naselus

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="30" id="3603352"] Reading over your article makes me want to repeat my stance, esp. since I sense a certain type of arrogance in your post: - First off. NO, I don't think we will become energy type of beings AND I don't think it is helpful to introduce a "after me the deluge"-type of thinking into this subject. Especially if you use that to rational away the direct consequences the human industry has on its environment...! -

What I'd be most concerned about with regard to this is implementing a 1-per-planet fix now that is rendered unnecessary later, once the economy is properly balanced, and so actually just reduces the number of available strategies for the player. Currently, as everything is cheap, the player still doesn't have many options in this regard, because he can do everything at once. But this surplus of riches is unlikely to be the state of affairs forever, and is

[quote who="putty101" reply="23" id="3603365"] Attacking the original poster's reputation is doesn't really do anything to forward the game's progression.[/quote] I know. I'm just explaining the reason why most of the pre-necro replies to this thread aren't very constructive. I actually liked Marigoldran, because he was perceptive and he did have a point most of the time; unfortunately, his method of relaying that point usually encouraged more d

You're not thinking in terms of process's. Mars has taken literally billions of years to lose it's atmosphere. If we're even thinking in timescales that relate to the lifespan of humanity [i]as a species[/i], you're looking at hundreds of thousands of factors. If you wanted to terraform the planet in a period to make it use able before humans have evolved into beings of pure energy, the loss factors you'require describing become meaningless - so simply by discussing te

Luckily, Large Empire Penalty will be going away, so Patriotic will cease to be a required trait.

You have to understand, the OP Marigoldran was... not popular. He had a unique sort of obnoxiousness that did not endear him to the denizens of the forum, and so many would have disagreed if he said the sky was blue. He was, however, very good at spotting (and then mindlessly abusing and endlessly spamming about) mechanical flaws. He wasn't very good at coming up with good suggestions on what to do about them, though; didn't tend to think in terms of incentives and game theory very we

Could they not be added as potential upgrades to the Empire Capital? I've tried doing this myself, but the game seems to hate having more than 1 possible upgrade per building, and also doesn't seem to take kindly to colony hubs being upgraded. Would be nice to see if I was doing it wrong, or if that's actually just unavoidable.

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="20" id="3603149"] Mars atmosphere is already 96% CO2, adding a bit more is not going to make much of a difference in terms of climate. Besides, you actually want to decrease the CO2 with nitro/oxigen...[/quote] No, no, no. You want to increase CO2 initially, and then after that you worry about adding in N and O. Terraforming is a process, and the initial steps in the process are about thickening the atmosphere and heating the place up

[quote who="Director" reply="17" id="3603128"] The cost would be immense, though just bombing the planet with icy comets would probably work. Given enough incentive, you could set up tankers running from the water-filled moons of Jupiter or Saturn - once you get the chunk of ice moving along the right path, it's pretty much free. [/quote] You wouldn't bother with tankers. Just strap some engines to a passing comet and gently shift it over a decade or s

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="14" id="3603113"] Yes a magnetic field would do it and a collision (Phobos?) would be great. I think the mass of Mars is not a problem. I read somewhere that if we could create an Earth atmosphere on the Moon it would take over 2000 years to bleed off. With a magnetic field a Mars atmosphere would likely be permanent [/quote] Yeah, the magnetic field is the important bit, if anything just because without one any colonis

[quote who="Franco fx" reply="12" id="3603110"] Bad news for terraforming Mars The CO2 is gone not stored in rocks and soil. http://www.space.com/31044-mars-terraforming-nasa-maven-mission.html [/quote] From the link: "For example, Mars' two polar caps harbor some CO2 ice (though they're both composed primarily of water ice), and Martian soils soak up some carbon dioxide as well. " <span

100 grams a second is about 0.4 tons per hour. That's 9.6 tons a day, or 3,504 tons per year. This is roughly as much as the City of Milan's domestic CO2 emissions from 2005. The Scherer plant, the most pollutant individual power plant in the USA, produced 25.3 million tons of CO2 alone every year. We're really good at pumping shit into atmospheres, in fact. Just so we can compare the numbers in numbers, Martian air loss looks like this: 3504 &

[quote who="wuphonsreach" reply="3" id="3603029"] What is "LEP"? [/quote] Good question. I'm really not sure what LEP is. I know what it's [i]supposed[/i] to be, but it fails miserably to achieve it's aims and it's removal is a good thing in every possible way. The best description would be that it's the ghost of bad ideas past. To give some details: LEP is a -0.2 happiness penalty applied by ev

Or better yet, stop making treaties expire, as re-negotiations are tedious micro.

The bleed rate is extremely slow. Any terraforming which worked on a human timescale would be unaffected tbh.

[quote who="Maiden666" reply="4" id="3602848"] ^that's interesting; what are these techniques for example? [/quote] Genetically engineered moss, mostly; a soletta is used at one point; comet skimming is discussed though I don't think it's used; renewable energy heating mechanisms; and also a fair bit of general industrial stuff to just pump a lot of CO2 into the Atmosphere. Oh, and thermal boreholes. Basically, if it appeared in Sid Meier's Alp

[quote who="LongDeadFingers" reply="35" id="3602820"] Thanks for the replies. Not sure if there is a dev stream this week... Really hoping they are aware of the problemas it seems like the ai must be wasting a lot of resources on this sort of behaviour. [/quote] Oh, they know - giving you the option to tell the AI to frack off is a headline feature for 1.5. Or at least it was, provided they haven't completely changed their minds in two weeks. Again.

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="2" id="3602680"] If GCIII were pitted as best 4x Sci Fi game I think it would be more reasonable. [/quote] Or just 4X games in general. It's a bizarre and weird categorization system to base it purely on theme with no regard to gameplay. No strategy game ever is going to be able to match the mass appeal of a triple-A title FPS RPG on multiple platforms, and the votes if anything will just reflect the relative popularity o

You're sharing a category with Fallout 4? Unlucky.

Warscore would be a welcome addition. Diplo currency, not so much imo; it's really gamey and feels like a big step backwards from the 'standard' 4X diplo interface (I recall diplo currency systems from the late 90s). There's many possible improvements for diplo, but I don't think that's a mechanical problem so much as an AI one.

[quote who="LongDeadFingers" reply="32" id="3602448"] Thanks. What sizes of maps are your games, and how many factions? Do you play with a variety of settings? Does it happen much with Naselus' mod? Anyway, I hope it is discussed in the next dev stream and there aren't as many audio problems so I can hear. [/quote] Yeah, it still happens regardless of mods. It's a core fleet AI issue and not something you can fix

I've not altered AI sb behaviour in months. Might be worth checking if this is in vanilla too. Hopefully will do a release this weekend, if I can stop playing fallout 4 by then....

Me too. Oddly, it occurs for me in modded play but not on normal... but there'seems no code differences in the relevant files (I even c&ped the building over). To the OP - you using any mod's or game alterations, including using the planet wheel reactivation? It may be something to do with the way the game uses the docs directory

Kinetics would look better if the interface showed us damage-per-second rather than damage-per-shot. They're also horribly inaccurate, which eliminates the advantage of their rate of fire, meaning you take ages to get in range and then have very poor damage output once you finally arrive. I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea to have the closest-range weapon be the least accurate, but they really weren't thinking it through. It's pretty straight

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="29" id="3602266"] I was comparing the recovery nature of carriers vs regular ships to suggest that attrition battles will work on carriers and that there is a benefit to building more expensive ships to counter them. I am in no way suggesting that more powerful ships cannot win against carriers, and that you should just throw them at carriers to wear them down. Earlier experiments have already proven that more expensive ships will work, so your concern is