 |
|
 |
 |
 |
GalCiv Expansion Pack Preview Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53
by Citizen HiroMoon - 6/20/2003 12:42:51 AM
I don't know if this has been brought up, but researching one technology is slightly annoying...for me at least....I mean, myself and a few friends have played the game constantly and we've talked about our favorite points and things, and we're all very excited about the expansion pack, but we'd like to see a few problems fixed...my buddy who introduced me to the game mentioned the idea of having a company like Consoledated Almagamated or such help you research other technologies....like costing you money to outsource to the company to get stuff taken care of, kinda like contracting out to companies to build you ships and social products.
How about mercenaries? I mean, even the good rely on those who work behind the scenes to keep one's hands clean 
Anyway, on the artificial planet bit, I suggest something along the lines of 100 months minimum build even at enhanced production, and expensive as all that to allow you to build a planet in a star system with no planets..
Still, Keep up the good work!
| |
|
#54
by Citizen magichj - 6/23/2003 12:51:41 PM
It would be cool to initiate votes of the UP!
| |
|
i put my responses under your points papa:
| #45 by Citizen Papa718thTFW - 6/14/2003 2:25:08 PM |
|
I. Ships and invasions:
1. Transports the size of planets? One BILLION troops per transporter? Come on. 50 million (though it is still pushing the limits of believable) is more like it if you rack-pack soldiers in stasis pods.
earth is fairly two dimensional. ships are 3 dimensional and can pack them in more easily. in stasis pods, you merely need a 1km x 1km x 6km block to hold a billion 1m x 1m x 6m coffin- er, stasis pods. add a bit more for passages engines and crew, but otherwise not as big as a planet. big but not planet sized.
2. On a planet with a population of 10 billion EVERYONE is the defender? Think a second: on our Earth with population pushing 7 billion, subtract elderly, handicapped, pregnant women, infants and young children, and otherwise noncombatant civilians and IF all governments work in unison we would be lucky if our planet could put together half a billion of combat ready troops. The GalCiv math would work out just fine: Say, on a 10 billion planet there are some half a billion soldiers, so 10-15 transports (see #1 above) would suffice to attempt an invasion.
mentioned above: population = "taxpayers", ie mostly fit to fight
3. It is bullshit that invader has the advantage. It does not work like that UNLESS the invader has 10 times the technological superiority. Defending troops are fortified and well entrenched and they know their turf. The defender, therefore, should have the advantage.
if you're invading you pretty much have local space and air superiority. and the ability to choose when and where the invading forces arrive so you can concentrate for local ground superiority. the defense will have a hard time responding due to lack of transport capability due to lack or air and space superiority.
4. Planetary defenses, such as missile bases, ground batteries, fighter garrisons and such will be added. Players will be able to, but not required to keep fleets in orbit for planetary defense;
good idea
5. Bombers. How come there is no ship capable of bombing a planet? There WILL be bombers in X-pack.
i am pretty sure they mentioned THERE WILL BE
6. When player sends transports to invade a planet he WILL have an option to ABORT the invasion if (upon reviewing that gorgeous invasion options screen) he decides that his forces are insufficient. Yes, players will have this option in X-pack.
not sure since i thought part of the game is guessing whether you have the resources to invade or not or with a more devastating invasion tactic. just my opinion but if you could see beforehand that would be ok.
7. Star bases, considering their insane cost and unreal time required to build and upgrade, WILL have the ability to install defensive guns and missiles modules. Players will no longer have to keep huge fleets for star base defense. Star bases will NOT be completely invulnerable, but a pair of lousy corvettes will NOT be able to annihilate a star base. While the star bases will be vulnerable to a group of battleships, it will hold its own against a bunch of flimsy Starfighters (!)
not being so vulnerable to lowlevel ships would be nice.
8. It is well-known, that it is much worse to be outnumbered than outgunned. A swarm of weak attack units can easily overwhelm a single Hulk of a unit (remember Black Hawk Down?? Our super soldiers were clubbed to death with sticks and stones). A single Dreadnaught will NOT be able to destroy 50 corvettes with impunity and suffer 3 points of damage or no damage at all.
uh, it's better to have firepower usually. in mogadishu the us had something like a 15 or 30 to 1 kill ratio in our favor. against a force where a lot of them had ak-47s and rpgs, not sticks. and throughout history there are examples where the outnumbering force was slaughtered by superior firepower. buford and his dismounted calavry fielding repeating rifles vs a chunk of the confederate army at gettyburg. the german machine gunners vs the british attack at the somme.
9. Ship repair will be FIXED. It should not have to take 20 turns to fix a ship especially with Repair ability at +60% and especially if it takes around only 8 turns to build that ship from scratch (!) Ships will be repaired much FASTER if stationed on a planet with a shipyard as opposed to being stationed in deep space.
good idea
10. Once new technologies become available, players WILL be able to UPGRADE and REFIT existing sips (at planets with shipyards) faster than it takes to build a new model of the same ship!
ditto
II. Economy, Diplomacy and Morale:
1. Galactic economic events will NOT affect civilizations which are not relying on interstellar trade (!). If I am NOT in contact with any alien civilization and I am doing ZERO trade what does my economy care about some recession going on at the opposite edge of the universe?
2. If I am not trading with anyone I will not benefit from -their- economic boom nor will I suffer from their economic problems.
3. Establishing Trade Routes WILL require entering into a Trade Agreement with a civilization. Why should I have to trade with someone I don’t want to trade with just because they send their freighter to my planet without asking my government’s permission? Torians, for example, will no longer be able to trade with me (unless I sign a trade agreement with them) to improve their economy just to attack me 10 turns down the road (!)
5. If a civ has colonized 3 out of 4 star systems in the same sector, they have ownership of that sector and to colonize the fourth system there the other civs will have to ask permission or look for planets elsewhere. Otherwise, trespassing of this sector and colonizing the fourth system will constitute an act of aggression and or war.
6. AI will no longer know where everything is. An algorithm WILL be included which would force the AI to explore space in random directions and begin building/dispatching colony ships or constructors ONLY if its scouts/explorers find a colonizable planet or space resource (!)
7. Morale WILL be fixed (!) and will appropriately reflect cultural aspects of different civilizations. For example: Good civs will suffer a morale penalty if their government begins a war of aggression; Saintly civs will suffer even a greater penalty to morale. By the same token, a good civ will see a surge of patriotism and a morale boost if attacked. The opposite will be true for evil civs. Neutral civs will have to attempt to stay out of conflict and do everything possible to end any conflicts they are involved in or suffer a morale penalty. Finally, 5000 channels of entertainment which takes 10 turns to build will improve morale for MUCH LONGER than 3 turns (!!!)
8. All diplomacy options will be available at ANY time. The probability of success of establishing an Alliance will, of course depend on how good our diplomatic skills are but the option WILL be there. We can ask, right? Chances are our proposal will be refused but WE CAN ALWAYS ASK (!) There WILL be other reasons for alliances except being “CLOSE” with a civ. Example: Arcean are annihilating everyone. Torians are my neighbor and are “warm” toward me but the Alliance option is not available since it requires being “close”. What kind of bullshit is this? We have something more important in common than “closeness” we are both being annihilated. We WILL be able to establish a defensive alliance even if we don’t like one another very much (!). Finally, if I am allied with a civ I WILL be able to use its planets as refueling stations to extend the range of my ships (!!!!)
i think the best example is the british, russian, and french "alliance" and "closeness" in 39-45. only the brits are really "close" to us. french is friendly or warm (well not now, but that will pass as always) while russians and us were being annihilated didn't make us form a true alliance: after the germans were gone, we were at each other's throats. but i like the refueling at allied ports part.
III. Technology and Research and Production:
1. My entire civilization is researching Battle Armor (???) WTF is this nonsense? There WILL be sliders allowing me to allocate a % of research resources to each of the research fields so that research is going on in all areas but at different speed depending on my STRATEGIC and TACTICAL goals.
2. Autobuild will work for Social production as well. This way planets will have the ability to specialize. Being able to say: “Sol V, Autobuild research facilities” would be nice.
can't you assign a second governor list to build research stuff and then assign sol to use that governor?
VI. Documentation:
1. Detailed descriptions of technologies, game options and features WILL be available on the web site for viewing or download. Players will no longer have to guess what exactly this or that does.
nice too.
   
| |
|
Sorry to be stuck up bitch (because the game is pretty sweet as it is) but I'm going to have to state the obvious and request that you make space 'three dimensional'. It would be possible wouldn't it
Space is 3 dimensional, but most galaxies, like our milky way, unless another galaxy is coliding with it, are largely two dimensional in the grand scheme of things That is to say, the size along the Z axis would be rather negligible compared to the X and Y.
         
| |
|
| 1. Transports the size of planets? One BILLION troops per transporter? Come on. 50 million (though it is still pushing the limits of believable) is more like it if you rack-pack soldiers in stasis pods. |
|
Idiocy: Why indroduce the tedium of making 50-100transports like you suggest. Is it so hard to abstract that 1 transport represents not one ship, but a unit of them? Yes that's an idea. Lets just introduce tons of tedium to the game.
| 2. On a planet with a population of 10 billion EVERYONE is the defender? Think a second: on our Earth with population pushing 7 billion, subtract elderly, handicapped, pregnant women, infants and young children, and otherwise noncombatant civilians and IF all governments work in unison we would be lucky if our planet could put together half a billion of combat ready troops. The GalCiv math would work out just fine: Say, on a 10 billion planet there are some half a billion soldiers, so 10-15 transports (see #1 above) would suffice to attempt an invasion. |
|
Do you ever read? The population you see are the taxpayers only. Not the entire population of the planet.
| 3. It is bullshit that invader has the advantage. It does not work like that UNLESS the invader has 10 times the technological superiority. Defending troops are fortified and well entrenched and they know their turf. The defender, therefore, should have the advantage. |
|
Actually the defender is given a slight advantage. And is given a big advantage to his ships in orbit.
And in real life there is no such defense advantage. The only real defensive advantage is a retreat advantage to guerilla tactics and blending in with the population. Historically there has been an advantage on defense only because offensive weaponry was not advanced vs defensive. The U.S. just proved those days are over.
| 4. Planetary defenses, such as missile bases, ground batteries, fighter garrisons and such will be added. Players will be able to, but not required to keep fleets in orbit for planetary defense; |
|
| 5. Bombers. How come there is no ship capable of bombing a planet? There WILL be bombers in X-pack. |
|
Again more idiocy. You know what will happen when either of these are introduced? The puter will just choose to bomb a planet into oblivian, all those specialized defenses will be taken out, and we will have tons more tedium for us and the ai to end up right back where we started. Invading defenseless planets once the ships are gone. It does nothing for gameplay to introduce one more step to an invasion. And indeed that is all it will be. One more hoop. Wont add to the game a bit.
| 6. When player sends transports to invade a planet he WILL have an option to ABORT the invasion if (upon reviewing that gorgeous invasion options screen) he decides that his forces are insufficient. Yes, players will have this option in X-pack. |
|
Your first decent suggestion.
| 1. Galactic economic events will NOT affect civilizations which are not relying on interstellar trade (!). If I am NOT in contact with any alien civilization and I am doing ZERO trade what does my economy care about some recession going on at the opposite edge of the universe?2. If I am not trading with anyone I will not benefit from -their- economic boom nor will I suffer from their economic problems. |
|
Take an economics class. Recessions are usually global in nature. The Great Depression was world wide even though foreign trade amounted to a small chunk of everyone's overall economy.
| 3. Establishing Trade Routes WILL require entering into a Trade Agreement with a civilization. Why should I have to trade with someone I don’t want to trade with just because they send their freighter to my planet without asking my government’s permission? Torians, for example, will no longer be able to trade with me (unless I sign a trade agreement with them) to improve their economy just to attack me 10 turns down the road (!) |
|
I suppose you've never heard of a black market? You can break off all their trade by declaring war now. Seems good enough to me. Also, the Torians establishing trade routes makes it LESS likely they will attack you 10 turns down the road. Or hadn't you read that either?
| 6. AI will no longer know where everything is. An algorithm WILL be included which would force the AI to explore space in random directions and begin building/dispatching colony ships or constructors ONLY if its scouts/explorers find a colonizable planet or space resource (!) |
|
Read the backstory. I am fine with them knowing. I send out colony ships not having scouted. Why can't they? We have the advantage of colonizing sub 15 planets, they don't. Seems a balance to me.
| 7. Morale WILL be fixed (!) and will appropriately reflect cultural aspects of different civilizations. For example: Good civs will suffer a morale penalty if their government begins a war of aggression; Saintly civs will suffer even a greater penalty to morale. By the same token, a good civ will see a surge of patriotism and a morale boost if attacked. The opposite will be true for evil civs. Neutral civs will have to attempt to stay out of conflict and do everything possible to end any conflicts they are involved in or suffer a morale penalty. Finally, 5000 channels of entertainment which takes 10 turns to build will improve morale for MUCH LONGER than 3 turns (!!!) |
|
Why? It's not broken now. Morale means more people, which in turn causes crowding, which in turn lowers morale. And I have found that my morale boosters last longer than 3 turns. Good, evil, and neutral has nothing to do with the penchant for war. It has to do with morality. Good civs tend not to use planetary damageing invasion tactics etc.
Real life. Was the U.S. morale lowered any by going to war with Iraq?, who didn't attack us. Absolutely not. So again, the real world conflicts with your vision (unless you're one of those morons that thinks the United States is evil).
| 7. Star bases, considering their insane cost and unreal time required to build and upgrade, WILL have the ability to install defensive guns and missiles modules. Players will no longer have to keep huge fleets for star base defense. Star bases will NOT be completely invulnerable, but a pair of lousy corvettes will NOT be able to annihilate a star base. While the star bases will be vulnerable to a group of battleships, it will hold its own against a bunch of flimsy Starfighters (!) |
|
Check it out. They have that ability now. Just click defensive and upgrade it. One or two upgrades and corvettes will pound themselves to oblivion against it.
| 8. It is well-known, that it is much worse to be outnumbered than outgunned. A swarm of weak attack units can easily overwhelm a single Hulk of a unit (remember Black Hawk Down?? Our super soldiers were clubbed to death with sticks and stones). A single Dreadnaught will NOT be able to destroy 50 corvettes with impunity and suffer 3 points of damage or no damage at all. |
|
That applies to ground troops. We have no model of whether that applies to starships. The problem with larger ships is their cost and time to build, not their prowess. Top of the line German tanks had Kill ratio's of 7 and 8 to one in WW2 with just a slight armor/size advantage. So the probem is not kill ratios, the problem is, they are just too cheap to produce relative to corvettes and such. 2. Autobuild will work for Social production as well. This way planets will have the ability to specialize.
Being able to say: “Sol V, Autobuild research facilities” would be nice. |
|
Uh duh. You have that ability right now. Set one of your 4 governors up in the governor screen with just the science facilities in his que. Assign that governor to Sol V. Poof!!!!!! Viola!!!!!
Bottom line. Most of your ideas do not sqare with reality as you suggest, indicate a limited mental ability to abstract on your part, are available now, or will just introduce one more tedius hoop to jump through in gameplay and will leave us right back where we are now. Reposting this troll post that has been refuted countless times before amounts to nothing more than some egomaniacly driven goal to see your name in lights. As if you telling Frogboy what HE WILL do will get you anywhere.
| |
|
|
|
Why thank you Yog Sloth. Anyone kicked off the Moo3 boards can't be all bad.
| |
|
Any word on when the expansion pack will be ready for beta?
| |
|
I think they were aiming to get an early build up on stardock for drengin subscribers in June, (well it convinced me to upgrade...  ) so that's got to soon right? Unless it's slipped.
But I'm patient. I've got it under control. I'm only checking stadock once an hour or so... 
   
| |
|
Would be nice if in the expansion pack will include some other allien races.
| |
|
ackk!!! so the beta's out now... and the final by the end of summer (possibly). and after checking the site nearly everyday for over a month in anticipation for the expansion pack, i learn that i could either wait a couple MORE months... or pay $30 for the beta.
am i alone here in thinking that's crappy? pay $70 (original plus drengin membership) to get the "free" beta... or wait 2 months at which point it really will be free.
well, i have to say that this game is nice and i have enjoyed it, but another $30 is not worth it, and i imagine that by september i won't even remember what "galciv" is. so i know i'll forget about downloading the final expansion pack to "rekindle" my interests.
i know, you were never sneaky about this and all the info was always upfront. i'm just giving it to you executive types straight. a gamer has an attention span only so big. and maybe by then we will begin eagerly awaiting the latest iteration within this game genre. where ever it may be.
or... we could search the net and possibly get the beta through "other channels".
| |
|
Ummm Erik, you realize don't you that for that extra $30, you get a lot more than just galciv! You get ALL of their current AND upcoming games. QED if GC 2 were to be released say this time next year, you'd still get it from your Dregin.net subscription.
| |
|
yeah, i know. but what if you don't care about the other products? well then, it would not be worth it. it's a kind of salesman-type approach. you know, like: "act now on our golf clubs and we'll throw in this 47-piece titanium cat-box ensemble absolutely free!" (a $200 dollar value!) well, that's great. and i'm sure the other products are swell, but for the person who likes galciv and only galciv, it's unwanted fluff.  and i am not about to enlist because of the vague implied promise of galciv2 for free. and what if it takes them 366 days to create? oops, sorry.
well, i guess it's a great way to get your product line out to people. but i suppose i am just tired of that kind of approach from a company. have faith in your product and let its strengths carry itself. don't make us buy the cat-box ensemble too. am i too cynical? 
| |
|
#66
by Citizen S31Apoc - 7/1/2003 7:59:19 PM
Actually BOTF was almost this exact game & it had MP ,, it was direct ip,,, but it was great ,, they had timers so it couldnt take but so long to turn & constant chat window ,, it was GREAT .........
if gal civ 2 has MP i will not hesitate to buy it .. but if not Im not so sure ,, it is very doable !!!!!!
| |
|
#67
by Citizen Elden - 7/1/2003 10:21:00 PM
| don't make us buy the cat-box ensemble too. am i too cynical? |
|
No, I always thought that it would be useless to get Drengin.net when you already had GalCiv and you explained the reason very well.
| |
|
#68
by Citizen xiahou - 7/1/2003 10:34:52 PM
"No, I always thought that it would be useless to get Drengin.net when you already had GalCiv and you explained the reason very well."
Must not be entirely useless, since he clearly wants the beta version of the expansion. I really dont see where the gripe is here.... do they think it would be fair or even sensible to release the beta to the public? Whatabout people who felt it was "worth it" to subscribe? I guess they just get screwed then.
Irregardless, this is nothing new as we've known about this policy since the very beginning. I have not subscribed to Drengin.net and I know that I won't see an advance version of the expansion unless I do. That's life- and complaining about it now wont change it.
At least thats how I see it.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#69
by Citizen Elden - 7/1/2003 11:27:49 PM
| Must not be entirely useless, since he clearly wants the beta version of the expansion. I really dont see where the gripe is here.... do they think it would be fair or even sensible to release the beta to the public? Whatabout people who felt it was "worth it" to subscribe? I guess they just get screwed then. |
|
If you don't want the rest of Drengin thats like paying $30 for the beta of something you will eventually get the full version of for free. Seems rather stupid to me.
| |
|
#70
by Citizen xiahou - 7/2/2003 1:21:36 AM
I totally agree. My intended point was that if you dont want drengin.net, you cant very well complain about people getting the expansion beta who do subscribe... because if it IS really that important to someone they can just cough up $30....
Eh, this is a stupid discussion anyhow- sorry for straying OT. 
| |
|
Alas, the degredation of the english language, the above "word" is not really proper. I had the nuns beating me with rulers for years because of that word, and it must have worked because now I cringe when someone else uses it. And the $30 for Dregnin.net is worth it, if you want it. If not, wait two months and quit complaining.
| |
|
assuming that stardock and the galciv team are fairly cool, it was my intent to let them hear how their current policy here runs counter to my previous assumption. you know, i have this image of a group of people standing around a particle-board table yet having intelligent discussions and making the right decissions. that was my impression of stardock, kind of "grassrooty". which is appealing in itself. it makes me want to patronize their establishment. but lately it's been feeling odd. more like microsoft or something. i don't mean for that to sound as harsh as it may. you are still far from evil.
i understand that a "beta" is one of those "buyer beware" products. it is untested and may result in bugs, errors, and crashes. one wouldn't want to say, "come get our new broken thing!". so i get it. fine. so i could wait 2 or 3 months in theory. i may. or i may not care by that time. or i could pay $30 for the untested product... which will be FREE once it's up and running smoothly.
in the end, it's just a game and i don't feel THAT deeply about it. but i would suggest that stardock would benefit from releasing the beta to those who really want to try it. keep it so that the drengin.net subscribers and only the subscribers can post on the beta testing forums. and for all the other people, include a "read me" or splash screen or something that reminds them that they are running the beta and should something go wrong, it's their own damn fault.
it's almost like they're saying, "if you're really dedicated, we'll give you this privelege. if you're really dedicated, you'll give us $30." but why not say, "if you're willing for it not work entirely correctly, you may play with this un-tested product which we plan to give you for free anyway."
i guess they're trying to make sure that the die-hard fans only get their hands on this problem. ensuring that they receive posts relevant to a beta product. i'm not exactly sure. maybe i'm getting too old for computer games anyway. i'm ten. 
come on guys, why not let us misers try the beta if you plan to release it for free anyway?
| |
|
I agree with you 100%, I love the game, but paying for a beta game? I will say that many of us want to help to make the game better and that effor should count in receiving the beta free, not to charge for the beta, I particularly love this kind of game, but I really don't like to much the other ones offered in drengin, so why to pay for a beta when will be release soon free, c'mon guys you could miss some good opinions from people that cannot right now afford to pay that amount for an unfinished product. I do beta testing for other companies and always has been free, and I have found quite a few bugs.
| |
|
#74
by Citizen xiahou - 7/2/2003 4:34:12 PM
From merriam webster's online dictionary.
"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose." So there But, yes regardless is a much better choice...
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2025 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
