Galactic warfare

Don't you think it's a bit odd to call out people who already put in the effort for not being able to specifically source it when you don't care enough to do it yourself?

If you took the time it took to type out your posts in this thread and used it instead to search, you would have found the answer.

Mike

No - because I read a post, think about it at the back of my mind, and then type up the response later. I spend very little time actually typing. Hence my reply in the artillery thread being a long time after the post I was quoted in.

Think about it this way - if I made that edit on this page, and someone kept on deleting the edit becaus it was uncited. http://planetaryannihilation.gamepedia.com/Galactic_War

Please just cite the information.

We don't have time to answer posts asking for information which is already available.

Fixed that for you. ~Secret reveal of horse commanders.

I didn't realise GW would be turn base either, that makes it even better. From that i hope they add reinforcements and stuff like that, maybe coming into another system with some units (builders) to hit the ground running? idk..

You sure do have time to post though. =p

So do you. Based on what I've seen in the forums, about 60% of threads containing questions already had the answer available, if they spent time researching instead they wouldn't have had to post and the people liek me who try to help people when we can easily wouldn't get burned out by answer the same things over and over and over again.

I can't because I don't have it readily available as I already stated, I know what I'm talking about and if you wish to second guess me that's fine, just don't expect me to do it for you.

Mike

If the question is an FAQ, keep those threads busy by answering them so that newbies like me don't have to ask. My very first threads in the forum were for two questions which allegedly existed somewhere in the forum, but actually aren't easily accessible to a new user.

Forum isn't Googleable ( site search for turn based strategy returns zero results, which is a blatantly a lie)

Correct, and members on the star citizen forums also know what they are talking about. But the devs have explicitly said that the game isn't going to emphasise pvp, most of the time you'll be flying against AI, and didn't stop forumers from believing that 2.8 million bots was an insignificant number compared to 300000 players. The devs had to come out and say in another post basically the same thing. I think the whole forum had it wrong. So yeah, sceptical nothing personal​

Well not really, there isn't any raw turn based strategy in PA. As I said before don't give up after the first search and to try different terms, using the forum search for just 'Galactic War' brings up all threads that mention Galactic War sure, but just looking at the thread titles you can easily sort past all the threads are aren't actually about that. With that one quick search I was able to come up with these;

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/galactic-war-metagame.51376/

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/galactic.51263/

And doing more things like searching only posts by neutrino or garat would have yielded different results as well.

Mike

https://www.google.de/#q=site:https://forums.uberent.com turn based strategy



So much better than the forums search

When people say GW is going to be turn based, turn based how? Like proper turn based like Xcom Enemy unknown? IF thats the case, then i'm hugely let down... I hate turn based strategies, I like RTS's.

i hope it wont be Turn based...
That would be stupid. There are allredy a game that got planets turned based its called "Starwars Empire at War" and the Campaign is all about it. Also we got "Warhamer 40k Dark Crusade" Campaign.
Both are about Planetary Conquest Turn based. No offence but they are booring as hell so lets hope the game will be in real time okey .

the first contains no posts from devs whatsoever and is a pile of goop
the second contains one post from a dev hinting neither at nor against turn based.

both are under the watchfull doctrine of Knight and Nanolathe. Hazaaaa feature confirmed!

this is downright outrageous. it's not nearly lying, it's lying.
I'm tired of this. you have no respect for other people's opinion and there is no strategy that you would turn down to manipulate truths to do your bidding.


Let the devs speak for themselves.
heck let the people of the forum speak for themselves!

Well said tatsujb.

I am amazed that anybody could think that GW is real time. Have you guys really never seen TA's GW? of FAF's GW? wtf

Nope. WTF...

yes we have, we're not asking for ful real time, we're asking for not full-on TB
there is no reason PA can't get a better metagame than TA and FAF

Can someone please explain to me wtf all this turn based crap is all about? Currently the game is fully real time, how are they going to change that?
Why would the game be advertised as an RTS if half the game is turn based... I don't get it, I would not have bought this crap if i knew from the start that it will eventually be turn based. And just because a game 10-15 years ago was turn based, doesn't mean technology hasn't progressed far enough to invent a system that uses real time technology?

GW has nothing to do with the game you play right now.
I.e. this is how it looked like in the first FA version that was shut down after a while:

So it's a map of planets/solar systems that are under control by the different factions. To win the GW you attack other planets that border yours. When you attack it somehow gets a player of the attacked faction to defend the attack. This is when a regular game of PA starts. The winner of that game gains control over the planet. That's the base concept. Ofc you can add a lot of stuff, but this is the core idea.

It has nothing to do with the game PA you currently play. In the simplest form the fight over planets could be decided by tic tac toe. Ofc it is very likely that Uber will add PA specifics stuff. I.e. in the FAF GW you can fortifie planets so you have a few default build defenses on it and stuff like that.

Thanks for the description, appreciate that! As for the concept, it sounds very "meh" to me, no offense. Ill have to wait and see.