naselus

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="27" id="3602240"] Carriers need turns to replenish their fighters that gets destroyed, and for a carrier, fighters are both their shields and swords. This is also a weakness. If their fleet of fighters were heavily diminished in one battle, they would start with a serious disadvantage in a next battle. Effectively, you can wear carriers down in a battle of attrition, but the same cannot be said of regular ships. Regular ships gets instant recharge of defenses

[quote who="DeimosEvotec" reply="23" id="3601874"] This makes this discussion useless anyway untill it's fixed because this favours the small ships greatly. [/quote] Except the small ships in this test only had missile defense, and the carriers had no defense at all. So this defense problem only affected the carrier fleet's attacks for the majority of the testing.

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="16" id="3601749"] Personally, I`d prefer to hear from the man who knows, the Dev, himself, not those who seem to think they must talk for him like in some cult. Thankyou. [/quote] I think you'll find that there's more than one person who can provide an obvious answer to a stupid question.

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="6" id="3601732"] Personally I would keep them as is, since I dont use Abundant settings or Mods. How about a 'diminishing returns' type settup AFTER the player/ai reaches 100% on that resource. [/quote] Even without abundant settings, some give out 10% global increase to stuff. At a time when the interface is being butchered to try and cut overproduction, one might argue that massive global bonu

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="4" id="3601679"] They are NOT bugged. From Alpha to now it was always intended that they stack and that you WANT to buy them up. What is bugged/wrong is the wording on the description. Paul knows this and it will eventually get redone in a text/correction pass. [/quote] ... that's still bugged, tbh :) But yes, they make infinitely more sense as stacking bonuses. They need an aggressive nerf, though.

It is kinda tempting, but I'm loathe to remove features from Vanilla unless they're totally broken. I'll wait for 1.5 and see if SD manage to make diplo work better. If there's no significant improvement, then ok, wormholes can die.

[quote who="Seafireliv" reply="13" id="3601389"] But I thought you could do much, much more now with a 64bit game. I apologise in advance if I understand wrong. [/quote] There's a difference between what you can do with a 64-bit engine, and what you can do with a 64-bit engine on the current average hardware. For example, you can address up to 16 Exabytes of RAM with a 64-bit engine. That's about a billion times as much as you'll find

Call it spaghetti and custard for all I care. It's a decent mechanical solution to a mechanical problem. Brad's free market principles don't bother me much when there's actually game play justifications to implementing them and they're mechanically sound. If when they'reach gameplay harmful but he goes ahead anyway that I get peeved.

There isn't. The strategic AI scripts have no triggers for determining if they have met another race.

Remember the old joke about theoretical physicists: Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physic

Your ships also lacked engines and life support, which is worse than useless at end-game. This is an artifact. The conditions that you've set the experiment up under have determined the result, but those cannot be generalized to normal play; it proves nothing about the relative strength of carriers and normal ships, but merely that the specific carrier designs that you created are basically a match for specific other, much more expensive ships you designed.

Forgive me, but I disagree with your interpretation of your results. What you've actually shown here is that carriers are worth at least twice as much as other units. You have reported 11 wins for the carriers, 3 wins for the targets and 5 ties. That's a 16% defeat rate, against ships which cost twice as much. The carriers even survived in over 50% of cases, winning battles against fleets that cost anything upto 90% more than themselves. A proper test would

Stardock are proud of their non-cheating AI. But they use a very, very specific definition of the word 'cheating'. And a very specific definition of 'AI', too.

[quote who="Whytebio" reply="21" id="3600929"] I didn't "demand" anything. I made a list of ways I think the game could be improved. In this case the designers are inifinitely more familiar with both the gameplay and the mechanics at work behind the scenes than I am. How does me being unable to devise a water-tight solution invalidate the idea? [/quote] See, that's just unconvincing. You're making a suggestion, and then in the same sente

[quote who="Chibiabos" reply="624" id="3600636"] Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I am getting the following errors trying to start GalCiv with the mod installed: [/quote] Delete the mod from the mod folder and then re-install it. You have files from the 1.3 version, which SD renamed in 1.4. [quote who="Syntax_VI" reply="625" id="3600669"] *edit* found it I think. In the tech file the effect type is military, but the tar

Yeah, there's a lot of very good mechanical justifications for not allowing fleets to retreat. While I suspect most of those can be overcome (Director's tactical speed approach, with significant elaboration, would address a fair number), you'd need more reasons as to why it's worth it. Some things that would need to change before retreat is even worth discussing: 1) Ship speeds need to be nerfed to hell and back. Retreat cannot wor

[quote quoting="post"] 1) More diplomatic options[/quote] Agreed, though many are coming in 1.5. [quote quoting="post"]2) "Diplomatic Incidents", not Instant War[/quote] Agreed in principle, but that's a major, fundamental change that probably cannot be just dropped into the game at this stage. Lots of stuff is basically set up to rely on the war on/off state. Being realistic, this

If this is actually a diplomacy bug, as I suspect it is, then it's more likely to be addressed in 1.5 when they add the ability to demand AI players leave your territory.

The AI actually already has just such a stat. It's called WarEndurance. Most races start with X WarEndurance, and it is reduced by casualties. For reference, the Drengin have the highest (I think) at 150 and the Iridium have the lowest at 80. The AI loses 2 Endurance from a lost fleet and 1.75 from losing a planet. It gains 2 endurance per fleet it kills and 1 for every planet it takes. It presumably also recharges at some rate.

in the game\data folder, find the relevant MegaEventDefs file (presumeably peacekeepers_megaeventdefs.xml, though I don't have the DLC myself). Open it up in notepad. Find the 'weight' entry. Make it bigger to make the chance of the event higher. Make it lower to make it less likely.

If I did that, I wouldn't have time to write the mod :P

[quote who="Jafo" reply="9" id="3600480"] Quoting naselus, reply 8 I tell them to use the combination 'number adjective noun verb noun' - something like 'fiveangrychimpsdrinklemonade'. This is easy to remember, and far stronger than the random string - even though this password will be rejected as 'stro

[quote who="Syntax_VI" reply="618" id="3600421"] Now onto 1.41 observations after quite a few soaks. The AI even on godlike / incredible is very slow to colonize again. This was almost completely fixed in your last two 1.3xx versions with the AI expanding even in the late game (which was awesome). But Im seeing quite a few AI's at higher difficulties with 15-30 planets after 300 turns.[/quote] There's some difference caused by the changes to production. The

[quote quoting="post"] 2. Use a strong password, using random strings of characters. You can write it down and keep it somewhere safe.[/quote] Tbh, randomizing individual characters is a bit pointless - most decent rainbow tables will contain combinations using all the various character combinations possible to around the 10th power, so all you're really doing by randomizing is making it hard for humans to remember it rather than making it harder for comp

I've not altered the ships graphically at all, so no idea why it would happen. I've encountered nothing like it, either, and have used ships with huge numbers of parts, so it may be some issue with the ship model interacting with the mod rather than anything inherent into either. Either way, since I can't replicate it, I'm not troubleshooting it.