Chibiabos

[quote who="charon2112" reply="32" id="3617050"] cool beans... [/quote]

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="81" id="3617008"] If your ships appeared to NOT fire while you were getting hosed by lasers then I suspect those ships had a slightly lower range compared to the Drengin beams. [/quote] And again, as I mentioned, not according to the info in the combat viewer. When I clicked on the enemy ships, I can't remember the exact range, but the longest range of the weapons for their ships (which were only beam

I can't replay it, unfortunately already moved past the end of that war, but I was mousing over the ships with the combat viewer and right from the getgo, my ships were in range of his ships. I had range-boosted missiles, all the Drengin had were beam weapons and they were able to fire immediately at the start of combat.

I had mine as Capital Ships. They had several range boosts on missiles, but when I'd take on Drengin fleets, the Drengin ships would fire beams and kinetics immediately. I think my Missiles had a range of something like 1320, and their beams 1100 or so, but my ships would just appear inside the range of their beams so there was no advantage to the longer range of my missiles. The whole point of using a weapon with longer range is to be able to take free shots, but its en

I find this a bit frustrating ... the big advantage of missiles is supposed to be their weapon range, but often I find my missile-focused ships starting out in combat within beam or even kinetic range of enemy ships, which eliminates that one advantage of missiles. I propose in some future update that any ship that has missiles equipped should never start out in combat closer than its maximum missile range (shouldn't be fixed to default missile range, but should take its range boo

I find it very annoying that some ships appear on the battlefield within beam, sometimes seemingly even kinetic range. :/ That nerfs missiles, their big advantage is their range, but in too many combats, ships start out within beam/kinetic range.

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="54" id="3616831"] Still, you could be right. Find out soon enuf. [e digicons]:)[/e] [/quote] Never soon enough for us impatient founder kiddies checking our e-mail every few minutes, and our steam accounts and stardock store accounts to see where that precious Beta access code will show up.

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="3" id="3616720"] But, we're *getting* the first full blown expansion. Mercenaries. In Feb. That said, I don't see word of the invasion update in it's feature list. And it's off the roadmap. [/quote] There is something of a curse of being as open about their development plans as Stardock tends to be, in that roadmaps can and do change. It takes quite a bit of resources to implement a new feat

*starts checking my store.stardock.com regularly just in case a separate key starts showing up there for GC3:M*

There's a couple of things I would request/suggest to improve the tech tree AI: Allow multiple techs to be queued - currently, if you want to pick a specific enhancement in a tech path, you can't select anything past it. If you click on anything past the enhancements, you don't get to choose which of those enhancements to research. It would be nice to be able to Ctrl+click to queue multiple techs. Remember expanded tech tree setting

The AI seems to have returned to gang-up-on-you-ness a bit since 1.5. Not as bad as it was, but it still seems to daisy-chain ... when one declares war, another seems likely to follow, and another, even if they don't share an ideology (and even if one or more of them share your ideology). At least that's been my experience with the couple of post-1.5 games I have played. They also seem a bit more stupid as to judging whether its time to get out of a war they initiate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster I sometimes wondered growing up in the 1980s and 1990s what it was like for previous generations on the actual days of memorable events like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin first setting foot on the moon; JFK's assassination and other events. The Challenger disaster, the eruption of St. Helens and the fall of the Berlin W

The AI seems more stubborn at refusing to value peace even as they're getting steamrolled. One AI declared war on me, then another and another. I started steamrolling one of them, took half their planets, their fleets were unable to scratch mine at all yet they wouldn't consider a peace treaty unless I gave them a lot of stuff. Umm, if you're losing a war, you shouldn't be demanding things of the rival civilization that is crushing you ...

[quote who="Achronous" reply="3" id="3616269"] Explainer: "The metaverse will be unavailable until it's upgraded to support the expansion."* Sounds good to me [e digicons]:P[/e] *Never actually stated. [/quote] Tease!

I wonder if this is due to the expansion beta ...

Is MOO4 coming out this year? Cautiously optimistic, but ... certainly the last attempt was unworthy to carry the series name for me.

We Seattlites do like our sweatshirts. We're known for rain, and it does tend to be cool here (but nothing on Michigan, of course ... we normally only get a couple inches of snow at a time during winter, mostly rain).

[quote who="iangoth" reply="2" id="3615949"] I think it's pretty clear/logical. Your stuff is all on the left, so the stuff you give up goes in the left box. That's not to say the interface is perfect. The ship design menus need the most work, IMO. There needs to be some way to sort and filter all the designs. I'd really appreciate an "upgrade design" button, where you update the components, then it's automatically named and saved as a successor to the previous design, wh

This has kinda bugged me for a long time. I don't just want a forum reply of "the one on the right is what they're offering, the one on the left is what they want in return" (I think that's the way it is?). Ambiguous screens like this just kinda bug me. How hard would it be to put a label of "They are offering:" above what they are offering and "They ask for:" above w

[quote who="erischild" reply="9" id="3603017"] The rate of atmosphere loss is something like 100 grams per year. A goodly sized compressed air tank could take care of years worth of depridation. Any actual atmosphere production capability could easily account for the loss, on the principle that a leaky bucket still fills up if you keep pouring water in. [/quote] Its roughly 100 grams per second , not year. That works out to appr

Still waiting on this. Open the Starbase Auto Upgrade pod bay doors please, Paul.

Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I am getting the following errors trying to start GalCiv with the mod installed: C:\Users\Chibiabos\Documents\My Games\GalCiv3\Mods\insane abundant balance mod\Game\GalCiv3GlobalDefs.xml(1180,18): error: missing elements in content model '(MaxNumTurns,CreditsAndPowerCap,DefaultTileMoveCost,MinTileMoveCost,ExploreTileRandomRange,MinManufacturingSlider,StartImprovementLevel,StarbaseModuleSalvageMultiplier,ShipyardMaxSponsor

What did you do to get it to work, as I can't seem to get it to do anything, either :( When I first installed and enabled the mod, GC3 wouldn't start and gave an error about an invalid character in a file in the MACOS folder. I presume the PC didn't need the folder anyway, so I moved the folder out. I can't seem to find the tech to build the repeatable upgrade. Non-Yor don't have the Power Matrix showing up in their tech trees despite the readme

I've not noticed any change with this. Planets with shipyards getting captured have always left those shipyards abandoned, so far as I can recall.

This happened when I skipped over some smaller planets for colonization near the shipyard, then started to colonize them -- I colonized one of them and it auto-added to the shipyard sponsors even though I already have 5 sponsors on the shipyard, giving the shipyard 6 sponsors.