Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I'm a total GCII fan, but rating it beta and such annoying things hurts so much :( I hope naming it beta is just a wrong decision. So far I don't know bad games from stardock.
I wish you could define it planet-by-planet though, the videos I've watched of the GalCiv III beta so far at least made it look like it was a glaxy-wide decision, I want to be able to direct some planets to focus on military while others are doing social building you know?
Do keep in mind that different companies place the alpha/beta line at different spots, it's not always the best indication of what state a game is in. Make sure you look at this stickied thread (http://steamcommunity.com/app/226860/discussions/1/35221031555648282/ ) and other places for an idea of what's going on with the beta
This is quite a promise btw: "The diplomacy in GalCiv III should put what we did in II to shame"
Because the AI in GCII was the best I ever seen in any game. I don't know if this promise will be fullfilled but the chances are good. Stardock is rather on my white-plus list regarding quality ;)
Now im through the post. Well okay, but still defining the beta in some topic is strange. Well nevermind. I'm watching this game.
We are going quite out of our way to make sure production is never wasted.