Mac2411

[quote who="Horemvore" reply="3" id="3765805"] So I am hoping no starlanes, although that is the current route they are talking about according to Brad. [/quote] Starlanes?!?! In a Gal Civ game?!? Say it ain't so! Hate the concept. I'm not opposed to the current concept of "starlanes" in GC3, where they afford significantly faster travel, but leaving that as the only option for travel would be something that would cause me to walk away

I like the tourism penalties as they are. Without a significant penalty there's not a lot of reason not to take the unpopular trait so one can pick up other more important traits. In other words, I think there should actually be a significant cost to taking that trait. In fact, for several versions it was even higher and I wouldn't mind seeing it go back to that. In that version if one took the maximum penalty he had to build even more tourist buildings on one planet.&

Are you moving the single ship into the fleet or moving the fleet into the space occupied by the single ship? The former works (or does for me) but the latter will not if that ship takes the fleet over the standard logistics limit. While not ideal this situation has existed in all versions of the game to my knowledge.

It's commendable the degree to which Stardock is still supporting this game, but the fact that DLC's are still in the offing is just incredible.

Very welcome changes on the FOW and Surrender options.

[quote who="Publius of NV" reply="1" id="3761662"] These changes look good. You might want to look at the Unpopular trait as well as the popular. The Measured, for example, have an Unpopular penalty that is so large that planets with a single tourism improvement don't get any tourism income. You have to build two or more tourism improvements (Import/Export Center, Paxton's Emporium, Port of Call, etc) on the same planet before you can overcome the Unpopular penalty and even st

[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="6" id="3761629"] From my experience, the planets destroyed don't exist anymore. No planet, no asteroids, just nothing. [/quote] That's what I'm seeing. Just my opinion, but this is even worse than before. I really don't like this new mechanic and for the life of me cannot figure out a good reason it was added.

[quote who="Mac2411" reply="4" id="3760380"] Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 3 When you mean destroyed do you mean uncolonized? I have the same question. [/quote] I turned surrenders back on to test this and it looks like the entire planet is just gone inste

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="3" id="3760313"] When you mean destroyed do you mean uncolonized? [/quote] I have the same question.

Seems like an easy fix for Stardock.

[quote who="Publius of NV" reply="96" id="3759472"] I'm not convinced the new system is as bad as it's being portrayed. In my first full game on 3.9, the Xraki surrendered to me (they were at war with The Measured) when they were down to their last two planets, out of 22 when the war started. The rest of the wars were with me. The Measured surrendered to me when they were down to their last two planets, out of over 50 when the war started. The Scryve then surrendered to

I noticed that after researching Xeno Archaeology (or whichever is the first level in that tech line that is supposed to increase the bonuses to extreme precursor worlds) the raw production bonus reduced from +5 to +3, which is the opposite effect I would expect from a tech that is supposed to increase bonuses. Is this is a bug or a misprint or intended? I would think that the bonus would at least stay the same and not reduce based on a tech that supposedly increases bonu

[quote who="dlapine1" reply="91" id="3759340"] Quoting kenbredding, reply 90 Quoting dlapine1, reply 86 &nbs

[quote who="dlapine1" reply="86" id="3759331"] Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you just disable surrenders in the options to avoid the wholesale planet destruction? Takes a little longer to finish conquering them, but not much, especially with influence stacking as planets fall. This is only an issue if you have surrenders enabled, no? [/quote] That's correct, and that's what I'm doing now because the new surrender mechanic is so terrible. But, I would rather

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="82" id="3759291"] I think the new gameplay styles can be made into an option (scorched earth and FOW in territory). [/quote] That is excellent to hear.

[quote who="AChallenge" reply="65" id="3758972"] I think the scorched earth idea is not a good one. To badly amend some famous words... The Empire has fallen: "we will fight them in the asteroids; we will fight them on the moons; we will fight them in the colonies. We will never surrender. I can see a small percentage of colonies committing suicide, but others will choose to not surrender and fight on. A small c

[quote who="mrblondini" reply="51" id="3758922"] I think it's sensible that a surrendering civilization wouldn't want their enemies access to a pristine Class 17 planet. They're not surrendering because they want their enemies to prosper, after all. It's not without historical context - that The Defeated Party killed themselves rather than surrender (Jonestown, etc). But in game-world and so it's a bit more fun: Other than a toggle switch, which of couse thrills the "

[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="53" id="3758926"] Quick thought... I remember a small risk like game... where territories (planets) when surrendered, only about 50% went to you, and there was a high chance that many territories became independent or joined nearby other factions. A somewhat random result of a surrender on a per-planet basis, might be a lot of fun. Proximity/Influence should of course matter. So a empire surrendering to you that is very far away, may only give yo

[quote who="Ynglaur" reply="50" id="3758920"] Well that sucks. If I disable surrendering will they fight to the bitter end? I hope this doesn't change behavior in my current saved game [e digicons]:([/e] . @Stardock - Please make surrender behavior a toggle in game settings. [/quote] Yes,

[quote who="Ynglaur" reply="48" id="3758905"] When surrendering, the AI destroys worlds now? Does that mean "abandon" or does it mean "the planets are gone and it's a wasteland?"? If the latter, it makes things a lot more boring. I don't want to destroy other empires, I want to conquer them. [/quote] The entire population and all improvements are annihilated and the planet rendered an uninhabitable wasteland. For game purposes it is another dead world

[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="45" id="3758872"] "Sensors/etc. is yet another element that could be handled better if Influence and Borders were two different things. Hard borders created by your planets and assets that don't continually expand, could certainly have "free vision" without causing nearly so much disruption. Influence can truly become massive. There are other issues with "Influence as a border" that are discussed elsewhere at great length. </

I despise the new surrender mechanic and don't really care for the new fog of war mechanic either. Both take away from the game in ways that fundamentally change it for the worse. Why on earth (or Drengi if that's how you roll) would a surrendering empire not only destroy all of its colonies, but completely render the planets uninhabitable for any future colonization? But leaving in-game realism aside (this is

I am seeing all of the puzzling pathfinding issues noted above plus I've noticed that citizen transports frequently become lost of the transfer planet is too far away from the homeworld. This results in having to transfer them to a closer planet and then change them to another planet before they reach it. That process is repeated until they get to the target planet. It's a pain and didn't used to occur in my experience. The result of all of these pathfinding issues is

Okay, I figured out the tourism "issue" in 3.7 Retribution I noted above. One must have more than three tourism buildings on one planet (because each tourism building accounts for a 1% increase in tourism) to overcome the -3% penalty. Because tourism is calculated on a per planet basis each planet must generate at least more than 3% tourism for that planet to generate any tourism income. This effectively means that for a race with the unpopular trait set to -3% (like mine) o

Not complaining about this (I was and am a proponent of nerfing tourism), but just trying to figure things out so I can adjust strategy appropriately. I'm playing a custom raced with popularity stats at their lowest (-3% tourism). I've now built every tourism improvement but the Rest. of Eternity and still have zero tourism income. I noticed I wasn't getting any tourism income early in the game after building Paxton's Emporium and not getting the usual boost. That was