 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Galactic Civilizations II concept thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
#150
by Citizen elmo3 - 12/7/2004 3:29:48 PM
My understanding from the GC II forums is that you will be able to zoom in and out directly on the main screen. So the screenshot may be a zoomed in view. The size of sectors hasn't been determined yet from what CariElf said over there. So it's all work in progress and subject to change at this point.
  
| |
|
#151
by Citizen scotgaymer - 12/10/2004 1:05:16 PM
Well it looks like to me from that screenie that stars, planets, and other spatial bodies are entirely seperate entities having nothing to do with each other.
Perhaps I have misinterpreted what the screenie shows - but I dont believe I have.
And since that is the case it looks like Stardock has misinterpreted what was asked for in relation to being able to select individual planets from in system as part of the map.
The screenshot doesnt make sense to me. Either im missing something or someone has made a mistake somewhere along the line.
And it was 4 days ago i posted my concerns and still no reply...
| |
|
Add research, morale, and espionage to the Local Ability values of star bases.
Add (expensive) mobility SBmodules (separate from Terror Star modules), so that we can build slow-moving 'Pleasure Moons' that can tour the galaxy lifting morale, increasing birth rates, and spreading influence (or increasing distaste for our wicked ways).
Add (very expensive) mobility SBmodules (separate from Terror Star modules), so that we can build fast-moving 'Battle Stars' that can act as carriers, command centres, repair bays, mobile way points, and diplomatic intimidation.
End transmission.
        
| |
|
Someone mentioned techs not being available for research until certain other techs had been proven in battle. This morning I was reading an article in the ongoing discussion of wheter or not to send a manned mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.
Those two things gave me an idea: science path enabeling buildings, and military project enabeling buildings. I'm not proposing the MOO3 system where each new hull-sizes requires that all planets build a new spacedock, rather something like the Civ2 "Apollo Mission" or "Manhattan Project" except that it should not be wonders but acomplishments.
    
| |
|
[I really put some time on this... a good straight-forward diplomatic model.]
I made some university work about the USA-UK-Japan-China situation before WW2 and it strenghtened my belief that the diplomacy model does not represent what happens in diplomacy. Here are some good basic aspects I saw:
- Pressures
- Influence traffic ([b]including promising to bring the population/officials more on some side![/b])
- Slowly building up and strenghtening relations
- Pragmatism vs idealism (from public as officials)
- The importance of public opinion (depending on its knowledge), while dealing simultaneously with foreign opinion (anyone can read about Roosevelt preparing for WW2, with reticent public, peace movement on one side while on the other side are distinct British/Chinese/Japanese demands, etc.)
- Exchanging of anything (and NEVER all or nothing exchanges. NEVER except cases so extreme it's all is left.)
- Possibility to pressure on the limits of treaties/agreements/else
- others
Now let's try to organize this data in a model. Four points:
[b]The four points forming a model[/b]
1- Everything can be done in different degrees (international/national influence? embargo? break/make treaty? enforce/go against agreed rules? diplomatic pressures? ressource trading? Even attacks? Each can be done "just a little"-"quite a bit"-"considerably"-"quite alot"-"go for it")
2- Each thing has a price in degrees or money/influence (ships, diminishing your attacks if do-able... including bringing an embargo from "quite alot" to "considerably")
3- Distinction between official and unofficial (heck... a tiny percentage is really done officially. Even major things in extreme cases: the Japanese invasion of China was done without any side officially at war! Both preferred that, diplomatically or otherwise). Of course, there are popular/diplomatical consequences on doing something officially. Declare war AFTER attacking, and it's like Pearl Harbor!
4- Nationalopinion (Public, and rulers which= US Senate, nobles, ruling elite...) and capacity to influence this factor on a side or another (while foreign scene/intelligence can also influence it). Don't expect public opinion to have the same impact if it is mis/uninformed, or if it does not consider as granted to see its ruler obey (democracy...).
[b]Implementing this as simply straight-forward[/b]
Point one is not hard to manage for a player, since each act that can be done partly has the same options for degrees found for each other pertinent situation (such as my exemple: "just a little"-"quite a bit"-"considerably"-"quite alot"-"go for it, full throttle").
Point two is not hard to manage for a player, as long as it goes on the major points that DO have some serious impact. For example, "making diplomatic pressures" includes lots of stuff (speeches, symbolic acts...) so there's no need to put every single detail that can be included into this. The point is, as usual, to judge what's relevant/interesting enough to be traded, which should include what was important enough to already be in the game, from others' relations to ressources (GalCiv did great things for this).
Point three is not hard to implement neither, but only if you put it simply. What I'd see as simple: you can do anything mentioned in other points, and you need to click "Do it officially" if you wish to do so. You could even make an official move while not puting it in acts by only ticking the box (which would be to threaten to do it, bluff, or wait to do it to see reactions or else). Easy enough?
Point four is just as other countries, except that instead of affecting foreign affairs, it affects interior affairs.
[b]What it permits[/b]
It permits many many things:
A- Easy to use, HARD to master.
B- Depth with only a few levers, and real diplomacy, real trade, real foreign policy.
C- You can push others (public/nations) on one side, on another... etc. It's not at all like when all the options you have are radical and thus usable only in extreme cases.
D- You can push more... more... more... until THEY actually declare war. You? "No oh my good public/friends, THEY are the evil ones"
Also, you can push more... more... to bring them closer to where you want.
Use your power to force others to accept things and still shut up. Let them chose between letting their population/policy makers go wild and create a force, or not. Classic case: push stuff popular with your population and yourself on weaker ones, to the price of ONLY bad foreign reputation (and foreign population hatred) since the rulers wont move against you.
E- [b]And most importantly[/b]: You actually DO have a game with real diplomacy/politics included! You DO interact with other countries on a more than war/economic basis. This brings soooo much more idealistic/pragmatic endeavours (influencing population...), machiavellism possibilities, realpolitik and plain evil possibilities :bounce:
F- So much more I don't have the time to think about. If you wish, you invent your grand strategies, you create.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Gabriel,
Wow.
Stardock,
If the diplomacy coding isn't too far along, Gabriel's suggestions look, at first glance, like a great start to a pseudo-AI diplomatic engine that would have the potential to subvert all other elements of the game - just the way it seems to happen in the real world. Not having played the Political Machine, I don't know if you're already using this sort of model, but I think it could really add some "sticky" complexity to the game. I know that many times I've wanted to work through unofficial channels, not necessarily to overthrow a government, but to 'send a message'.
Just so you know...
End transmission.
| |
|
I really like the idea of Fighters with short range cariers, but I don't think it would be all that feasable.
I personally like idea of mining a certain area.
I also like the idea of fixed defenses.
As for dealing with the range limit. I think a ship shoul be able to operate without resuplying(at a planet or a base) for a certain number of turns. When those turns are up the ship self Destructs.
Anyone laying siege to a planet will want the option to either bombard it(killing civilians and decresing its quality) or with the right technology Destroy it.
I hate micro management as much as the next person, but It becomes necesarry because none of the planetary governers work together. If you had several "sector governors" who govern any number of planets you would be able to significantly decrease the amount of micro management.
As for the AI not being able to keep up with human players I sugest a centralized database where you can upload ship designs and stratagies. Other players can go online and acess those designs and stratagies. The AI would also be able to access that matereal, enabling the AI to use things other players have made. Furthermore players could rank these things enabling the AI to chose things that work.
Dealing with something that was discussed earlier a Wormhole generator sounds like a faster and more advanced version of a star gate(used before the hyperdrive).
The desighners should also look at the way Alfa Centauri handles its tech tree and upgrades.
Sorry if I'm going over some of the older things discussed.
PS: David webber and, maybe, Larry Niven (both Authors) provide plenty of ideas.
  
| |
|
I'd like to see culture - defined borders that are star system based rather than sector based, so they grow and shrink, so that a star surrounded by another culture succumbs easier to cultural deposition, vis a vis the way CIV III does it with cities. Cultural borders grow and shrink base upon the cultural advantage of the bordering civ. This would be a more fluid system of culture, rather than the rigid squares.
  
| |
|
What I'd like to see:
Each race given default advantages/disadvantages and governments, which you can return to the current standard via the options menu.
All subsidiary screens (diplomacy, research, etc) in full screens, rather than partial. More atmospheric.
More treaty possibilities. Economic alliances among groups. Research alliances (with the proviso that all members agree to a specific research objective, and no member sell the results of the research to a third party). Diplomatic initiatives, asking for votes on specific issues; the ability to bribe other races to vote in certain ways.
The ability to select issues in advance for voting when the galaxy's sentient races meet.
AIs with human faces to advise you when certain planets are close to revolting or which ships are best to build on which planets, to achieve specific objectives.
| |
|
Double-posted. Mea culpa.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#160
by Citizen logophage - 12/27/2004 7:43:44 PM
with ship design, the following should be included:
* searchable/browsable database of known enemy ships. ability to "suss" the technology and capabilities could be based on many factors including espionage, combat engagements with enemy, technology level, first-time tech "seen"
* combat simulator: it is important to know if a given ship design will work against enemies before you build it.
* combat scripting: some, even if limited, ability to script engagement styles -- defensive/offensive/suicide/etc.
* prototype costs more: this concept is part of alot of strategy builder games; it's a good idea.
* enemy ship capture: MOO2 had this and it was alot of fun: boarding parties, tractor beams. once you captured ships, you could either use them or take them apart for technology gains.
* counter-capture technologies/strategies: marine complement on ships, tractor beam suppression.
* combat cloaking
* carriers/fighters
* user-designed missiles & fighters
* combat mining
* combat manuveuring technologies
* 3D combat
| |
|
#161
by Citizen logophage - 12/27/2004 7:43:50 PM
with ship design, the following should be included:
* searchable/browsable database of known enemy ships. ability to "suss" the technology and capabilities could be based on many factors including espionage, combat engagements with enemy, technology level, first-time tech "seen"
* combat simulator: it is important to know if a given ship design will work against enemies before you build it.
* combat scripting: some, even if limited, ability to script engagement styles -- defensive/offensive/suicide/etc.
* prototype costs more: this concept is part of alot of strategy builder games; it's a good idea.
* enemy ship capture: MOO2 had this and it was alot of fun: boarding parties, tractor beams. once you captured ships, you could either use them or take them apart for technology gains.
* counter-capture technologies/strategies: marine complement on ships, tractor beam suppression.
* combat cloaking
* carriers/fighters
* user-designed missiles & fighters
* combat mining
* combat manuveuring technologies
* 3D combat
| |
|
|
|
| Point I am making, is that it has to be easy to get into and play. Above all, fun. Which means early success. |
|
I agree with this. The fun factor must stay. I think a success of Galciv is that it is easy to learn and hard to master. Galciv II shouldn't be made hard to learn or overhelming with details, options and how to conduct an empire or a battle.
 
| |
|
#164
by Citizen WLBjork - 12/30/2004 5:10:31 AM
Customisable ships is a great idea.
However, I did't enjoy MOO2 as much as I could have due to the continuous need to refit ships whilst technology advanced.
Whilst GC2 could suffer from the same problem, by keeping the modules the same size and just having each level more powerful (as it is in Space Empires IV) would cut down on the necessity for refits.
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#165
by Citizen logophage - 12/30/2004 4:33:55 PM
On the subject of refit, it was bit tedious for MOO2. However, I believe at least some of these things can be resolved. First, have the cost of production go down as tech levels are researched. In other words, you could have old but inexpensive ships. Second, have refit costs be high. Third, have a refit cost curve different from a new ship cost curve; something like: small hulled ships would be as expensive to refit as just building a new ship whereas large hulled ships would be cheaper to refit.
One the subject of the learning curve, it would be a simple thing to have ship auto-design. You could even have games where auto-design is the only permissable mechanism. You could disallow certain techs which the design AI might overlook as useful.
More on ship design, I'd like to have configurable hull sizes. In other words, intead of researching hull technologies, you'd research small, medium, large, extra-large hull modules which can be coupled together to form a ship hull of arbitrary size. These hull modules would permit weapons, armour, shields, engines, etc. to be mounted on them. Referring back to the refit idea, it may be reasonable to permit a module to be cheaply removed and a new one added in. This would make refit a more viable and realistic idea.
| |
|
#166
by Citizen Mylon - 1/4/2005 8:36:38 PM
I'd like to see more methods of continuous improvement.
Examples would be the possibility to focus research into a specific field (economy, military, morale, soldiering, ect) to gain bonuses in that area. The idea is that this research is uncapped - One could research that field indefinitely and get some rather large bonuses. The bonus should obviously not be linear, but the idea is that there's always something to improve.
Also is the possibility of military and social project improvements. When a planet has nothing left to produce, it could build a generic improvement, like, say, terraforming. Say, each X resources spent on terraforming improves the quality of the planet by some amount and the planet can do this indefinitely. Alternately, a planet could build trade goods (to generate raw cash) or their social improvement field can be temporarily dedicated to research or military (and likewise with military). Planets could also build generic improvements like, say, housing, which increases the maximum population (or perhaps more appropriately, the morale of the planet), or focus on commercial enterprices which provide a econmy bonuses. Or focus on producing really good TV shows to increase influence, ect, ect... Spaceship improvement could be an ongoin military project. Or starbases could be given ongoing improvements like above so planets can just produce constructors indefinitely.
The idea is that all of the bonuses that facilities provide could be offered as continuing improvements. These continuing improvements should be maitenance free _but_ more expensive than facilities. That is, one could get a maitenance free +20% to spaceships, morale, economy, production, influence, and research, but the same resources might very well give a +50% bonus to each if spent on buildings (at the expense of maitenance).
This way there will never be a "dead" end. Planets will never have nothing to do, and there will always be something to research.
| |
|
#167
by Citizen MadaxeMat - 1/6/2005 3:47:37 PM
any chance of a more controled invasion of a world slecting which contentis to attack with what type of force. where to land the original landing party ect. and if possible i would love the fleet combat to be controled more like a homeworld game then just ships flashing at each other. And i would love fighters to stop becoming obsolte. because how the hell is a slow ship like the avatar going to hit a real fast small ship.
Another thing that bugged by about the first one is the fact you could not bomb planets like on MOO because it would be far easier just to blast the planet then invading it or sending the terror star. I would also like the ability to share systems for example system x has 4 planets 3 of these are owned by your empire but the final one is owned by your nemisis empire x.
Oh eh and being able to have civ like control of the planet. A bit like emporer of the fading sun where you played a civ type game on the world surface and a master of oroin type game in space. Probaly abit too much work for you but it would be soo cool 
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Make it so when a weapon advances (IE. 25%+ on a laser) rather than it being instant upgrade for all ships, it should be that as long as the ship is in a sector controled by you (Influence related) then it is refitted, but otherwise it remains on previous value....
| |
|
|
|
this all sounds very similar to pax imperium 2, u can get it at www.the-underdogs.org, especially wit the ship design
| |
|
Undertaker - ive just read that preview thing at IGN.com and well it looks like Gal Civ 2 is shaping up to be a Master of Orion 2 clone.
I mean a worse MOO2 clone.
As far as I can read it, Stardock hasnt really listened to what the fans wanted in the sequel. Or at least they have only half listened and implemented it in a half hearted way.
What was the point in asking us what we would like to see if they were subsequently going to ignore us for most of it and basically clone Master of Orion?
Of course this is only a preview, but as myself and several others have been posting for weeks on here questions about various things and have been thoroughly ignored it seems like my earlier suspicions are correct.
Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain was a fantastic space game - the only problem with it was a half assed diplomacy model and really crap AI.
My vision for the Gal Civ sequel would have been Pax souped up with GalCivesque graphics, being in its universe, and having the brilliant GalCiv AI and diplomacy model - as it is it appears as tho my hopes; and probably the hopes of many others have come to nothing.
Of course I could be wrong, or misinterpreting the preview and screenshots - and I honestly really do hope I am wrong; but im probably not.
EDIT:
Forgot to mention that this could all very well be entirely moot as we here in the UK are still waiting for Altarian Prophecy to be released here - so we non-credit card using, broadband owning GalCiv players will probably never see GalCiv: AP and GalCiv 2 here at all...
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Hey people, my first post here. I've only had GalCiv (And AP) for a couple of weeks, but it's rapidly becoming a fave. Anyways, I wanted to throw in my various and myriad pairs of cents here for my thoughts on the sequel.
First off:
"Suggestion 2:
Have a template 'mod' style. All the user like me wants to do is download the prog, click on the mod, and have it copy files into all the right places for me. When I boot up Galciv 2, a quick menu "saying A,B,C mod detected, please click the ones you want" would be great.
I know everyone else here is a skinning whiz and can program backwards in their sleep. Some users, like me, struggle with turning the computer on. Making using mods easy would be really appreciated and encourage mod use."
K. I'm very sorry that I can't remember who said that, but whoever it is hit the nail on the head. Not all of us have the time/skills to make entire new units/change coding and so forth, but have many interesting ideas for rule changes. Whilst GalCivWriter is an excellent little application, if we had a really good, easy-to-use, StarDock created (and therefore able to understand what they are permitting the modders to do more easily, leading to more options.) modding system I think the community would benefit greatly.
Also good was the idea of being able to switch said mods on and off. See The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for how this ought to work. Very simply, there's a menu which has all the plugins on it, and you simply turn on and off those you want to use. Some of the mods for Morrowind elevate it from 'ambitious but flawed game' to 'RPG of the year'. With the ability to change not only costs and add techs/ships/buildings, but to make fundamental changes to the rules (As in Civilization III's editor, where you could modify a large amount of the game, or Morrowind, where you could modify almost anything if you had the know-how.), I think this would ferment fan ideas, allowing for;
-Greater replayability/lifespan
-More ideas for GalCiv 3, if there is one
-Appreciation for StarDock putting such a system in
-More diverse styles of play
This would, of course, conflict with the Metaverse business, but I think people would be willing to make that trade (Or of course, if you can simply turn a mod off, you could play vanilla GalCiv 2 for Mverse things, and play whatever kind you liked without submitting to the Mverse and not be bound by the installation.).
Second:
It occurs to me, that we could use more in the way of resources. In the sense of actual, real resources, not just some strange isometric eyesore which boosts such-and-such a stat by x%. Example: Let's call some fictitious alloy 'Polycarbosteel', or 'PCS'. Now, this PCS is a malleable, yet strong steel, which would increase the HP of things which it is used as a component in the construction of. Maybe without an antimatter source, it is far harder (IE, costs much, much more in the way of production) to engineer anything involving antimatter, be it engines, exposives, etc.
To me, it seems that scouting out deep space for bodies containing such things is more believable than a simple, precise, inexplicable 'resource', and could lead to much more interesting conflicts and trade agreements.
Third;
Planets. Just a small thing here, but might I suggest moons can randomly be found? This would only in very rare cases allow for people to live on them (Ie, in our solar system of over 100 moons there might be three which could easily be terraformed, if that.), but they WOULD offer greater productivity. Plus, both planets and moons might have a chance of having such a resource on them. This means it might be desirable to colonise a very inhospitable world, due to it's material wealth. (Perhaps this could open up the idea of mining colonies? Only a couple of thousand people, and barely defended, but able to provide your empire with valuable stuff at a much lower cost than trying to colonise a whole barren world. And of course, this opens up yet more room for diplomatic sabre-rattling ^^)
Fourth;
Diplomacy needs to be slightly reconsidered. Whilst the AI is certainly praiseworthy in GalCiv, the diplomacy itself is yet another case of either "Do as I, Mr. Korx, say, or you die!" or, "How about this trade right here?". It's certainly more reasonable in terms of what can be traded than, say, Civ3 is, but it remains the case that it's pretty boring. I think that BlackMuppet may have got a lot of good ideas nailed down there, so I shan't dwell on the matter, except to say I would like a more 'debate' feel to the negotiations. Rather than simply clicking arrows until you find how much you can get from the Yor and then hitting 'Done', what if you put say, Nano Electronics on the table, and they offered Weapons Theory. You think this is unfair, so you ask them for Industrial Theory and a Scout ship as well, but then they want something addition as well, so they ask for 10 BC for 3 months to balance it out - a crude example, but you get the gist. Rather than simply a yes-or-no enterprise, if these diplomatic talks 'evolved' and went through stages, I think it would lend a lot to the atmosphere of the game.
Five;
Fleets. I honestly don't know how they're going to work other than, in a different way than GalCiv 1. I've got a couple of ideas, some perhaps more feasable than others.
Firstly, when a fleet is created, a list of potential commanders appears. This would be influenced by such things as soldiering, various improvements (Ie, a military academy would improve their quality) and random luck. Perhaps this could be a single, empire-wide list, or perhaps it could be generated randomly whenever you create a fleet, forming a much smaller pool each time, but regardless this commander would make a couple of important things be considered. Their stats, their tactics, and their loyalties. The last one seems the most tricky to implement, as it would require much more detail going into the commander/fleets, analysing the morality and motivations of their orders to bomb five billion unarmed civilians back to the stone age against that of your empire, etc. etc., but I think the stats would be quite easy to put in (Ie, the fleet recieves a 5% weapon bonus with Commander Ivanova in charge.), as would the tactics. These could be maybe randomly decided, or maybe decided by various improvements and suchlike. For example, Sheridan might have the 'Minefield' tactic, allowing him better defensive options and more chance of a succesful retreat, whilst
'Flanking' would permit a higher attack value in a conflict. Tactics, unlike stats, could be changed at any time or perhaps even left to the commander's discretion.
I appreciate the dislike of micromanagement, but I think this idea might be a bit controversial. (It's not really an antidote to MM, but I think it would help it some.) Until the proper comms techs are researched, perhaps it would be a case of ordering your commander/captain to go to place X and perform action Y, and let them get on with it, rather than you personally doing all the precise clicking and work (As an aside, this may be a helpful alleviation to some of the difficulties arising from any possible 'true 3D' map systems.). Simply put, you go to the Fleet screen, you tell the Third Imperial Earth Fleet to fly to Starbase 12, and to perform training drills (Training drills! I'm a genius! xD Your fleets could in peacetime train (At a price, of course), upping their stats and abilities!!). And off he goes. This ties in very closely with my next idea, perhaps the least likely to be implemented at all, but one I want to throw into the pot and see what can be made of it nonetheless.
Sixth;
Communications. Ok, I feel this is something which -could- make GalCiv 2 a much more unique game, but could also ruin it, and would certainly change it a great deal. See the above example about ordering Fleet Three to go to Starbase 12? Well, what if they're two thirds of the way there, when suddenly ol' Mr. Mancer decides he doesn't like the way you're feeding your young to the death furnaces? You call Fleet Three up and tell them to about-face, right? Well, maybe not. What if you could call them, but it would take 3 turns for the message to reach and have them turn about? The time-frames would depend on your tech level (Eg, 'tachyon engrams' could allow instant comms.), what the ship is fitted with, nearby planets and starbases (Ie, you could send a message to Starbase 12 instead, taking 1 turn because of the vastly better techs, and they could in turn alert the fleet in one turn because of their closer proximity.), etc. etc. Perhaps a Galactic Achievement might cut comms times? Now, I want to stress, I am NOT suggesting that every communication send has to be considered and a route set for it, but I am thinking of an automatic system for calculating such things which you could override if you had the desire. I think it would give the game a very interesting slant, and open up doors for a new class of speciality ships (Comms, unsurprisingly enough.). It just seems to me unlikely that a ship halfway across the galaxy would recieve orders instantly based on the tech level at the start of the game, but on the other hand it might lead to MM problems (If you can set up orders like "Fly here, do this, but do this if such and such happens, and this if you are attacked" yadda yadda you get the picture.). Just something I wanted to throw out, as it stemmed from my general idea of fleets being a bit more independant, again could lead to MM problems and a lot of swearing of Cap'n Sparrow is off pillaging the Arceans who you have an uneasy truce with or some such.
Ok, sorry for the continuing length of this post, but I like to get my ideas out while I'm thinking about them and right now my brain is going POWPOWPOWRATTARATTATATTAA! KABOOM! with those very ideas xD
Seven;
Point of convenience. I think we can assume that better techs will lead to better weapons? If so, what about a simple, automatic upgrade feature when a ship pulls in to port/dock? (Whether this is for repairs, specifically for upgrades, or part of whatever they're doing with logistics doesn't matter much.) Say you've got a Level II Neutrino Missle rack strapped onto your frigate, and you've just developed Level III of the same. Rather than having to do any MM, it simply straps them on next time you're in the right place for it, taking I would suggest either money or time, if not both (Another chain of SB modules? Expand capacity and speed of ships able to dock and be rapidly repaired/maintained?). Obviously, you could de-activate this at will.
Eight;
Mainly getting to aesthetics now.
* As has been pointed out, someone needs to have a careful think about how the planets are displayed, but I'm sure that will be seen to.
* Allow all races to be in play at once - it bugs the heck out of me whenever I have to go change a Civ 3 ruleset or mod to allow that. I rarely play with them all, but I like the option.
* Little things like busy spaceways in orbit of populated words would be nice, or more than one trade ship on a route (Maybe you could see escort ships if a Trade Federation is formed, things like that?), and if you have more than one colony in a single system, see a lot of small traffic between them? Just tiny things like that which don't make any real difference can really help with atmosphere... such as it is, in space. xD
* A proper encylcopedia. Someone suggested a wiki-eqsue style; that's the best idea I've read in a long time. It would allow fans resources to research possible ship designs, the benefits of various techs, all sorts of good stuff like that. There could even be a special area for wild, mad, frothing-at-the-mouth gesticulations on your latest galactic conquest.
Ok, to anyone who read through all that: I salute you. To those who didn't, just take a look at at least one or two points and see what you think, k? Sorry for the thesis, but as I said, I like getting my ideas out when I have them xD (I'm not the most organised person on Sol III.).
[Message Edited]
| |
|
Have you tried the official Galciv2 site?  Link
[Message Edited]
| |
|
#174
by Citizen armed2010 - 2/26/2005 2:16:49 PM
Im going to jump on the improved land battles bandwagon. Honestly I want a better graphical representation of whats happening on the planets surface. If we could get a zoom down view and see the planet in 3d with buildings and everything, that would be amazing. I really, really want to see 3d ground combat though. You dont have to let us control each unit or anything, but let us choose some sort of strategy, and then see that strategy carried out by a 3d invasion force fighting against a 3d defense force. Let us see our ships fighting in the atmosphere, the bombs dropping, etc.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
