[quote who="leiavoia" reply="66" id="3585151"] How can we make a "balanced planet" strategy meaningful? [/quote] Only by a considerable reduction in the difference between specialized and non-specialized worlds - i.e., making a manu-specialized world's output only maybe twice as high as a non-specialized world. This would require a substantial reduction in building output. [quote who="lei
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="16" id="3585195"] Thinking about it. How large is a "sector"& does that size adjust with things like mapsize & star density? [/quote] Likely, it will match the 'sector' setting which already exists - which does scale with map size. [quote] 0 380 [/quote]
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="17" id="3585184"] Unlikable is only -2. If it's -3 it's been modded. [/quote] Willing to believe that's a typo. :) You get +3 with everyone for having it, which makes it easy to confuse. And there's nothing wrong with the xml that I can see. One thing that occurs is that it might be better using it with a triggered diplo modifier - like the ones that Ancient races get from relics. There,
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3585183"] In the real world, no leader can get the precise tax policy they want. Moreover, civilizations aren't a hive mind (though that makes for an interesting expansion idea). [/quote] That sounds an awful lot like an outright admission that from 1.4 onward, we'll be using governors to run planets. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3585183"]Speaking for myself, my biggest issue with Ga
It's pretty easy to replicate - just create a civ with the bonus and do FoW. After you get UT, suddenly you're +3 with everyone 'because of your great skill in diplomacy'. And no, it's not an xml thing. The -3 works fine in other modifiers, and moreover you can change the 'size' of the setting to 100+ and it still occurs. I suspect a negative is being multiplied by another negative somewhere.
[quote who="Achronous" reply="51" id="3585166"] More music is always welcome. [/quote] Agreed. I know many of my posts in the last couple of days have been harshly critical, and I do want to point out that I like this game a lot, and stuff like this is why :P Seemingly unimportant things like keeping the score fresh is the kind of neat attention to detail that kept a game alive and make GC3 worth arguing about. It shows that, for the dev
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3585156"] Our view is that the governor still responds to your desires. Thus, I have no problem giving players the option to have the AI build up their planets, but players should absolutely have the ability to set up a template that certain governors use. [/quote] If we're having that, the spending should be included in the template. Which brings s straight back to the wheel. Now, I've a
A few points in retort: [quote] Planetary management today: [/quote] The trick with this is to make the power of specialization less impressive. Currently, because every T1 factory is another 25% manu output, heavy specialization is massively more powerful than non-specializing. Every buff is two and a half times as powerful on a specialized world, but that also means every nerf is two and a half times more effective on specialized
[quote who="MacsenLP" reply="62" id="3585126"]It's going to be interesting to see what they do, something has to change though if there are people who are happy with the existing system there can't be many. I think my worst case scenario is they do nothing. I'd like them to try something else before giving up on individual planetary management (if that's what they currently intend) preferably my proposals that don't involve tearing up the whole system and start
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote] curremntly ResearchCost (the value used to determine how much research is needed to research a tech) is not valid for GlobalTriggers/GlobalFactionMods due to not being in the schema. If these can be expanded, mods like my ILO & naselus' IAB will be mostly drop-in compatible and with a ciouple more events types to match OnEvents against we won't have to worry much about updating them even with big changes in future patches.[/quote]</l
A button system is, as Petri notes, just the wheel but with fewer settings; I'll still be forced to go back to every individual planet when I research an upgrade and switch them to 100% manu, then set them back to 100% research one at a time afterwards. Moreover, it does nothing to address the high output problems, which is the other stated objective here, unless the buttons are deliberately set non-optimally. Ultimately, it's not a change worth making. If there
[quote who="Khazdek" reply="13" id="3585062"] Can people who like the wheel please elaborate why they like it? In my opinion it doesn't add choice, its just extra bookkeeping. I want a science world: build labs put planetary wheel to 100% science I want a industrial world: build factories put planetary wheel to 100% production I want an economical world: build markets put planetary wheel to 100% wealth How is this choice? Isn't speciali
Oh, let's just drop the 'it'll reduce mico' rubbish, because it won't. You can bet that if we're stuck with just the global wheel, we'll be microing it every turn to make sure we're not wasting any more production on econ or research than is absolutely needed, rather than just setting worlds to 100% whatever-they-do and leaving them alone. Every time I build a new ship or building, I'll need to adjust GLOBAL outputs to cover the maintenance increase; as pop
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="8" id="3584772"] The stream's audio was pretty borked for the first 10 minutes or so. After that they turned off Paul's mike and just had him speak loudly so it could be picked up by the other one. [/quote] Frankly, it was very immersion-breaking to have to accept that Paul was actually in the same studio as the presenter, and not in a tiny capsule orbiting Pluto, as I had previously been imagining.
I'd quite like to be able to name chunks of the map, too. You could tie the two ideas together with this - so I can make rally points at those two black holes I'm calling 'Scylla and Charabdys', and it'll be visible on the map at all times even if I'm just using it as a geographical tag.
Well, tbh I don't really micro much at all. I colonize the planet, fill up the queue, set it to 100% manufacturing, and then wait. When the planet's done building and alerts me, I switch it to 100% whatever it's supposed to do. Then I ignore it forever after. Now, obviously this means no upgrades, but I mod in a change of bonus 5 production from colony capitals to a flat +5 social manufacturing bonus. This 5 social manufacturing is now
.... yeah, this wasn't exactly what I was expecting to read. I'd like a few changes in colonization - things like being able to see the planet's surface before I colonize it, the ideology event allowing you to actually see which planet it is, it's location and it's stats (otherwise, I just choose the 'right' ideology choice and hope for the best, unless there's a single outstanding option like the 30% production bonus one). I'd also s
I think there's a fair bit of support for the buildings modified by population idea, but if that's going to happen then we need clarification: Will the removing of the wheel mean a significant reworking of the fundamentals of the economy or not? Presently, the economy calculation is population+modifiers=production, production*setting +modifiers = manufacturing, and manufacturing * slider + modifiers = military manufacturing. If this equati
Presently, ships show raw attack value for weapons on the interface (and I suspect in the AI's threat calcs). Could this be changed to (damage*rate of fire* accuracy)/range? Only presently, slow or inaccurate weapons need to have higher raw attack values to compensate for being less accurate or slower to fire, making them seem unduly powerful.
buildings=output would work. It abandons the pop=production system, but if you're willing to go that far then it'd kill the need to ever go back to a planet after setting up the initial build queue. The downside is, if your economy starts tanking you can't do much about it.
First up, excellent news on the AI stuff. And I'm glad that you're consulting with the community. We'll save the wheel discussion for the end, as I suspect you're going to get a lot of resistance on that. When it comes to balance, the problem is simply that there's too much of everything. That's all. The bonuses from buildings are too high in pretty much all cases compared to the cost of, well, anything. Just reducing pretty much all values by 30
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="25" id="3584649"] In the long term, the per planet production wheel is going to go away. It's too tedious and too gamey. Something more interesting and immersive will go in its place. [/quote] If it's something based on this governor system, then it will be extremely unpopular and not a great deal of fun. This may be the single worst implementation of an automation system that I've ever encountered in 20
[quote who="jljhnsn" reply="100" id="3584621"] News Flash! There is no such thing as transcendence! There is no AI anywhere that has the tiniest bit of independence or unique will or creativity and I dare say there NEVER will be, NEVER!! That being said, any AI is just a collection of statements and this AI is amazing ! The fact that it can manage as well as it does on such a complex game
[quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="15" id="3584560"] Don't worry, they are terrible bonus'on just shy of setting the slider at 33/33/33 rather than some combination of 0/0/100. As far as I was able to tell in testing, you won't be using them to maximize anything aside from more chances to click end turn[/quote] A suggestion. The AI is supposed to be using these governors. And the governors have a planet-by-planet offset valu
I always wait for the final release.