naselus

Yeah, it's regrettable that some of the more obvious modding possibilities are artificially constrained like this. Adding new resources is impossible for the same reason. Learning the xml is just a matter of reading the schema. Every xml file has it's schema location listed at the top of the file; read through that file (you can open it in notepad, it doesn't need Visual Studio) and in particular read through the enumeration references listed at the to

If the AI requests a constructor, then it over-rides the nearest build queue. If it doesn't request one, then constructors that are built by the usual weight table are used whenever they happen to get built and aren't earmarked for a new starbase..

[quote who="slothDC" reply="721" id="3623588"] The starbase range changes threw me for a bit, but so far this seems like really nice work! [/quote] Yeah, I've been toying with the idea for a while tbh. I wanted to avoiding making it too tetris-y, but tbh stacking is too powerful and is just too encouraging for SB spam.

[quote who="erischild" reply="48" id="3623015"]I can't supply a reference, but to my understanding, Brad has been vocal about stacking being a broken mechanism while abusing it as much as anybody. [e digicons]:)[/e] I understand that attitude in a gamer. [/quote] I recall the discussion in question but can't find the specific thread - I think it was the fifth or sixth time we went through this exact same discussion. He said something like 'in GC

[quote who="Taslios" reply="44" id="3622955"] I LIKE epic games with lots of opponents. but as has been said in the above commentary I really dislike having to sit around for 50 turns late in game to get from one side of the galaxy to the other to wage war.[/quote] Then use zone defense, like you would actually do in a galaxy-spanning empire. Or better

There's essentially no MP scene. Apparently only about 1% of players have ever even clicked the button for it, or some similarly minuscule number. Also, the basic balance of the game is pretty weak, with some races and strategies being vastly more powerful than others, so there's little incentive to produce a competitive MP community.

Updated to 1.6.2: [quote] 1.6.2: * Precursor modules now use some mass to prevent ludicrous stacking. * Reconciled Planetdeffs.xml to 1.6 (so Torians and Arceans have homeworlds now) * Torians get hulls again * Reconciled as much in shipcompentdefs.xml as I could find. * Added Torian and Arcean special buildings in improvementdefs. * Bought Mercs and tested the game, was able to launch an insane map as the Torians successfully.<b

I don't think there's a problem with being able to stack. The problem is more the extent to which big ships CAN stack. Take engines. I don't mind the idea that some ships are 5, 10 times the speed of others. But when ships can be 50 times as fast, then it becomes problematic. The mechanics of the game don't work very well when stuff starts moving that fast - you start getting 1-turn wars and all that silliness. The AI doesn't stand a chance against t

Also, fans of the mod might be interested to know I was recently interviewed by the 4X review site eXplorminate about the mod (and other mods I've worked on). The interview can be found here: http://explorminate.net/2016/02/22/monday-modness-galactic-civilizations-iii-victoria-2-march-of-the-eagles/

[quote who="Sov11" reply="717" id="3621478"] I got that, I did a diff compare with the game files against your files and there are just too many changes in your files to quickly browse through them, good news though I believe is that the expansion didn't further modify any of the core files. If you need any help let me know. [/quote] Yeah, I used to use the Compare plugin for Notepad++, but it's basically a lost cause now and easier to let the game&#39

That's more what I expected to hear :) The mod usually needs a couple of releases to be fully compatible with new DLC. First release is about getting it working with the Base game so I can get feedback. Troubleshooting a DLC that isn't installed is tricky business.

[quote who="echelon" reply="713" id="3621265"] I have the DLCs Mercs, precursor worlds and snathis revenge, and it now works with them. Thanks for the update =D [/quote] There were 3 additional lines in globaldefs that refer directly to Mercs, so likely it was that causing the problem for you. Good to hear it's working with DLC; enjoy :)

1.6.1 released. It's tested OK on 2 separate PCs with 1.6, no DLC active. If someone with the DLC wants to try it out and tell me what happens, I'd be glad to know. [quote] 1.6.1 * AI should now use multiple transports in a single fleet (improves chances of winning invasions and possibly following up with second or third assaults) * Bombers now have missiles as filler, gaurdians have kinetics * AI now adds defense

It's based on the number of techs researched, and the move between first and second age is really short (like 10 techs IIRC). I think the idea is that you're likely to be researching very slowly at first anyway, so that 10 techs is like 150 turns. This is donkey's years after the colony rush has ended on even up to huge maps. Obviously, on an insane map with abundant planets, there can still be empty planets well past turn 300, and the pacing options are a b

[quote who="echelon" reply="710" id="3621209"] "just works"? I couldn't start a new custom game with it enabled. Am i doing something wrong? [/quote] No idea. I did have one failure with 1.6, turned out to be one of the custom races I downloaded from the workshop is broken. When I loaded it up to generate an error log to see what had to happen, I was able to launch a custom game, insane map, abundant everything, and soak

Well, I took a look and my present build apparently just works with 1.6. I've made a few basic changes so far, but not everything I wanted to look at; I'll add a bit more and release tomorrow evening.

I'll put out a 1.6 version this weekend.

Dear God, you know something's seriously wrong when Larsenex sides with the critics. I'm not a founder, so I haven't played Mercs yet, but I do have to say it's not exactly lighting my soul on fire with anticipation. When it was announced I was just kind of 'Huh. OK'. I'm not against the idea of including hero units or whatever... it just didn't seem particularly compelling. I'll probably buy it, but I can happily wait til it's on

CreditsPerTurn is the one you'll need.

[quote who="Ericridge" reply="19" id="3618376"] Quoting The Sisko, reply 18 ^ Carrier fighters were taking 3 turns to be replaced the last time I bothered to take any notice. Well, not sure. My experience with carriers is all from the human campaign which I just finished yest

[quote who="bdtgazo" reply="11" id="3617490"]( edit: in re: the exception, Faction 1 would be highly inclined to give aid to a Player who was at war with a faction that Faction 1 hates, even if Faction 1 had a strong dislike for Player. War should greatly increase the % chance for success or failure of a diplomatic outcome depending on the Faction-being-negotiated-with's relationship with any other Faction (including the player's) that is involved with the war or impac

I think by 'less problems' he means there's less things that trigger stuck turns. Which is undoubtedly true; I don't play MP and haven't had a stuck turn in a game in months. This is probably something MP specific - and only a really, really tiny number of people play MP (I think SD have said it's

[quote who="MacsenLP" reply="6" id="3617355"] If it's not possible to mod the scale is it possible to divide the modifiers by 10 to produce the same result? [/quote] You can mod the scale (I've done it and it's in IAB). You cannot divide the modifiers - they're set as ints in the hardcode rather than floats. This slows down diplo delightfully and helps a lot in preventing super-rapid alliance victories, but it doesn't really make them ha

Part of the evaluation thing that doesn't work is the AI dropping alliances with players who are allied to empires they're at war with. There's a behaviour setting for it in the xml - if the AI has relations of -4 with some other race you're allied with, it should break it's alliance with you. That alone would make getting a diplomatic victory much more difficult, forcing you to kill off difficult races rather than just getting everyone to join in one big pangalactic orgy

I too have said it before, but the existing base model for diplo is actually fine. No, really. There's 2 problems which make everything else go wrong, but if you read through the xml you can see that the model itself is a robust, if unimaginative example of the classic design used by 99% of 4X games, and clearly has had a lot of thought and effort put into it. I'd go so far as to call one of these problems a bug, but I'm not sure if it's just a cut featu