Jeff Yutzler

I think we can all agree that the 86 GCIII review didn't age well. I apologize for getting the HK review wrong. I'm not sure where I got the 6 from. Yes I played it on release and no I didn't like it but at least they nailed the neolithic era and tactical combat pretty well. No single aspect of GCIV works well. Many supposed features are broken to the point of uselessness. I would love to play a game with lots of tiny sectors and few hostiles but I can't because the map generatio

What does he get wrong? Be specific. I think a 5 rating (just below Humankind's 6) is perfectly fair given the current state of the game.

Well, the author literally says on the third line "it is not a disaster". More importantly, where is the review wrong? I found myself nodding through the whole thing. Some of the UI issues go away with more play, that doesn't change the verdict: After completing a few campaigns I’m left struggling to find reasons to come back to Galactic Civilizations IV. What few new ideas it brings to the space 4X genre prove to be poorly implemented and ultimately uninteresting,

previous post

They had it and took it out. The way the AI evaluates trades, it wouldn't matter anyway. No matter how logical such a trade might be to a human, the AI would never accept it.

It's not like it is just one thing. Any bug bad enough to make players save-scum like ships intermittently failing to participate in battles ( see #8 ) will crush the spirit of someone buying this game thinking it is finished. It is unlikely they can fix their cool but broken features like multiplayer (unstable), map generation (ignoring multiple settings), custom faction generation (failing to assign assets without warning), and t

It wouldn't surprise me. Many of the other map settings are broken too. I was pretty bummed that setting hostile frequency didn't work either .

The list is way too long. There is no hope for this release. By releasing now, they're giving up. So many things are broken that only paid sponsors like PCGamesN can honestly give the game a positive review. I'm holding out hope that they will come to their senses, acknowledge that the game isn't anywhere near ready, and delay the release until they can at least do something about the bug list. For now, they're still generating bugs faster than they're fixing them. The minute

I saw this: Rebalanced Prestige awards for all galactic challenges. and was optimistic but it looks like they went in the wrong direction! This game is simply not ready for release.

[quote who="mrblondini" reply="6" id="3848250"] Which actually begs a more central question to the math (as the US would say)/maths (as everyone sensible would say) in GalCiv games in general: Do players really care about the % an improvement is going to give you over just being given the simple kind of text: "You have 5 hitpoints. You do this and you will have 6. Or you could click the icon next to this one and go to 4 but improve your Laser by 1."? [/quote] Thi

OK, I'm just going to come out and say it. Why is Stardock releasing a game where basically nothing works? This is madness. Just admit you were too hasty, delay the release, and leave it in Beta for as long as it takes to get things to some semblance of completion.

Did you hit the Burran scenario I described in screenshots 6/7 ?

I have no problem with that suggestion. I would just call it "sleep" not "guard". Regarding the need for sentry, let's just say that the UI is not as clear as it could be when there are hostile units around, especially when you have more than one sector to deal with.

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="18" id="3847976"] I would add the guard command. I don't like sentry. [/quote] Please explain. I advocate a "patrol" command (go back and forth between point A and point B, stopping if you see a hostile), but since there is not yet a built-in mechanism for stopping automated actions at this time, it wouldn't work yet.

Can you explain the lore behind the Precursor Sentinels?

Since the other post was locked as I was replying, I'm posting this here: Things I really like: [quote quoting="post"] Features Added the Continue button to the main menu. You can set manufactured goods to repeat in your shipyards. Balance Reduced the Mimot homeworld from 24 food to 18. Increased the

Not playing this game until Stardock publishes their existing mechanic because: They're going to want to use their existing code as a starting point, not rebuild from scratch. Their existing AI is built on their existing code, which again they're not going to want to rebuild from scratch. Stardock has given absolutely no indication that they are interested in our opinion of how their core mechanics should work, only general impressions, bugs, and quality-of-

[quote who="Arcean_Endgame" reply="2" id="3847920"] I'm guessing this is a typing error and "more likely" is supposed to be "less likely." [/quote] I'm not sure. If you have no core worlds in a sector, their decay is automatically 100% and the AI seems slow to turn those worlds into core worlds.

Can you explain the siege mechanic? The new siege mechanic has dramatically changed the strategy of moving ships around between all of your planets into using sentry and picket lines instead. Intercepting enemy fleets near the border is far more effective than engaging in a game of 'whack-a-mole' by trying to defend each planet individually.

+1 to setting nebulas to common, but don't people just sell their excess resources to the galactic bazaar? That's what it's there for and it's pretty easy to unlock. I have zero issue with collecting more resources than I can use myself. Even as the sale cost decreases over time, it is still a good way to farm credits.

As far as I understand, they are not allied with the space monsters or precursor sentinels. Therefore I believe the event is reasonable but the flavor text should be changed. If it really was the pirates, they could have their own event and A: bribe them to leave you alone B: lie (small - to relations) C: scoff (larger - to relations). They pretty much need to sweep through all of the possible events to alter or eliminate those that don't make sense for the faction. Over the weekend t

This is annoying. Currently you only get the notification if you know the race that built it.

Here is my own take on a strategy guide. I don't have screen shots for this. A few caveats: This is general-purpose and does not get into the details of specific races. It is designed for average maps. It tops out at genius difficulty for most races and incredible for s-tier races (Mimot/Yor). I will try to talk around known issues that may very well be fixed by the time you read this. <span style="font-size: x

[quote who="Basilisk83" reply="3" id="3847561"] i would say more accurate combat-related descriptions, so people dont get confused...oh, and an official explanation of how the combat system and growth rate both work. people are going to want to know... [/quote] I assess that the combat-related issues are too complicated and interconnected to resolve in a week. I was really talking about quick fixes.

Well, I was trying to keep it simple. There is currently no way to control sector size either. You can control your starting sector size and the number of sectors, but not the general size of sectors. If I were to list a second thing...