naselus

[quote who="eviator" reply="78" id="3600365"] An immersion issue arises for me, and it was stated in other posts but I will repeat it. If my planet is 90% research labs and I set my planet production to 90% research, then I'm not coercing them into research jobs I'm allowing them to work in the jobs that are available. I would be coercing them into jobs without facilities if I set the production at 33/33/33. Really this is a nit-pick because I know you guys just want a mechanic t

It's all about RAM, the more the better. For Insane, you want at least 16gb or the game will slow down later on. Graphics card is basically irrelevant, as long as it's not borrowing system memory, and any reasonably modern processor is fine, though more cores is better than extra grunt. You could also try playing from an SSD, though tbh I've not seen any real difference in performance from that.

[quote who="bc_1" reply="97" id="3600137"] If you don't like this, perhaps it could be made available as a game option ? [/quote] If we count editing text files as 'available as a game option' (as we must if we want to count present incarnation of the wheel), it basically is already. Switching all buildings to produce flat quantities of stuff rather than percentages is very easy to do, as is turning off the benefit of production.

It may be the wraparound bug reported previously. In 1.2 or so, a player noted that, if you get the negative relations trait and then act like a dick, the AI starts to love you for it because you bottom-out the negative and it wraps round to a high positive relation.

Well, 1.4.1 added 6 lines to the global defs file, so have to release early. Small changelog this week: [quote] 1.4.3: * Weapon and defence buff modules are now all multipliers. * Increased level bonuses on bonus tiles from 2->5 and 3->10. Some remain at 1. * Increased the number of levels granted by adjacency to hub buildings and wonders. * Fixed Patriotic. * Unfortunate Genius and Finish Planet Project anomalies are now rarer.

Hey, I like them. But I'd like them even more if they weren't so commonplace; it would make getting one a genuinely wonderful thing, like when a village in civ yielded a settler or random tech rather than just some gold or a crap bottom-tech unit. The weighting should be around 1% or so for the free tech, with the 25% bonus staying on 10% or so.

[quote who="a0152570" reply="9" id="3599957"] Quoting naselus, reply 8 There's about a 4% chance of an anomaly being Unfortunate Genius. I assume that came from a xml? I believe that for 1.3 but not 1.4. Current game: Mad Map, incredible, 3 Ai, 2 survey (w improved

There's about a 4% chance of an anomaly being Unfortunate Genius. Given that, with multiple surveys on big maps, one can be getting an anomaly a turn in the late-game, that means you should be getting one every 25 turns or so on average.

tbh, the unfortunate Genius is far too commonplace and the chance for him should be massively reduced. This is one 'bug' where the solution should be that you never get 2 of them in 1 turn because it's rare to get 2 in one game.

[quote who="a0152570" reply="11" id="3599702"] Quoting Nilfiry, reply 9 Having no money only affects the ability to research and build. Ships can still be moved and attack other ships. Also they could have accumulated a large role forward of mfg points which can let you continue to build ships

[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="68" id="3599698"] Despite my hate of caps that would be a good idea [e digicons];)[/e] [/quote] Yup. No-one actually hates caps. Everyone hates ARBITRARY caps. Just saying 'you can only ever produce 500 and anything over that is lost' would be another massive kerfuffle in the player base; just ensuring that achieving 500 production is nearly impossible will just be a balance change and no-one will mind (in fact, most

This problem should be reduced a bit by the diplo rework. AI hyper-aggression is mostly down to the very short distance between love and hate in GC3, and the extremely large impact of modifiers in relation to that distance.

[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="64" id="3599668"] I hate caps. [e digicons];P[/e] [/quote] Depends on the cap. I'm not in favour of a cap on output. But I am in favour of a cap on population. Being able to build up planets with 150 population is game-breaking regardless of the wheel. I'd rather see food being reworked into a proper resource (like in most space 4Xes) that is produced and needed t

Don't the new changes to hulls also need deleting to convert to an append? Also, if you can figure out a way to increase the ship range extension effect via an SB module, let me know please.

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="32" id="3599555"] Ok, but that's a crude + extreme unbalanced example, and also I'm missing a solution here, because as you say, numbers-tweaking won't solve anything....[/quote] No, numbers tweaking will solve it :) But nothing else will - there's no shortcuts, like nerfing base production or using focuses to limit control. Of course we want industry planets to be better at building than non-indu

[quote who="Syntax_VI" reply="609" id="3599492"] anyone else noting something similar? I am running a clean install of your last 1.3xxx version (haven't bothered updating to 1.4 on gal civ yet) [/quote] Um... are you playing offline? Because otherwise 1.4 is definitely on your machine...

I'might not certain, but I think this is from the AI mass-disbanding ships -possibly ones it gets from ideologies.

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="26" id="3599320"] If it is overpowered, it is the math that needs fixing, and not the ability to split your resources however you want. [/quote] Have a banana. That's the nub of the issue. See, the problem is, the math is still at fault. And so we can still produce insane output numbers. Let's say I decide I'm sick of wasted production. So I'm going to make most of my pla

[quote quoting="post"]Update 3: To whomever or whatever added the referral to Google, did you not read the first sentence where I said I had already searched for this issue? If you know of an article referring to this specific bug then great, but searching for any variation of this problem results in no relevant pages whatsoever. [/quote] The referral means that if you search for this topic on google, this page appears. It's not a suggestion :)

[quote who="MadzaiSA" reply="3" id="3599136"] Because it could be that just Power ratings are measured incorrectly - as if some variables have to much weight compared to ones that really matters or where is a mistake somewhere in formula for power calculation. [/quote] It's this; the AI's military score often gets hugely inflated for some reason. I've even noticed this with AIs that have fewer, more primitive warships than I do. I'm not r

[quote who="tralken" reply="603" id="3599073"] ok! newest version 1.4.2 extended the ship design problems for me lol. not only can I still not modify cargo hulls, but also medium and large (huge untested since I didn't have the tech yet). I can probably manage till around turn 400ish on small/tiny hulls so ill keep playin and If I find anything else ill let ya knows! [/quote] Weird, I can't replicate a crash now; tried on 2

I'm surprised that there aren't subtitles available in the menu, tbh.

[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="27" id="3599246"] I suggest to not make the planetary wheel a racial trait, but to push it back and reintroduce it when different forms of government are ready. [/quote] Agreed; this not only feels like a rushed decision, but also gives the impression of chaotic and arbitrary decision-making coming so soon after taking it out. If you're bringing it back with coercion, bring it back for everyone. If not, then just give

[quote who="a0152570" reply="24" id="3599227"] QUESTION: but do you not run the risk of upsetting the large majority only small % using wheel) of your base. ** This statement ASSumes you are contemplating putting the wheel into your new system which is prob wrong. I say this because it looks like you ‘over compensating’ the proposed new system to make room for wheel and thus after we (majority) adjusted to not using it, will be compelled to do so. <b

Cool, hopefully we can finally lay this one to rest.