushing for MoO4 are a bunch of ungrateful assclowns. Stardock has a bolt of lightning in their hands with Galactic Civilizations. If you want them to let it go The thing about Stardock doing a MoO 4 is that they could then make a game with features unique to MoO; features, that if put into Galciv, might give Galciv
Hay, I said "affably" (And you are not alone in lobbying for more simplicity) Heh, that's my fault for not knowing exactly what 'affably' meant <TD class=
Why does this thread make me think of The Political Machine in the Galciv universe?
Looks like I'm mistaken then. What would Galciv be the 'descendant of' in that case? Spaceward Ho! and Reach For The Stars?
GalCiv is the descendant of Civilization, while MoO is the descendant of the pen and paper game Star Fleet Battles. Pretty much every modern galactic conquest game is a descendant of MoO 1, Galciv included. MoO 1 itself is more of a descendant of Spaceward Ho! and Reach For The Stars than anything else.
That's kind of a weird argument. What kind of gameplay improvement (besides strictly interface improvements) *isn't* going to require changes to the AI code?
I wish I could pre-order this game, along with DA, but you don't accept paypal for pre-orders, and for some reason you can't buy tokens with paypal unless you also have a credit card.
A couple years ago some people at Atari approached us to do new versions of a series of Atari properties (MoM, Star Control, XCom, and even MOO) but other than talks on MoM not a lot has progressed and even there, things have come to a stand still. I'd love to do a MOO 4. It would basically be MOO 2 with some elements from MOO 1 with a big graphics update, more stre
while that would add in replayability, coming up with that many more techs would be a big headache, not to mention a sensless filler. What would the techs be? Super Laser? Also, trying to recode the AI for that would be murder, I would assume. While it is not a scripted AI, trying to give it the ability to 'know' which techs it needs when there are only 75 out of even 200
...you should know that the competition *cough* SE5 *cough* already has customizable build order lists to allow for almost automated planetary construction ! ...and most heartily second those pleading for the ability to cre
Geez... I think you need to re-read the post again. The extra buildings (power planets, etc) were added because it could be entirely possible to fund a planet's production/research/etc from just asteroid fields' resources. If you don't have a lot of asteroid fields, factories/research centers are better, but if you have a lot... the new power plants and lab networks are be
Speaking of survey ships, Does the game really need that galactic achievement that gives all of your ships the survey ability. I mean, by the time you actually research (and build) that achievement it seems like there's nothing left to survey anymore.
Also, it's great that you guys also see the danger with adding unnecessary complexity to planetary management. Hopefully Stardock will listen to us.
Could we request a method for filtering/categorizing build lists on planets in DA? Late in the game when you have many options of things to build, a list of 20+ things to build on a new planet was frustrating to look through and easily prone to double-clicking on the incorrect build item. I found myself building things on planets just to remove them from the list and make
Fogboy, perhaps in future news posts you could refer to this improvement as 'streamlining presentation of the tech tree' instead of 'streamlining the tech tree' to get rid of some of the confusion. Anyhow, the tech tree is a pretty disappointing aspect of the game. While it doesn’t seem all that bad right now, it's not going to age well. Compared to a MoO or Space Empires tech tree it's actually pretty small, and the very linear progression of the tree makes the game pretty predictable.
Ever sell a house? It's a lot like that. You WANT your neighbors who sell their houses to get as much money as possible because that sets up how much you are likely to make selling yours. If other houses do poorly on the market, it affects you. I suppose that a lot of the time the industry works that way, but there are certainly exceptions. Fo
If I had two computers running next to each other I would definitely be interested. What a great idea for a product!
Hmmm... Now that I think about it I think that I would rather see planetary tactical combat before any kind of space battle implementation. A space battle is generally a short affair, while a ground invasion takes far longer than one week. Also, planetary battles don't happen nearly as often as space battles, and are much more meaningful. With ship to ship tactical combat you run the risk of the novelty wearing off and eventually becoming boring and repetitive; ground battles much less
I like the idea personally. It would put a new spin on city builders. We have them set in the past and present, but the future setting hasn't seen as much love.
*ugh* and *ugh* again. Those new building types you described are a *very bad* thing to add game play wise. It comes down to this: KISS (keep it simple stupid). There is no practical need for more than one type building (one that makes a resource, the other that multiplies the production of that resource by some constant) as you will only build complexity while adding *nothing*, not one iota to game play. Now the player needs to worry about the ratio of producers to multipliers, and all of the s
GalCiv2 Forums
I see no reason why Galciv cannot have multiplayer (at the very least hotseat, as in a hotseat game you can keep all of the single player 'fluff' as you call it) without compromising the integrity of the single player game. When I look at the basic game play dynamics (and correct me if I'm wrong) I only see one limitation to multiplayer, and believe it or not, it's not ship design (more on this later), rather, it's planetary management. Having to go in and adjust all of your planets sig
Hey Uhlek! Sweet, another Starflight lover! Starflight happens to be my favorite game of all time BTW.
At risk of sounding disloyal, I'd like to see a constructive response to the MOO2 tactical combat system (including the Auto function, which is basically what GCII has now). I admit there's a basic problem there if GCIII retains the Logistics framework of GCII--MOO2 fleets could be very big, maybe unlimited, I can't remember. MOO2 tactical c
Stardock Forums