Galaxy settings not correctly applying to first game.

from GalCiv3 Forums

Start Game Abundant Habitable Planets/Planets/Stars

13 yellow stars, 9 have 0 planets, 1 has 1 planet (class 0), 1 has 2 planets (both class 8), 1 has 4 planets (three class 0, one class 7)
4 white stars, 2 have 0 planets, 1 has 1 planet (class 12), 1 has 3 planets (two class 0, one class 12)
3 red stars, 1 has 1 planet (class 0), 2 have 2 planets (one has both class 0, the other has one class 16 the other class 0)
2 purple stars, 1 has 2 planets (both class 0), 1 has 6 planets (five class 0, one class 8)

Overall, I have discovered... (After this I did clear FOW but it wasn't any better)
22 Stars
24 Planets
7 Habitable
1 Habitable Above class 12

This is not what I expect coming from Galactic Civilizations II, having everything on abundant.    2*

8 yellow stars, 5 have 0 planets, 2 have 1 planet (both of which class 0), 1 has 2 planets (one class 12, one class 14)
5 white stars, 1 has 0 planets, 1 has 1 planet (class 11), 1 has 2 planets (one class 0, one class 9), 2 have 3 planets (overall three class 0, one class 5, one class 14, one class 19), 1 has 4 planets (two class 0, one class 8, one class 16)
3 red stars, 1 has 1 planet (class 0), 1 has 3 planets (two class 0, one class 9), 1 has 4 planets (three class 0, one class 14)
6 purple stars, 1 has 0 planets, 2 have 1 planet (both class 0), 2 have 3 planets (one of the stars all three are class 0, the other has one class 0, one class 8, one class 11), 1 has 7 planets (six are class 0, one class 14)

Overall, I have discovered...
22 Stars  (Equal)
36 Planets (50% more)
14 Habitable  (double the above)
6 Habitable Above class 12  (6 times the above)

This is what I expect or close to it.   5*

This is better and what I've been seeing, usually the first game started for whatever reason after you launch the game doesn't seem to have the settings correct. If I exit to menu and restart the game it comes back close to the second example.

Above I highlighted red systems that have 0 planets or 0 habitable planets or more than 75% un-inhabitable, mind you I know in any game there will be several that fit this criteria but the first has 11 stars with no planets compared to the second game with only 7.

I highlighted in blue if it was close to the expected amount, or green if it met my expectations or passed them.

All examples do not include the home star system.

Don't know if anyone else has seen this pattern however, I hope and have full confidence this will be addressed  :D   Stardock is the best.

support
10,265 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I personally prefer fewer habitable planets, especially high class planets. If you want the production that comes with large planet classes, then you should have to research tech tree that turns your smaller planets into efficient manufacturers/researching/income generators. 

 

I believe the ratios to be spot on for Galciv 3, I generally play Small map with uncommon planets and Occasional habitable planet. I'll be lucky to find 2 planets on the whole map, maybe 1 above class 10 out of about 15 stars.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting loganscollinsworth, reply 1

I believe the ratios to be spot on for Galciv 3, I generally play Small map with uncommon planets and Occasional habitable planet. I'll be lucky to find 2 planets on the whole map, maybe 1 above class 10 out of about 15 stars.
End of loganscollinsworth's quote

For your situation, yes, however, you set the settings lower for your game preference, in my examples, for those that like habitable planets and many of them, this appears low.

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Definitely agree here - the whole point of having settings ranging from "none" to "abundant" is that you can get a wide range of galaxy types.  If the "abundant" settings still leave the player unsure if any of the nearby stars have habitable planets, a large fraction of potential galaxy types is being arbitrarily excluded.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

One of my suggestions was two further settings at either end of the scale, and also a bonus to tile amount on the option screen (or tile bonus likelihood)


For both those people who enjoy more planets and less but bigger ones. In fact you could do four, and still people would only have more options.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I can't remember where it was mentioned atm, but they have indicated that the galaxy generation routine needs to be fixed.   Both the numbers of different types of planets and the arrangement of the planets (clustering and such) could not quite be included in the last patch because of a time factor, but it should be much better in the next release.

IIRC.


Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Bamdorf, reply 5

I can't remember where it was mentioned atm, but they have indicated that the galaxy generation routine needs to be fixed. Both the numbers of different types of planets and the arrangement of the planets (clustering and such) could not quite be included in the last patch because of a time factor, but it should be much better in the next release.

IIRC.
End of Bamdorf's quote

I believe this had more to do with the frequency of stars and how far apart they are, according to the dev stream, didn't see anything about planets and how they are generated, or why this appears to be much worse the first time you generate the game versus the second or third time from the menu.

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I like to play on immense maps with everything except extreme planets on abundant. I like lots of planets on big maps. I would like clusters make bigger maps instead of less stars and planets. We need more not less planets on the game. A reasonable solution to players having to many planets is extreme planets that way instead of taking away my planets you are making it harder to get them.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I think the main problem is that yellow stars seemed to be bugged. In my games where i play with everything set to common, yellow stars have almost no  planets, and almost always have asteroids with the mining resource. It was stated in on of the videos that yellow stars were supposed to have the most common habitable but not really special planets. Right now the majority have no planets at all. I'm am confidant in calling it a bug because there is two problems it creates here, a serious lack of planets where there should be plenty(with lots of yellow stars) and an overabundance of durantium compared to other resources. I don't have a screenshot, but in one game i pretty much had to start a new game 50 turns in because i was surrounded by yellow stars with no planets anywhere at all, not even class 0s. All of them had asteroids with durantium. Purple stars seem to have issues as well, they are supposed to be where big, 15+ planets are supposed to be most common but almost all the ones i find are around red or blue stars. So yeah, it still needs work.

 

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Open GalCiv3MapDefs.xml & change StarSystemBoundarySize to 2 or 3 as the current setting was admitted to be wider than intended.  A 2 will place neighboring stars close enough to share starbases sometimes(I think 2is better than3.  A 3 will  do it less often. I believe valid usable values are 0-9 the spp

Quoting Seilore, reply 6

Quoting Bamdorf,
reply 5

I can't remember where it was mentioned atm, but they have indicated that the galaxy generation routine needs to be fixed. Both the numbers of different types of planets and the arrangement of the planets (clustering and such) could not quite be included in the last patch because of a time factor, but it should be much better in the next release.

IIRC.



I believe this had more to do with the frequency of stars and how far apart they are, according to the dev stream, didn't see anything about planets and how they are generated, or why this appears to be much worse the first time you generate the game versus the second or third time from the menu.

End of Seilore's quote

 Starsystemboundarysize/RrduceStarSystemBoundarySize packs them a little closer.  I suspect there are some overflows that will happen sometimes (Probably related to why we can only go to huge) as if you do something like abundant/abundant/abundant you can/will get what looks like an itty bitty map

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Tetrasodium, reply 9

Open GalCiv3MapDefs.xml & change StarSystemBoundarySize to 2 or 3 as the current setting was admitted to be wider than intended.  A 2 will place neighboring stars close enough to share starbases sometimes(I think 2is better than3.  A 3 will  do it less often. I believe valid usable values are 0-9 the spp

Quoting Seilore,
reply 6

Quoting Bamdorf,

reply 5
I can't remember where it was mentioned atm, but they have indicated that the galaxy generation routine needs to be fixed. Both the numbers of different types of planets and the arrangement of the planets (clustering and such) could not quite be included in the last patch because of a time factor, but it should be much better in the next release.

IIRC.
I believe this had more to do with the frequency of stars and how far apart they are, according to the dev stream, didn't see anything about planets and how they are generated, or why this appears to be much worse the first time you generate the game versus the second or third time from the menu.

Starsystemboundarysize/RrduceStarSystemBoundarySize packs them a little closer.  I suspect there are some overflows that will happen sometimes (Probably related to why we can only go to huge) as if you do something like abundant/abundant/abundant you can/will get what looks like an itty bitty map

End of Tetrasodium's quote

I know this part will be altered in the next patch as per dev stream, this wasn't really my concern more of an issue with the settings not applying correctly.