naselus

Carriers are generally better. Nilfiry did some testing about a month ago which showed carriers killing their opponents in 75% of battles and their opposition only defeating the carriers 50% of the time (i.e., carriers outright lost 25% of the time and battleships outright lost 50% of the time, with some battles where both sides were wiped out). Carriers are also significantly cheaper than battleships, which means that the battle of attrition argument doesn't really

[quote who="DeimosEvotec" reply="19" id="3610914"] We already have abstract points that make the ai love you, while any human player doesn't give a shit. I don't mean + or - from treaties or actions but just flat out researched diplomacy points that give you + relations to anyone for nothing, except for human players. An aggressiv player or ai shouldn't look at how many

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="15" id="3610907"] Quoting naselus, reply 14 "We love war!" means that the AI has chosen to go for a conquest victory. This is one of the problems with the idea of victory conditions. It makes factions in 4x games behave unrealistically for the sake of winning

[quote who="Ragic" reply="5" id="3610755"] I guess I'm in the minority but I like having a reason to click on my planets each turn. I don't want everything controlled via universal commands. The planets feel more important to me that way. I'm just afraid you want the game streamlined for rediculously large maps to the point where the game can be played from a spread sheet. Don't lose the immersion just for efficiency. [/quote] No-one's sugg

"We love war!" means that the AI has chosen to go for a conquest victory.

[quote who="Icemaniaa" reply="10" id="3610438"] I'm simply using the system as it's designed, with focus on an Alliance victory. [/quote] I'm not convinced we are using it as designed. I think there's an implementation bug, but trying to figure out what it is is difficult. You can see some effects, though. The file diplomacydefs.xml has a bunch of relations values that seem to be set up to activate AI behaviours - like</p

Another thing wehich would be nice is if the different 'sort' options for the big list on the right under the minimap changed the stats listed on items within it to something relevant to the sort chosen - so for example f you sort planets by manufacturing, it showed you manu, military manu and social manu etc. Having it permanently displaying population, wealth and morale isn't that helpful when 90% of the time I have no need of that data. Yes, I can hover over to get better info.

[quote who="hardcore_gamer" reply="7" id="3610538"] Seriously guys, this is just NONSENSE. There is nothing realistic about this kind of diplomacy. "Oh sure this nation is located on the other end of the map and has done us no ill, but they are weak so let's kill them for no reason!". [/quote] I laughed and laughed at this :) That's pretty much where all those giant European empires of the last 400 years came from... and most of the other large empire

[quote who="Voqar" reply="1" id="3610222"] In this game where the planets have tiles and a big part of planet development is managing those tiles and trying to work out adjacency optimizations, then what you actually BUILD on the planets should dictate what they do. If you build 20 markets on a planet, it should be a money world and setting a global/local slider shouldn't magically make it more productive or produce research. In GC you could build a

Look for MacsenLP.

There's actually an awful lot of scripted stuff for giving the AI personality - the majority of the diplo files are different weights on different actions depending on if the AI is benevolent, a trader, aggressive etc. I just think the weights on modifiers are too heavy compared to the relations scale - a +3 or -3 is massive on a scale of 10--10, but you can stack up several quite easily, so it becomes difficult to see the difference between factions.

Personally, I reckon that focuses are just as good, since I only ever put the wheel at 100% in whatever direction anyway and just let it build everything on planet and then build the 'correct' project, so 0 and 100% are the only things needed for the military slider either (and the manufacturing on the colony hub means I can just leave it there. This is also what the AI does in the mod). I have to say, I was very relieved when focuses turned out to be the replacement system. I still t

[quote who="Rectunator" reply="656" id="3609928"] Out of curiosity, are we getting the release this week? I put off starting a new campaign since I knew I'd propably have to restart after updating the mod. [/quote] I was intending for one, but work had the Christmas Party on Friday and frankly I've been massively hung over all weekend. I hate red wine with a passion. I've got an early build for 1.5.2 which reconciles more of

[quote who="hedetet" reply="8" id="3609942"] So what happens in 2029? Early retirement? [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [/quote] Skynet?

[quote quoting="post"]The GalCiv III series will continue to use the Galactic engine. Future games will use Nitrous which is being developed by Oxide Games (Ashes of the Singularity). [/quote] Could you unpack this a little more? I'm curious as to why Nitrous has such a long projected lifespan compared to Galactic.

I still put that down to the staggered roll-out of the map sizes back in beta tbh - the largest ones have had much less time for testing, with fewer players doing that testing too (if we assume the stats are taken from game launches, which will capture everything, and not, say, the metaverse, which will only see completed games and so will be badly skewed toward smaller maps). A lot of stuff works fine on medium and below but simply doesn't scale very well to the bigger maps - and t

Dear God, will everyone just chill out please? :) It's very flattering to have people rushing to my defense, but it's really not necessary - especially leaving bad Steam reviews in response to this is just plain silly. Me and Froggy having an argument has absolutely no effect on the objective quality of the game, and the objective quality of the game is what everything I talk about is about. It's exactly [u]not[/u] how I'd want people to act in my name,

[quote who="eviator" reply="36" id="3609155"] I don't like singling people out, but if I were to guess I'd say reply #20 and #21 got Frogboy fired up. They seem almost like personal attacks on the competency of the GalCiv3 team. Brad is the boss and the fearless leader, and good leaders defend their followers. [/quote] Or the presence of the ever-awful 'the community are beta testers' line, which crops up so much on every forum for every gam

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="3609002"] As for your specific response, Nas. I've read your posts and what I will say is tat I look forward to these other games coming out so that perhaps you'll leave and go play them instead.[/quote] Now that's not particularly constructive. You might find my criticism (which usually comes complete with a list of suggested ways to mitigate whichever problem that I'm discussing) somehow offensive, but that's not the

[quote who="MacsenLP" reply="33" id="3609085"] You say some people have an attitude perhaps referring to me, I think you need to start listening to feedback stop being irritated and actually realize that some perhaps a lot of the criticism on here is merited. [/quote] Or me, apparently. I love how eviator can make a post saying the UI is crap, SD are ignoring problems so they can milk more money from DLC, and that he's sick of this and will walk if i

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="3609002"] 4th generation is a technical term. It has nothing to do with features. in fact, it is a major reason why gc3 doesn't have all e cool legacy features. gc2 was able to use everything from gc1 which in turn had features from the corporate machine. but on the other hand, it means that gc3 will be able to be built on for many years to come without running into hardware or software limitstions. [/quo

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="9" id="3608836"] But that's a huge change over what we have today and if people flipped out about losing their cheesy wheel mechanic, they'd really be upset at having the entire economic system be about your citizenry (a Drengin warrior might be better than a Torian warrior but a Torian farmer migth be better than a Drengin farmer. Maybe you should send all the Torian farmers you find to your best food worlds and build up a trade system to get your foo

[quote quoting="post"] GalCiv III remains the first and only 4th generation 4X. [/quote] Not to be a kill-joy, but I really don't think it is. Sure, GC3 enjoys the only 4th-gen 4X engine on the market presently. That's a great achievement, and one which players often overlook. But the extreme conservatism of the mechanical and UI design does not strike me as being somehow "4th generation". Mechanically, this is not very differe

I thought you can save it as a template and that made it auto-upgrade? I've never actually tried, since I just changed the blueprint defs to ships I would like to use. Might be a bit daunting if you don't know what you're doing, though (and the AI will use them).

[quote who="The Sisko" reply="1" id="3608679"] So we're not going to get a proper invasion system until 2017...wow. Not only that, but it isn't part of the base game but will be sectioned off as part of a standalone expansion. Brad was right, it is not something I'm terrible pleased to hear. [/quote] Honestly, I think a proper invasion system is not a big deal. At all. A pointless invasion mini-game isn't goin