[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="7" id="3617151"] No reloads beyond reloading on Turn 79 and turning Alliance Victory off.[/quote] I think we can probably dispense with the 'no reloads' thing. Save scumming is fairly obviously not required by any player who knows what they're doing and was a bit of a desperate defense anyway, since most players who do use it are unlikely to complain to the forum that the game is too easy.
Oh, ignore the viewer. It's almost always out of sync and has nothing to do with the results (often to the point of announcing the wrong victor, let alone just wrong kills or incorrect firing order). If you're seeing the enemy fire first in the visuals, it's irrelevant. I've pretty much given up watching because it just slows you down and the visuals are meaningless. The combat log is the only accurate thing.
Easy enough to work around. Just park the constructor that would have been building the mining module next to the SB instead. And it does have the advantage that I'm now not going to build a useless mining ring on a station that isn't going to be able to immediately grab the resource.
[quote who="Achronous" reply="23" id="3616813"] My point is if someone wants N engines on their ship it's fine for them to play their game their way. I like 3, they like 10, you like 1. All are acceptable. [/quote] Why isn't someone who wants to stack 1000 engines acceptable? It's constrained by the MassCap. But why should it be if someone wants to play the game that way? Because the game doesn't really work if something can move that fast.
For starters, I'd recommend turning off the DLC (ESPECIALLY megaevents, but I'd also suggest no precursor worlds) until you've won a few games and are looking for something extra to spice the game up. Precursor worlds are extremely powerful, but until you're confident that you can grab your fair share of them that just means you're making the AI a couple of difficulties higher. First thing to do once you're actually in-game is go to the ship desi
There's a few basic issues with the current system that bug me most, tbh: a) The AI doesn't really understand fleet composition. This has improved a lot since the addition of AIFleetGovernorDefs.xml, but it's still not great at getting a good mix of roles due to the mis-match between the AI roles (what the AI perceives a ship to be) and the actual role (the thing you can designate in the designer). The AI builds fleets out of AI Roles rather than actual role
Yeah, my apologies, I misread the post. I did think it was odd that The Sisko (who's game knowledge is usually impeccable) seemed to be saying what I thought he was saying. Though weapons all use threat, so different weapon damage types (and so ranges) don't change the ship's role at all - which is a mistake imo. Also, not sure there's a grammatical issue with the use of 'so' there. The 'they' in question refers to the missiles rather than the s
I think the point he's making is more that the positioning of ships doesn't care about their weapon range, and nor does their behaviour. A missile ship using the interceptor role will start as close as possible to the enemy and will race toward them as fast as possible regardless of if it's in range or not. The MMO-style tank-dps-support combat roles model really just doesn't work very well. It was an interesting idea, but mostly it's proven to be unintuitive, poorly expla
[quote who="The Sisko" reply="71" id="3616943"]That is probably because the enemy has taken range boosts and your missiles aren't the longest range weapon in the fight anymore[/quote] Nope. Starting position is determined by role. If your role says you start forward, then you start forward. Default roles don't distinguish between weapon types. Missiles are best placed on Support ships, so they start as far back as possible and don't move toward the enemy.</p
[quote who="Go4Celerity" reply="28" id="3616683"]My last session with GalCiv3 ended in a rage quit when a vanilla AI colony ship with stacked engines snatched up a planet in my ZOI that I was 1 turn away from colonizing. I don't stack engines or sensors and I can no longer bring myself to play the game as is. If and until it's addressed I won't be purchasing content for GalCiv3. [/quote] That's hard to believe, since the vanilla AI do
2-3 ion drives is not 'stacking engines'. 10 ion engines is.
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="8" id="3616605"] Does this mean the plans to redo how Star Bases work is going to be released later this year instead of part of this expansion? [/quote] Given the model SD are following with cross-compatibility, the main system reworks all kind of need to be released in free patches. So it might be in 1.6 (I think that was the roadmap?) but is
The whole current invasion system seems to be tuned for planets with hundreds of population, tbh. It gives an insanely huge advantage to the attacker in every respect. It currently works like this: The attack deploys his whole attack force into one province, while the defenders are split equally across all the tiles - so if you were attacked by 6 troops on a size 20 planet, you need 120 population to be on an equal footing (which pretty much means making the whole
[quote who="exelsis" reply="1" id="3616087"] They don't care how far away you are right now. A warlike race sees you as a weak opponent and decides to steal your stuff. That very common scenario takes nothing else into account. [/quote] At least they now try to attack you if you're in range of their fleets. Previously, the AI not only ignored distance when declaring war but also thought any distance over about 16 tiles was too far to send ships.
I don't mind the dead planets tbh. One of the repeated criticisms we hear is that space is too empty and there's not enough terrain; planets help provide at least a little filling. It'd be nice to see some things like multi-tile Gas Giants, mineable dead worlds (though actually that's how the game already generates Promethium and Thulium) etc - and maybe to have a few more habitables as opposed to deadies on the higher hab planet settings. But the fact i
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="19" id="3613029"]"The devs have said they were deliberately avoiding the good vs evil dichotomy." I'm surprised that the devs seriously thought this (and if they did, I'd have to disagree with their execution). GC3 has a simplistic conception of morality. It is a hard triangle with essentially "Generous" "Greedy but not Murderous" and "Greedy AND Murderous" points. That middle option really isn't great. Two of which (be
I can imagine property prices being pretty high on Olympus Mons, tbh. The view would be fairly spectacular.
'not in enums' literally means 'this is not defined in the schema'. Every file in the game/data folder has a corresponding schema file, which is identified in the blurb at the top of the file. You can open these schema files in notepad. They contain long lists of effectively called 'enumerations' which determine the structure of the xml objects. Reading through the relevant schema files can be very helpful in figuring out what you can and cannot
As you noticed, you can't define new equipment classes - they're defined in the schema, which cannot be edited. As such, you'll need to remove some of the existing types in order to do so. For example, if you re-defined the 'beamaugment1' type to be your 'large' beam weapon, and removed the buff module, then you could re-write the shipblueprintdefs.xml file to switch larger ships to use them instead of 'normal' beam weapons. Thi
[quote who="tilyas89" reply="3" id="3614620"] malevolent perk with increasing homework output. [/quote] Is that Plagarism IV, which let's you copy the Altarians homework on the bus? :) EDIT: On ones that don't work, it looks like Awe3 still reduces your own ship's HP rather than enemy ones: HitPointsCap ZOC <b
Each Free Trade treaty gives you an additional trade license. Non aggression pacts are two way. Slave Brokering may now appear as 'Research Treaty' (SD changed it in vanilla and I've not altered the UI text for it).
You're playing the mod, in which they're different from vanilla, so you'll not get useful responses here.
[quote who="erischild" reply="1" id="3614059"] Judging by the past, any changes at all are going to get a "How DARE you remove/change/rename my favorite feature?" kind of reaction. They may as well keep it under wraps until it's real and save themselves a couple weeks of hyperbolic grief. [/quote] It's an expandalone. Specifically to avoid that ever being an issue. Also, some feedback from the community might help avoid making unpopular mistakes
[quote who="joeball123" reply="8" id="3613970"] If I'm reading the XML correctly, what really happens is that all of your colonies and all of their colonies get a 25% bonus to the approrpriate output (research, gross income, or culture generation) that stacks additively with the bonuses from the improvements which already exist on the planet. The treaty is essentially a free market/lab/cultural center (dependent upon treaty type) on each colony you have; the economy of the faction yo
Still trying to figure out what's causing this diplo bug. It's weird; there doesn't seem to be any differences in any relevant files.