Follow SpaceSector.com on G+ Follow SpaceSector.com on Twitter Subscribe the SpaceSector.com Facebook page Subscribe the SpaceSector.com RSS feed Receive notifications of new posts by email

Galactic Civilizations 3 Announced !!

By on October 15th, 2013 12:26 pm

Today, Stardock, the developer and publisher of games like Galactic Civilizations, Galactic Civilizations 2 and Sins of a Solar Empire celebrated 20 years in existence, and, it announced Galactic Civilizations 3! Yes, that’s right, no joke, the third installment of the great turn-based space 4X gaming franchise, perhaps the best after the Master of Orion franchise that has named the particular genre 4X, is here.

First, the bad news, there’s no release date set yet :) But, on the bright side, Stardock’s press release has a lot of information. First of all, there’s multiplayer now. And, the game will release exclusively for 64-bit PCs.

“The move to 64-bit architecture heralds a new era of game development at Stardock,” said Derek Paxton, vice president of Stardock Entertainment. “The technology allows players to experience a level of graphical detail and on-screen activity unprecedented in large-scale strategy PC games. It dramatically increases the size and scope of the maps, and opens the door for modders to add a virtually unlimited amount of new content to the game.” -Derek Paxton (vice president of Stardock Entertainment).

As for other features:

“Galactic Civilizations III gives players far more detail in the textures, models, and overall look of everything from the planets they colonize to the fleets they command. New interstellar terrain elements on the hex-based map like black holes and mysterious Precursor relics change the way players explore the galaxy. A completely overhauled ship builder puts nearly every element of starship design in players’ hands, while the new resource system creates fresh opportunities to explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.”

Pre-orders are already available with early access to the game. A $39,99 Founder’s Edition includes beta access at $10 off regular price while a $99.99 Founder’s Elite Edition gives players all future DLCs and expansions for free (so, they are already thinking in expansions!), alpha access among other goodies.

“So much has happened at Stardock over the past twenty years, but I sometimes feel like we’re just getting started. There’s so much awesome stuff in the works right now,” continued Wardell. “We’re on the verge of so many new technologies and ideas that will change the way games and software are developed. We, as an industry, are heading into a golden age.” -Brad Wardell (Stardock CEO)

And now the teaser trailer! Enjoy.

\Edit: This FAQ contains a few more bits of information, regarding the development process (alpha, beta, etc), the use of hexes instead of squares, turn-based gameplay (although no word on how the combat works) and multiplayer being online and hotseat.

     Subscribe RSS

Tags: , , , , ,


95 Comments


  1. John says:

    Here’s hoping they improve the combat portion. I always wanted a proper space opera battle with my 4x.

    • BTAxis says:

      That’s a thing that stopped me from enjoying the second game, that and the tedious, cosmetics-only ship designer.

    • Casey says:

      I think it would be pretty silly for them to not make improvements to the combat of the series. It’s been one of the top complaints from fans for years and some really simple changes are all that would really be needed to completely revamp the current system. I’m also hoping for an all-new combat system myself. I’m hoping, though it is pointless, that it will be a better implemented version of something similar to Sword of the Stars 2’s combat system. I’m sure that would really piss off a lot of people, though.

    • Mark says:

      Amen to that. And getting rid of the brain-dead rock, paper, scissors tactics would be a good idea too.

      • John says:

        Personally, what I want to see is slow moving capital ships. As they turn broadside their turrets lock into place and rain hell fire at each other. Shields bracing as missiles come fly, until they finally shatter causing severe damage to the hull.

        I also wouldn’t mind seeing some (this will date me) Bridge Commander style battle damage. Where ships could potentially lose their engines and go rocketing off into space due to their momentum. I think SotS1 had something like that as well.

      • Ivan says:

        Except it wasn’t even rock-scissors-paper.

  2. TimmY says:

    Oh my! This is so unexpected. Goodie goodie :D

  3. Ermdog says:

    I got chills hearing the news! I can’t wait for this! Thank you, Thank you!

  4. Xerberus86 says:

    Hell yeah!!!!!!

  5. Keith Turner says:

    Very exciting news! Would have loved to see some gameplay, but hey, I can wait for that.

  6. Hannu Blommila says:

    Oh yes!!

  7. Kordanor says:

    Nice! I hope that they implement multiplayer this time though I doubt it.

  8. Thrangar says:

    WOW this took me by surprise, will keep all eyes on this one

  9. Bill says:

    Dear god, don’t mess this up StarDock!

  10. Martok says:

    Can’t wait for this! I hope they include a proper combat system this time around, but exciting news either way.

  11. Bebob says:

    Outstanding news, rapturous really reading the announcement. I barely play games other than 4X space games so the years since the last GalCiv2 expansion have been long and filled with wild hopes and disappointments. Don’t release it till it’s done, Stardock (but don’t leave us hanging about what’s going on)!

  12. Xyggy says:

    Allow me to simply say SQUEEEEE!

  13. Ace of the Stars says:

    I saw this at Stardock.com so we´ll have to wait some time before it comes out :

    Release Date: Q1 2015

  14. Samwell says:

    AWESOME!

    Man, I cant stress enough how happy I am to hear about that release, and that human crusade thing, YAY, terrans finally cleaning the galaxy!

    Lets hope they dont cartoon it up and expand on depth rather than “consolify” it.

    • Jeannius81 says:

      I AM LOVING IT!!

      I am a long time 4x player. My favorite 4x of all time is Star Trek: Birth of the federation. The game mechanics, as far as queue building, economy, production, taxes… all made sense to me and is by far my favorite 4x mechanics of all time.

      The reason i am saying this is that Galactic Civilization II is a good game in my opinion. I bought the original and all expansion (I was particularly happy about the story behind twilight of the arnor with that whole indestructible force field thing). The one issue I always had with it is the game mechanics. I think tiles are a good idea but I cannot understand why a planet only have 4 to 10 tiles…. THAT MAKES NO PHYSICAL SENSE (Sorry I am an engineer), so this was a big issue for me that I hope they correct. A planet with 60 to 100+ tiles, than we can talk.

      I want my 4x to make some physical sense in my mind, otherwise I can’t get immersed in it (sorry, very picky). BUT I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE NEWS! :)

  15. Sotiris says:

    Hell, It was about time!

  16. Gunlord says:

    I loved GalCiv II, so I’m happy to hear about this…however, you know what I would have really liked? Sins of a Solar Empire II ;_;

  17. pinback says:

    Insta-effing-buy.

  18. Magnus says:

    Well, since they include multiplayer, I hope that hotseat is among the modes they will make available. If the gameplay doesn’t change fundamentally from GC2, hotseat should be easy to implement in their multiplayer structure.

  19. Jeff P says:

    I normally don’t purchase games in their alpha or beta state (I don’t want to get burned out on a partially finished game) but this may be different. I own every Gal Civ from the first one, and have enjoyed them all immensely.

    The move to 64 bit comps is intriguing: more stuff in the game, or better looking stuff? Or both…

  20. Alien JD says:

    I can’t wait for this. I love GalCiv 2. I’m in the middle of a game now. BTW, has anyone played the campaigns and are they any good? I’ve only played sandbox mode (although I’ve had the game since launch and have all the expansions).

  21. Expanding Man says:

    Such wonderful news!

    I strongly agree with others are saying about having some kind of nice battle mechanic.

    I was playing Fallen Enchantress, and, though I really can’t stand fantasy, I will admit that having to actually do something during a battle rather than the game always automatically Monte Carlo-ing the result adds a huge amount of depth to all aspects of the game. In particular, it makes designing and micro-managing your units much more meaningful. Would love to see a turn based tactics battle mode, perhaps similar in spirit to the fantasy ones but in 3D.

  22. trix62 says:

    I loved Galciv 2. I will be watching for this one…only problem is my computer is already close to obsolete =/ .

  23. Hawawaa says:

    Good old GalCiv. Oh I can’t wait to get my hands on that alpha.

  24. Mark says:

    Eff yeah, and holy epic trailer!

  25. Lens Flares Suck says:

    Stardock makes complicated games that just aren’t that fun.

    They need to loose Brad Wardell. In a big way.

    • Mark says:

      I was beginning to think I was the only one who found Gal Civ II dull. I tried a few times to do a good solid game session, just to try and capture whatever it is that everyone else has seen, but I always end up nodding off after only a couple of hours.

      I thought maybe it was just because the tactical combat was so dismal, but maybe its more than that?

    • Ghoul says:

      really? i thorugh that galciv 2 was very easy to learn and was a lots of fun while doing so, i didnt play any other stardock game so i cant judge the other games from them.

      • Mark says:

        Yeah I’m honestly not sure exactly why I find Gal Civ II such a mediocre 4x. The tactical combat model (or lack thereof) is certainly part of it, but there’s something else that doesn’t quite click……not sure.

        • jeannius81 says:

          Maybe the tile-base production/construction, which makes no sense to me whatsoever

        • AstralWanderer says:

          “Yeah I’m honestly not sure exactly why I find Gal Civ II such a mediocre 4x. The tactical combat model (or lack thereof) is certainly part of it, but there’s something else that doesn’t quite click……not sure.”

          I’m with you in considering GalCiv II mediocre, but aside from the (lack of) tactical combat I’d highlight:

          * Arguably the worst ground combat system ever. Watch 2 numbers count down to zero. Brøderbund was doing this back in 1980 with Galactic Empire.

          * A dull, derivative tech tree – which you had to re-research at every step of the single-player campaign.

          * An almost equally dull colony setup, with no weight given to proximity or position. The most complex thing you need do is match facilities with corresponding bonus tiles. Even the 1985 release Ascendancy did better than this, by requiring you to have all your facilities connected.

          * Ship design, which some might argue as being GalCiv II’s strong point, but which in my view discouraged minor design changes (like engine upgrades) by pushing you into almost redesigning your ships for any change, however small.

          Some of the really stupid stuff (like having to arrange satellites in 3×3 grids to maximise planet output – what were they thinking/smoking?) were done away with in later patches, but too little was done to deal with the game’s basic problems. A pity since things like the colony screens (which did include nice world maps) could have been made so much more interesting by providing bonuses for keeping facilities together, or even using the layout for future ground combat.

          And then Stardock’s DRM policy (“We’re DRM-free! Honest!! Well, until you install the first patch which then requires online activation…”) has made them a complete no-go for me ever since – which has cost them about $200-300 in sales from me (a few Object Desktop renewals plus several of their other games). Though given the frustrations others have expressed on their later releases, I might have got the better of the deal there…

        • Ivan says:

          @AstralWanderer Good points!

    • Dudester says:

      I am a big fan of the Civ series and I have always been looking to find a space strategy equivalent. Sadly for me I have been searching to fill this void since the Imperium Galactica II days, and haven’t found it ever, tried Pax Imperia (snoozefest) Space Empires (none of them held my attention) Even tried Swords of the Stars I and II (crapola) and I really tried liking GalCiv 2, however I need to see actual orbits and moons, different stellar classes to immerse myself in. Unfortunately only Hegemonia Legions of Iron gave me a short fix. Otherwise its been Sins of a Solar Empire for me. However neither are turn based or give that epic sense of scale.

      Well hopefully 3rd time’s a charm

      • Mark says:

        I love Civ games too and I have to agree with you that there doesn’t seem to be a space-based equivalent to that particular game style. Certainly Gal Civ aint it.

        Distant Worlds is probably the closest for me, but it’s lacking in colony building aspects and hamstrung by its constant, relentless insistence on real-time.

        • Adam Solo says:

          It’s funny because I think GalCiv is probably the closest to Civ a space 4X game has ever been. The grid movement, the abstract combat.

          But, it’s hard to have a Civesq space 4X game, because of the terrain. Alpha Centauri, sure, that’s Civ 4X in space, but it’s a sci-fi one, on a planet, on the ground, not really in space.

          It’s a hard nut to crack, to make a Civesq space 4X game I mean. The big problem is the terrain. But, if you make an analogy between city being star system, and improvements being terraformed planets and moons, it’s certainly doable. But, it would be just, well, Civ in space.

        • Mark says:

          @ Adam,

          I’d agree with you that the makers of Gal Civ were aiming for a Civ-in-space style of game, and I’ve always thought I would like such a game. But for some reason Gal Civ just doesn’t do it for me.

          Maybe I’m just wrong about liking the idea Civ-in-space. Do you remember the mod that shipped with Civ IV’s Beyond the Sword expansion. I think it was called Final Frontier or something? It was actually the Civ IV engine adapted to space 4X, and although I played it a bit, I never really liked it very much.

        • Adam Solo says:

          @ Mark

          I also tried the Final Frontier mod for Civ4:BTS. It was designed by Jon Shafer (Civ5 lead designer), by the way.

          Civ4:BTS is one of my favorite games of all time. Period. But, I only tried the Final Frontier mod a couple of times, one of which more recently. I think the mod has a lot of depth and it seems to play quite differently from Civ actually. Being it a mod I found that to be quite an achievement.

          The reason I didn’t play Final Frontier more has probably nothing to do with the mod itself, or its quality, but more about myself as a gamer. When I play Civ, I always play it in the classic way. Single player, no scenarios, no mods. I like to have the “true” sandbox/4X experience. So, I can’t say much more about Final Frontier.

          But, I’m suspecting that a Civ-in-space 4X game is perhaps more of a romantic idea than anything else. I mean, in a galactic empire kind of game (Alpha Centauri is a different kind of beast) Civ may not work, again because of the terrain thing.

          But, I did play (design wise) with the Civ-in-space 4X thought and I think it can be done. But again, it will be… well… Civ in space, and for that we already have the Final Frontier mod…

        • Mark says:

          @ Adam,

          “But, I’m suspecting that a Civ-in-space 4X game is perhaps more of a romantic idea than anything else.”

          Yes, that’s what I’m beginning to think too. If someone released a stand-alone space 4x game similar to “Final Frontier”, I don’t think I would end up liking it very much, even though – like you – Civ IV is one of my top 5 favorite games of all time, if not my favorite. Funny the way our minds play tricks.

          Intellectually I would have thought that the only thing better than Civ on the ground would be Civ in space. But when I actually get it handed to me (Final Frontier or even Gal Civ II) it just doesn’t seem to click emotionally. Strange…..

          All this analysis is seriously tempting me to give Gal Civ II yet another try, and this time stick at it! I have to find out what so many people see in this game….

        • Dudester says:

          I did try Distant Worlds too, and as you said its relentless insistence in real time just makes it a very spreadsheets in space experience. I especially didnt like the feeling that the game could play itself and didnt need me there at all. This isnt what makes a good game IMO. Sure it was innovative at the time but its vastness isnt a strongpoint, quite the contrary. Endless Space for me was pretty much endless boredom. It felt vacuous.

          We need a new space strategy renaissance. The problem is the genre isnt so creative anymore. We need new approaches to this style of game. Not just another rehash of Master of Orion with some borrowed ideas from other not so great titles. I liked Nexus Jupiter Incident actually as it was unique and fun. Originally I read it was going to have space colonization elements to it before they made it into a big RPG/Strategy hybrid.

          At this point in time I would welcome anything that can break the mould. Alpha Centauri was interesting too. As Adam Solo said you can make it like Civ but then it would just be Civ in space. But I wouldnt be so cynical about another Civ in space. So far there has been none that approach it totally like a Sid Meier game. I would say it could well be a surprising mix.

          What I would like to see however is a game such as GalCiv but that allows for a rich commodities trading system, that has a bearing on game economics. Civ did it with luxuries, something similar on a galactic level would be superb. Or transplant the gaming styles of Anno and Settlers onto the Space genre. Even a Total War empire map akin to Dark Crusade (40K) and you got yourself something never seen before but borrowing only the very best elements from proven gaming formulas. I just dont want another slugfest without there being a compelling reason to also invest in an infrastructure or economy, much in the way only games like Civ, Settlers, Anno and few others have done.

        • AstralWanderer says:

          “But, it’s hard to have a Civesq space 4X game, because of the terrain. Alpha Centauri, sure, that’s Civ 4X in space, but it’s a sci-fi one, on a planet, on the ground, not really in space.”

          Don’t overlook Activision’s Civilization: Call to Power game (and the sequel Call to Power II). The first game did allow you to travel to space (with the appropriate tech/units) and build cities there (as well as undersea, before Alpha Centauri came out). “Space” in this case was an alternate terrain grid in which cities had access to large amounts of production and food (!).

          It was a feature dropped in the followup, CTP II, but an interesting sidenote.

          The Call to Power series, despite being disliked by Firaxis, did offer a number of innovations to the Civ genre, like Public Works (allowing you to place tile improvements directly rather than having to micromanage fleets of Settlers/Engineers), army combat (requiring mixes of unit types to be most effective), future technologies (including undersea cities and maglevs) and an advanced scripting system (used by mods subsequently to add features like expanding cities, visible Wonders and new units).

          The downside is that only CTP II is available now (at GOG – http://www.gog.com/game/call_to_power_2 ) and that it wasn’t completely finished, with some significant bugs. However (and almost uniquely for a commercial game) the source code was released and various groups have improved upon it, including Apolyton at http://apolyton.net/content.php/264-sourcecode

    • AndyDandy says:

      Why? They have great success with their games. They make deeper games then most, and there is a great market for it. I’m glad not everyone is making the same games.

  26. Dave V says:

    At least 64 bit gives them plenty of room for the inevitable memory leaks and slow performance in the late game. I hope they revamp the lore/combat and make things more interesting, especially the tech tree. Having to research Lasers Mk 1, Mk 2, Mk 3, Mk 4 etc. just got so dull.

  27. AndyDandy says:

    WOW! I lost my breath when I saw this, just WOW! Time to celebrate. I am in heaven. GalCiv2 was the best Space Strategy ever made in my opininon. Awesome!!!!

  28. Ghoul says:

    amazing news, improvment on the battle mechanics are a must, i hated it to watch pretty much a small movie how my ships are faring, also i hated to retrofit my ships all the time because of the rock/paper/scissors stuff. also i hope they keep the easy to mod/customization aspect of the game, i always loved to create my own races and put their signs and race pcitures in myself also the ship building was always quite fun. so yeah, galciv 2 was my favourite space 4x and it still is, since almost every space 4x after galciv2 just wasnt as good and just couldnt get into them.

    • Dudester says:

      I keep saying what is needed is a compelling enough economic/trading/resources/commodities system and more compelling gaming dynamics than just planet hording and generic production stats than differ ever so slightly from forgettable planet forgettable to planet.

      If we get a game that makes it critical that you have certain resources to build say special ship components or in much the same way Civ made it critical to have certain commodities or luxuries to maintain a steady population then it might make for a more in depth gaming experience.

      I still think most 4X space games are fairly run of the mill unimaginative undertakings. We need to break that monotonous game model and make something unique and innovative. Warmongering is fun but not at the expense of a deeper richer game world.

  29. Gary says:

    All of those Kickstarted Sci-fi 4X games (M.O.R.E., Predestination, etc.), and now GalCiv 3 added into the mix. Heady days indeed :)

  30. Ty Page says:

    64-bit? I don’t even know which my computer is, but it’s probably 32-bit. I can’t afford an entire new computer. I hope they fix the weird combat- make it more interesting. I actually started to doze off during a battle once- no joke!

  31. ashbery76 says:

    I am hoping for tactical combat so the military side of the game has some real depth and a more serious theme with graphics design that is made for people over 12.Warships should look like warships and not corgi toys.

    Also no terrible tech description jokes and silly minor races.

    • Adam Solo says:

      Yeah, GalCiv2 graphics do look cartoony. Not that I thought too much about it while playing.

      I’m intrigued by what they’ve designed for the combat. If I had to guess I would say that they’re sticking to the cinematic/abstract formula. Why? Because Paxton is a Civ fanatic, or at least started as a Civ modder. And Brad, well, he probably prefers the abstract combat as well since he designed GalCiv2 in the first place.

      I know that the majority of 4X fans probably prefers a good tactical combat system (mainly because of Master of Orion 2 and Space Empires) but abstract combat has served the Civilization franchise well, and the GalCiv2 one as well. Otherwise it wouldn’t be the hit it was and we wouldn’t be here discussing GalCiv3.

      What I’m trying to say is that, if they manage to make the combat just a bit more interesting, I’m fine with it being abstract. But, in general, I’m pretty agnostic to what the combat system is like. However, I do tend to lean towards more abstract combat (more focus on strategy). And, when tactical combat is indeed present, I tend to prefer a much more abstract one, like the one found on Heroes of Might & Magic 2 or Master of Orion (not Master of Orion 2 so much). So, I usually prefer stacks and fewer units to control. And turn-based of course.

      This because we’re discussing 4X games, if we would be discussing turn-based tactics games like XCOM I prefer a mix of strategy and tactical depth. But in 4X games I usually prefer much more depth provided in the strategy layer than on the tactical one.

      • Jeff P says:

        I have been hoping that Gal Civ 3 would use real-time tactical combat with an auto combat option, like a Gal Civ/Sins hybrid. I would also like to see them move back to separate solar system views (as they had in the original Gal Civ) rather than the sprinkling of individual planets of Gal Civ 2. Naturally, I expect them to retain turn-based for strategic level play.

        All this speculation is rather moot given that they haven’t provided any taste of the game play as yet. Perhaps some of us should post our “suggestions” on the GC3 website forums.

        • Jeff P says:

          That was quick. Just got off the Gal Civ 3 forums and FAQ: no real-time combat, but SD is hinting that the tactical combat system will be different from that in Gal Civ 2.

          Guess we will have to wait and see.

        • Adam Solo says:

          The FAQ only says that the game will be turn-based. Was it in the forums where you got the information that combat will not be real-time? If not, then it can still be turn-based or abstract/cinematic/automatically resolved.

        • Jeff P says:

          Yes, I read through the forums and a developer (“frogboy”) indicated that the game was turn based, not real time, and that combat was going to be handled differently than before, but wouldn’t elaborate.

          Other posts speculated that there maybe fleet maneuvers in combat, but no one at Stardock is talking.

          The in-house alpha is apparently on-going, so the early access alpha must be coming soon. We will know then, I guess.

        • Adam Solo says:

          “frogboy” is Brad Wardell, Stardock’s CEO. Yes, Stardock isn’t talking at the moment. But, I’ll make sure I’ll bug them in a few weeks or so for more info. And… you guys may have a role on that ;)

    • AndyDandy says:

      Tactical depth will ruin strategical depth. I hope the tactical depth we’ll see is grander and more varied cinematics of battles. I hope, and think, they will keep the strategical focus of the old games. Human lead tactical battles hasn’t been the GalCiv-style of things, and games with it are all inferior on the strategical side.

  32. Ragnarok says:

    Ok so a fancy CGI Trailer. Big deal.

  33. Ty Page says:

    Never mind, my computer is 64 bit!
    Suddenly this announcement got a lot more meaningful.

  34. BTJ says:

    Hmm, what about making fights such as in the Civilization series? In principle that is what GalCivII does. Only it shows a movie instead of a short animation… *ducks away…* ;-)

    • Ivan says:

      Marketing is shy about that information.

      I’d like to point out that Civilization VI & V and SM Alpha Centauri are proof that score vs score battles can work. SMAC made it interesting with special abilities (artillery, ignore city “walls”, invisibility, good vs psi, good vs air, no maintanance, etc.) on units while Civ had it with progression based promotions that boosted a unit with similar special abilities and circumstantial bonuses (+20% in forest, +20% vs cities, etc.). Gal Civ I & II were also score vs score (not rock-scissors-paper) so Gal Civ III would be OK with adding special abilities and circumstantial bonuses to the mix.

      • Dudester says:

        Speaking of parallels with Civ, It would be a good idea if there were terrain bonuses awarded to certain units like a space corvette might have a tactical advantages fighting inside a nebula or promoted units would be able to defend against sneak attacks around asteroid belts or 10% bonus hit points to attacking inside a solar system vs in deep space. Alot of little perks like that could be introduced to making the game a much less repetitive experience.

        Anyways I think this is all falling on deaf ears. Time to startup my own game developer company and begin brainstorming for my dream title. lol.

      • Mark says:

        While not being *exactly* rock/scissors/paper, Gal Civ I and II were close enough that its easy to understand why everybody and his dog referred to it as such when reviewing.

        Lasers > countered by Shields
        Projectile weapons > countered by Armour
        Missile weapons > countered by ECM

        If you don’t have the appropriate defense, the defense you *do* have is 1/3 it’s actual value.

        Sounds close enough to rock/scissors/paper for me…. Something a little less brain-dead is sorely needed for the next version. I agree that various special abilities would go a long way towards spicing thing up a bit.

  35. Ivan says:

    What’s a big deal with 64 bits? How is it related to richer visuals and how it helps modders? All that I can see, it gives more room for masking memory leaks.

    • AndyDandy says:

      It will greatly improve the potential of the AI, and also allow alot more stash going on the map, huger maps etc.

    • Alien JD says:

      32bit OS limits the amount of ram the developer can use. That means spending a lot of time optimizing textures and data structures to take up less space. This takes time and money away from the game play.

      More ram means you can have more polygons/sprites on the screen. Bigger galaxies and bigger fleets. It also means you can keep track of a much larger galaxy.

      Although more ram can cause other problems as well. Just because you can easily load as much stuff into ram as you want doesn’t mean the game is going to automatically perform well. I’ve played some recent 4x games that bog down and become unplayable at mid-game due to slowness and frame rate drops.

    • Ivan says:

      @AndyDandy
      What AI potential has to do with 64 bits instructions?

      @Both
      When it comes to memory 32 bit applications are limited to 2 GB. I think there was some caveat that lowered that to 1.3 GB but still that’s a lot! That’s 2 CDs worth of memory. GalCiv doesn’t strike me as something that needs more than 100 MB for what you call data structures, at least for game logic data. Think about it, it would require at least million instances of anything. Can you imagine it with million planets or million buildings or million ships? OK, I can imagine 1000×1000 tiles but for my taste it’s way to big to be fun play.

      I don’t buy texture size argument. If a game needs whole GB of textures in a single scene, it’s not going to do it in 30+ FPS. And polygon count argument, if they are going to ship ship models with 100 million polygons fine, if they are going to draw hundreds of such models on a single scene they are going to have FPS problems.

      In any case, I see 2+ GB as commotion not as necessity.

    • AstralWanderer says:

      I think it’s nothing more than marketing fluff. Yes, there are programs that genuinely need access to >3GB memory (which a 32-bit OS can offer – for the record 32-bit Windows with PAE/DEP enabled can access up to 127GB, compared to the comparatively paltry 16GB limit of 64-bit Win 7 Home Premium) but GalCiv (with its dumbed-down gameplay, uninspiring tech trees and limited details) isn’t likely to be one of them. However Stardock do need to make it sound leading edge and 64-bit exclusivity is one way to try that.

      The only circumstance where a strategy game is likely to *genuninely* need >3GB will be when its gameworld becomes huge and detailed enough, at which point it is more likely to hit graphics rendering problems (like trying to run Star Ruler with tens of thousands of systems, bringing even the most powerful graphics cards to a crawl).

  36. Peter says:

    I hope they will release a gameplay video. Until then its just a “meh”.

  37. Buxaroo says:

    You had me at Galactic!

  38. Thomas says:

    Awesome awesome ! Been waiting for so long to hear such an announcement. Thank you Stardock !!

  39. Jeff P says:

    Here is an interview with the primary designer of Gal Civ III:

    http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/18088/article/galactic-civilizations-3-interview-with-lead-designer-paul-boyer/

    The interview answers some questions, but Stardock is still playing close to the vest.

  40. Ermdog says:

    I thought it was interesting when they said you don’t need to be online to play the game, but Stardock said, “some of the AI learning mechanisms will require access to the Metaverse in order to perform analysis on player strategies.”

    This is the first time hearing something like that. I’m curious to know how that works and what the big impact is when you have it disabled vs on. Does the AI remember your play from previous games, or is it a collective data field from everyone that plays and it goes off that?

  41. Hyperborean says:

    “some of the AI learning mechanisms will require access to the Metaverse in order to perform analysis on player strategies.”

    Neverending carousel of greed. The same old song “you deserve more”, “to improve your gaming experience like never before” and all the shit. After Impulse and Elemental/Fallen Enchantress I wonder why people still give money to Stardock. All you’ll can see form them is polished GUI and all of these sweety menus. Stardock is a company that produces Windows desktop tweaks – and nothing more.

  42. Maeltne says:

    *throws money at Stardock*
    Take it! Take IT!! TAKE IT!!1! MAKE IT NOW !1111!!!1!!1eleventyone!!1!!!

  43. SirChee says:

    I have yet to try a space 4x that comes close to Birth of the Federation.
    I can only hope this is a significant improvement of the previous GC games.

  44. hakkarin says:

    I hope the game won’t be as generic and bland as Nr.2

    I never got it why nr.2 was praised so much. It thought it was a dull, lifeless game that got old very quickly. The biggest problem I have with most 4x space games is that no single planet feels vital or importat. The enemy blew up my planet with a death star/terror star? Who cares! I have dozens more…

    Space 4x games need to find a way to make indiviudal planets MATTER so that you actually feel something when they are blown into pieces.

  45. Andrew says:

    I thought they would never make a third one! I cannot wait to get my hands on it. I see there is talk of BOTF here, absolutely love that game! Wish Stardock would buy the rights and make a sequel for it too. Hint Hint! lol.

    I have just launched my own fan site for Gal Civ 3. The forum is live if anyone wants to drop over and say hi. :)

    http://www.galciv3.co.uk/forum/index.php

    • Ivan says:

      Already?!? You haven’t even seen the game! Also the trailer in lonely first post shows 0 (zero) gameplay. This borders with fanaticism which is not a positive trait on persons character…


Related Articles:

Post category: News & Announcements