naselus

[quote who="rspiccaver" reply="19" id="3564218"] Would love to see what you come up with keep us all informed [e digicons]:)[/e] Right now I don't want to mod too heavily. My main goals are quite simple. 1) slow down late game research rates and 2) make income more essential to the economy (which should indirectly slow research and production also). My concern right now is whether I've made income too necessary. I can afford the ships I'm about

[quote who="Ambermonk" reply="93" id="3564185"] No he didn't. All he posted was a different forum post. If you click on his link all it does is take you to a different forum thread, that he calls 'Lets Play.' Don't be fooled by him calling a forum thread 'Let's Play.' That was merely a forum play-style suggestion - not a 'let's Play' video from YouTube. I want to see an actual

Ideally, I think fighter weapons need to be a separate tech line from 'normal' weapons (so that you have to wait for the big guns while you tech for little ones, and visa versa), and there should be weapons that are specifically good for killing fighters rather than big enemy ships - AOE-type weaponry that does little damage but splashes it across multiple targets.

[quote who="a0152570" reply="35" id="3564140"] SO if the AI managed its fleets better, would things not be balanced? [/quote] Not really, no. It's a balance issue, but not a balance issue that gives a player an unfair advantage - it's one that kills interesting choices. Currently, running a carrier-based fleet is by far the best option [i]regardless of your other techs[/i]. The only counter-strategy to carrier spam i

[quote who="rspiccaver" reply="17" id="3564088"] All worlds were colonised by turn 60 or maybe before in the test run I'm playing atm. AI beat me to some worlds and apart from the Iconians they seem shared equally. Have yet to meet the Krynn however I've a feeling they will have more than their share. The AI seem to be coping fine atm but it's early days. I'm playing on Tough however so the AI have bonuses, I don't think it's possible to make changes like we are w

[quote who="TurielD" reply="87" id="3563849"] The game is balanced around competition, and your play style seems to completely avoid having to compete for anything during the Age of Expansion and early Age of War. [/quote] Sure, the settings he's chosen push the point where actual competition kicks in back to turn 100ish... but the AI also isn't competing with anyone until then, and handles it very poorly. Even on Godlike, the AI's ship building

I don't think we need to overcomplicate it tbh - just nerf colony capitals. There's no real reason for them to produce industry, there's no reason they should be able to feed 5billion+ people, no reason that they should provide entertainment for 3 billion people... Just make the colony capital generate influence and support half a billion people. The population will do the rest by themselves. This also makes it more important to build farms earlier rat

[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="26" id="3564041"] I have exactly what we need: yet another lame idea to give carriers somewhat of a nerf. [e digicons]:P[/e] Instead of any of the above ideas, how about this? Fighter Pools Instead having fighters be completely "free" and unlimited, how about a "pool" that has to be maintained? Fighters are added to the pool by being built from a sh

[quote who="rspiccaver" reply="15" id="3563998"] I don't really want to boost the global tourism income. The goal is to make money more important. From what I understand tourism in beta was generating a staggering amount of income and was reduced significantly. I believe the tourism buildings were balanced with that in mind. After they reduced global tourism income I don't think they considered that it would make the tourism buildings uneconomical. I want to make them worthwhile

Updated to V0.2. Now includes some AI work to make the AI expand more aggressively, which they rather need on a big map (else they take a fair while to get going while they build freighters and other silly things). Also added general XML bug fixes, made all SB modules increase starbase hull strength, and made all hulls over tiny require Duranthium (while the AI seems to handle fairly well).

[quote who="Christian_Akacro" reply="51" id="3563944"] Too much micromanagement for games with many opponents. [/quote] Not if it's done via the UP.

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="10" id="3563908"] Someone said in another thread that carriers will only regenerate their fighter at a star base or ship yard. Is this a fact? If so it severely limits carriers and this has never been my understanding. If it is true this has been changed and reduces the power of carriers substantially. No one questioned the post made after the comment was made so I wondered if it could be correct. [/quote] I think they

[quote quoting="post"] Unfortunately, minor civs seem to hit a tech ceiling ... I don't know if they stop researching altogether, but even Age of Expansion techs they seem to stop researching after awhile. However, they do research some and I think its worth farming out at least low level techs. Armor Optimization choices affect every kinetic armor tech, even the higher level ones.[/quote] I think they just can't keep up with tech infla

Goodsandservices is an approval bonus.

[quote who="jdan00" reply="48" id="3563719"] Why not make this a treaty/UP law. You can sign "respect sphere of influence" treaties with people and then UP can also propose it as a law "we all respect eachothers sphere of influence"? Either way, violating the sphere of influence with ships should result in a diplomatic penalty, as should building new foreign starbases and stuff without treaty. The AI should then just be modded to follow those rules based on ideology, malevolen

[quote who="TurielD" reply="4" id="3563844"] No actually, I really only looked at the 3 for weapons. Thanks for the info on Thulium, that makes sense! I think Promethium must be some other combo with the ResFreq stat, dunno which yet. I'll keep an eye out in future games to see where it mostly appears. [/quote] I *think* Thulium replaces dead worlds; Promethium may be similar (though appears considerably rarer).

[quote who="TurielD" reply="12" id="3563868"] I suspect Tourism was once meant to interact with Culture far stronger, to project influence to worlds where the tourists came from, but it never got fully developed. [/quote] Tbh, I think tourism in general hasn't been balanced. The 1-per-colony limit on tourism buildings doesn't make much sense, and lots of other buildings have tourism adjacency bonuses but you're so limited in the placement that t

[quote who="node10" reply="2" id="3563832"] If carriers are supposed to be little fighter manufacturing plants then they should cost more, at lot more, in upkeep. [/quote] This. They should at very least require some strategic resource to cap their numbers.

[quote who="TurielD" reply="9" id="3563337"] Frankly, it looks like it's going to be easier to create a building which can generate the resource (basically the oposite of a durantium refinery, for elerium) than fix the spawning [e digicons]:P[/e] [/quote] Well, adding the building is really easy. You could try reducing the 'Elerium rate' stat - if it works on Abundant (rate of like 10) but not on uncommon (rate's l

Yeah, I've been fiddling with them for the insane-abundant balance mod and it seems that the AI is actually able and willing to use resources fairly sensibly, provided that the blueprints have been provided. It will even trade for them when you set all hulls to require durantium, though it's struggling a little with correctly prioritizing mining starbases - it seems to be very fond of building the first one or two and then doesn't do many more. Might try tweaking constructor strat

I noticed this myself the other day - generated a couple of Uncommon maps with no Elerium. Setting it back up to abundant made it come back. I'm not sure how the Elerium rate actually works (the number goes down as the map goes up), but yes, it does appear something is broken with lower-end Elerium generation.

[quote who="marigoldran" reply="4" id="3563307"] P.S. But in reality don't try the insane 80 or the immense 60. The game will probably crash. In fact I'm not even sure about the computer being able to handle playing any games with more than 20 AI. [/quote] The game can comfortably handle at least 50 opponents without even slowing down much. I don't think I've tried playing with less than 20...

[quote who="joeball123" reply="1" id="3563296"] but the schema mods also do not appear to work in the mod directory. Do schema mods work at all? I've not tried it for resources, but as far as I can tell changing the schema files when trying to add a new ship role makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not the new ship role will appear in game, whether you alter the core files or copies thereof. [/quote]

[quote who="joeball123" reply="20" id="3563291"] Given that you are fine with the current situation for slow, early game ships, and given that the thing you primarily wish to adjust is the effective speed of fast, late-game ships, don't you think it's just a little bit backwards for your solution to hit the slow, early-game ships hardest? If late-game ships can take too many actions per turn and early-game vessels are reasonable, then the appropriate solution is to

Figured it'd be useful to have a thread dedicated to what we know about Strategic resources, and how we can mod them - spawn frequencies, outputs, getting the AI to use them etc. I've been trying to add a new Strategic Resource or two. This appears to require modding the Schema (or else you just get 'new resource not enumerated' errors); but the schema mods also do not appear to work in the mod directory. Does anyone have any ideas