[quote who="charon2112" reply="3" id="3521730"] Now I'm at 7k and the Iridium are at 36k? This seems strange, I've been building a ton of military ships and the economy-focused race is 7 times my power. Somethings weird with these numbers. [/quote] I've seen that appen too. Eventually in that game I got annoyed and bought like 90% of the Terran fleet and ust barely gave me a higher rating (mostly by reducing theirs),.
I agree that social production should play a larger role than the seeming none role it currently has. Right now having a slightly weaker standing military and orders of magnitude more capability to pump out an military units ==attack me!.followed by a sigh and a big stick
V2.5 here All of the above changes, plus the carrier spawned ships are now equipped with a DroneAI module that reduces weapon range by a -.75multiplier, damage by -.5 multiplier in addition to the stuff above. detailed changlog notes in the zip file itself Install directions.. assuming I got all of the proper files (I believe I did!), extract them all
thecw, thank you greatly, that vastly simplifies things. I will probably release an update to take advantage of that later
The targeting order data is in BattleBehaviorDefs.xml, I'm almost certain that I've seen the fike that degines what the various ship classes are, but I'm not able to find it, but them I gve up & started omoving on lol... looks like it's Whatever in ShipClassDefs.xml (possibly other places too) starbase modules certainly could be simplified (trivially), galcivIII ha
im on the couch warching tv right now, but there are a lot of sniper templates, probably some with tiny hulls, ill check it out later & probably mod them anyways. worst case, sniper templates are silly weak warships ;) & nobody will care much when small hulls open up 10 turns later. I think hacktastic is a spin on the modtastic(?) term Brad(?) used somewhere couple weeks back, modtastic sounded too polished since my testing was basically "It loads, the module
There is no doubt that something will probably be done about the whole "see my whole freaking fleet's stats!!" diplomacy window, but at the same time it adds the potential for an interesting twist. I've played games where I had a military orders of magnitude above everyone else's without ever building warships myself (huge income from other sources). Now granted, some of this is probably due to the drooling ai at this pointI'm suggesting a coupl
Implementing this might be as simple as just adding a placeholder tech to the galaxy sizes in mapsizedefs.xml with no effects!! Right now, just about anything can have a prerequ requirement of something else, but as far as I'm aware the map size cannot be used as a prerequ. I'm making this request because I made some changes recently based on a couple threads, one of those cha
I've updated my recent hacktastic mod to a v2 to include some changes based on this thread details & mod itself available here
updated v2 of it here (updated to remove errors a few minues after original post), v2 is based on another thread This hacktastic mod was made for beta4 patch 1 based on a couple forum threads, unfortunately, I have no idea how well various bits of v1 work because the only feedback received is "I like the
If you look at shiphilldefs.xml. Most of the ships above small/medium have a penalty to manuverability. By the largest ships its like a multiplier of -.5. I could probably make a mod to change this behavior without too much trouble later. I updated my mod here based on this thread
[quote who="xeryx" reply="6" id="3521393"] It is good to see that some of those values were already in there, that means I was not too far off base with the developers ideas. As a fellow modder, I am afraid to look at the XML files, especially at this point. I know how I am and I would go completely into Modding mode. I will give this a shot tomorrow and see what happens in combat. It would not surprise me if the .exe will make this difficult. is there a way to te
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="4" id="3521340"] At this point in Beta, Carriers are indeed 'I Win' buttons. I suspect this will carry into Gold but we can suggest and try improvements along the way. Currently Carriers spawn 3 'tiny' hulled ships (per carrier module equipped) with the latest in beam weaponry that you currently know. They auto upgrade as you reach that tech at no cost. I honestly feel they should have no defensive valu
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="2" id="3521309"] This would make fighters nigh invincible. I like the changes but it seems that 'fighters' not necessarily tiny hulls should have slight special rules to them. They need to be powerful but brittle, I think a single hit by any weapon mounted on a capital ship should destroy it. I dont know how you would 'mod' that. I do like these changes though. [/quote] <p
On a side note... a while back, one of the devstream things mentioned a way to make the ai play all factions as fast as the box would run them, I thought it was just float from the game's console... but seem to be mistaken given the error it returns, does anybody remember the command? Edit: I went back to look, the command is soak not float :)
Quick & dirty hacktastic mod created based mostly on the OP's suggestion, it has a thread here
v2 & 2.5 notes a few posts down, but here, v1 notes immediaately below the quote here [quote] V2.5 here All of the above changes, plus the carrier spawned ships are now equipped with a DroneAI module that reduces weapon range by a -.75multiplier, damage by -.5 multiplier in addition to the stuff above. detailed changlog notes in the zip
I like the hull modification ideas, but think that maybe defenses should scale too, . Makes me think about doing some modding tomorrow :D
the 2t in EU worked well because they used a class system that worked surprisinglywell
arstechnica.com is a ather ecclectic tech site (it/infosec/physics/biomed/pc hw/coaoles/macs/etc/etc.. Oh and games sometime :). http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/10/review-xcom-enemy-unknown-is-a-credit-to-the-name/ http://arstechnica.c
@campaigner... Typing from phone again, but no moo was moo. xcom apocalypse, zcom enforcer , xcom intercepted, xcom apocalypse in no particular order. xcom clones?... UFO: Aftermath UFO: afterlight , UFO:Alien Invasion more I'm forgetting I'm sure,
I've noticed that malevolent has more depth than the previous kick the dog style (it a lot of rng change in my .70 games), but I still find myself picking after eliminating the "oh bleep no" option of things like -x% $ stat on +bonus planets. The specific request is an either/or. • if each of the three ideologies had two options (maybe an extreme that puts more ideology points & less *but different* bonuses • if having them actually used is too
@campaigner. Part of the problem is that there have been does a of attemps to remake the original game but most were... * terrible cash grabs that stick the name on c grade games (a retro futuristic styled police department game with aliens and xcom mythos applied in slapdash over a rts with hasty (and terrible) TBS toggle... A flight sim in deep space with zcom mythos hastily splashed across what could probably been adecent b game had it not been dying to apply zxom mytho
[quote who="charon2112" reply="3" id="3520970"] Quoting peregrine23, reply 2 Thanks for the patch, except. . . Removed the Yor Assembly project (now handled by the fixed duration projects) I guess I wasn't successful campaigning against this ch
There are a lot of changes in 0.70 & the yor defminately feel lacking somehow in something they had in 0.61 while being difficult to determine where the hole is or part of fast assembly (size, ignoring pop cap, something else, etc)is important in creating that gap . Below is the 0.61 style assembly project from 0.61's PlanetaryProjects.xml: Just open the file up copy/paste it in with the rest [quote] <Internal