Tetrasodium

[quote quoting="post"] So you go to colonize a planet, but before you do so youre presented with 3 idiology choices. Ontop of that each choice gives you a different bonus OR penalty. These choices however are random. If you saved right before trying, you can reload for 3 more random choices. Subsequent reloads that turn dont help. If by then you havent gotten the choices youre hoping for, and you can afford to wait another turn, you do so, save after turn completed, and try again

Naselus nails it on a good number of points , I've tried modding the governors in a bunch of different ways, but the best that I've been able to find is "it sucks less". Like he said, they piss off micromanagers and fans of automation by making both harder and doing them so badly that you still do it the old way badly. I don't mind the game being slower, but there needs to be something to do to stimulate my brain in more ways

[quote who="Alstein" reply="4" id="3584736"] I really would like the AI make "reads" on what the player will do based on what happened in previous games- sometimes (not every time- because that would also be predictable) [/quote] That's actually pretty tough to do & takes a phenomenal amount of data to crunch from in order to get something useful, chess playing programs do it all the time & they cull from thousands upon thousands of games where the pieces have a&

[quote who="Avatar137" reply="24" id="3584644"] I also noticed that the AI is able to, for example, colonize extreme planets, but when I go to trade with them, they don't have the tech listed to trade... Not sure if this is a bug or design decision to slow the player down in some way. I also noticed that the AI was able to build transporters with having planetary invasion listed in their techs to trade. [/quote] If they are using the yor tech tree(or maybe

[quote]We ARE going to get rid of the per planet spending wheel. I know many of you like it but it is just incredibly tedious to deal with and violates the general spirit of GalCiv (there's a reason we never had this in previous GalCivs, it's not like we hadn't thought of it). In its place will be something different. We'd like to hear what YOU would like to see in there. [/quote] from both mofdder & player perspective, my w

[quote who="Petri Kokko" reply="4" id="3584668"] Didn't opt-in so can't view the XML's myself. Is it possible to mod the governors to use wheel distributions that actually make sense for specialized worlds i.e. 100-0-0? If the governor can be modded to give a factory's worth of manufacturing you could actually have a setup that would also work for the AI... [/quote] They look like this: [quote] WealthBo

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="2" id="3584665"] I will install this and give it a run tonight and this weekend. [/quote] They still seem to like running at 28/28/44, but at least it's somewhat usable. Barring some way of setting the planet sliders by governor in the xml , it's the best I can do :(

While my initial reaction to the Governors was close to a horrified "uhhh....", after putting together a quick mod for them, I think they might be growing on me a little as an idea. That's not to say "I think I really like them~", just "hmm... I think maybe I could like them?". Soooo... my question is: Q: Right now The governors seem to r

as a side note, this was barely tested beyond "yep it unlocks" & "yep it works". Using the original default ones were so bad that I haven't tried seeing how it affects AI balance in the long run... post feedback away.

T1 governors are now tied to TechTree rather than InterstellarGovernance. T2 governors that were tied to InterstellarGovernance rather than GalacticGovernance T3 governors are now tied to GalacticGovernance rather than InterstellarDemocracyTech This has the side effect of giving them to pirates who would not have had them before (but probably used them as an ai faction anyways) while moving them down a step. The logic he

1.3 adds a lock gate to the planet govern button in the PlanetGovernLockTech . If you set that to TechTree (which everyone gets), it stays locked. You have to instead set it to something like one of the tier1 techs (ie TranslatorTech) and research that to open the gateway. also because of the location/format it can't be gated with multiple options like you can wiith techs IndustrialSpecializati

[quote who="Huggins777" reply="2" id="3584619"] yea i thought of that as a possibility, but my RAM usuage was only at about 1.3 GB for the game and another 1.5gb or so for everything else. So still had about 1gb left to play with. Ugh and not to mention i couldn't imagine playing on smaller than Med Galaxies. I like a decently long game. I have roughly 12 hrs in this one as we're just half way through the "Age of War" and I'm the strongest followed by the Krynn. BTW this is t

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="3584584"] Im not a fan of scripted/data drive. AI as some of you already know. That said, at least it does let molders get more involved. The general issue is that good AI adapts and that is what I did with the galciv 2 AI. You see this in the planet building area. We are probably going to slowly move to a more blended solution where we look at the Xml for cues but adapt on a planet by planet, game by game basis. [/quote] What

Ok this is a bit of a silly fine hair to split, but I noticed it and figured I'd mention the oddity since it's opt-in. In GovernorBonusDefs, the s > blocks used elsewhere are called out with instead. [quote] WealthBonusGov3 WealthGovernor3_Name <Ico

It sounds like you are hitting the swap file hard, see how it does with a smaller map size, you are at the minimum 4 gigs ram & only at 2/3rds the recommended, I've got 8 gigs, and the very idea that knowing my computer is forced to hit the swap on inane galaxies makes me giddy considering how many years ago that I built it (the answer is almost 8 years ago..)

[quote who="Stalker0" reply="13" id="3584549"] I will definitely check out the UI enhancements. But two thoughts from the patch notes: 1) Governors give production bonuses. I strongly disagree with this. I don't like the idea that automation gives me a benefit I don't get myself. Automation should be a way to streamline my game-play experience...my incentive is less to fret about, not getting some extra bonuses. 4x games ar

[quote who="leiavoia" reply="12" id="3584544"] I haven't played the patch yet, but i suppose you could queue up a planet with what you actually want and then set the governor. I'm not sure how the two interact yet. I would never want to give a ground-floor colony over to the AI to manage without queueing at least the first few buildings. [/quote] there isn't a whole lot to them, giving them a finished colony is just as bad if not

[quote who="leiavoia" reply="10" id="3584538"] The UI governors are the same governors that AI players already use under the hood to manage planets. If you see AI players making dumb mistakes, you will likely see it on your own planets on autopilot. [/quote] Yea, the bonus they giive makes them something that I'd like to use sometimes, but "It's doing what " kind of overrides that Edit: For example, I have

"Research Interstellar Governance to govern planets" the button says> "no problem, can't be that bad... wait, where is it I don't see it on my starting tech options" - universal translator > Diplomatic Specialization >Interstellar Governance.... - Ouch hmm... Rush buy lab > zero progress on building other stuff... that's going to really hurt in 1.3 on. Before the initial rush buy of starting colony improvements could be offset usefully by swinging

Because there was so much that changed in the 1.3 opt in patch, just going by the patch notes , I'm going to be spending a little time getting a feel for the changes before rolling out a new compatible update for ILO. Waiting for a final 1.3 non-opt in is part of that too

Looks like we are going to be doing some updates, the following xml files have new timestamps: AltarianTechDefs.xml CinematicCamDefs.xml InvasionStyleDefs.xml PlanetDefs.xml PresetGameSettings.xml StaticShipBlueprintDefs.xml UIColorDef.xml YorTechDefs.xml Anomalies_ScenarioTriggerSetDefs.xml DrenginTechDefs.xml FactionShipStyleSetDefs.xml GalCiv3AIDefs.xml Gal

[quote who="Avatar137" reply="3" id="3584495"] Quoting Tetrasodium, reply 2 Yea I remember when the wait thing was put in & agree with it, that's why I think it's probably just a matter of the ai's beg/demand functions not being forced to honor a wait timeout. It's pretty bothersome when an ai keeps dem

[quote who="Avatar137" reply="1" id="3584489"] That's not a bug but a design decision. During development, it was noticed that many people were "gaming" the AI by doing deals with them "too frequently" which gave the player an "unfair" advantage. I don't generally game the game at all so it wasn't an "issue" for me and I don't really mind the current limitation. WHat I don't like is that I never know how much longer I have to wait until I can talk with them again. I w

it seems like the AI is able to repeatedly contact me demanding X even while I'm still locked out from being able to initiate an attempt to come to a trade agreement (you must wait longer). Often times the same ai will seemingly demand/beg for something 2-3 times between the point where I'm able to start another trade agreement

[quote who="KaneShade" reply="9" id="3584284"] Quoting naselus, reply 7 ... you have a full-time job and that means you can't spend 2 minutes uploading a save game for them to look at illustrating your issue? Dude, you seriously need to go find another job. One that includes at least 1 hour off a day. Seriously, asking