This has been a bug since... forever. For as long as I can remember. I think it has existed since the base game was released. And it has been mentioned... But maybe they'll fix it now?
Yeah, I noticed this right away and turned of the no FOW mechanic. I also noticed the FOW bug with fast ships (leaving skipped sections) is back (at least, I thought that got fixed once upon a time...)
The trade exploit has been in the game from the beginning, or at least for as long as I can remember. I believe I mentioned it on here and/or in the Discord channel (probably more than a year ago), but it never got traction. I just try to exercise self control and not rob a dead race for all it's worth...
As a hobbyist programmer/game designer, I would echo the sentiments of both SchismNavigator and Chronopolize. I love working in Unity because it is relatively intuitive but with vast flexibility and tons of online resources. Early on, I relied heavily on free resources to augment my ideas, and these can typically be tweaked. Good free resources can provide a starting point for having something functional that you can tweak and learn from. Also, there are tons of high quality v
From a strategy-game perspective, open space can serve as a buffer between my territory and that of other factions. I'm not sure how the proposed map and travel system for GCIV will change the feel of proximity between factions--it may have little practical impact or it might make everything feel too tightly connected. My hope is that there will be enough flexibility in galaxy setup options that those that want virtually no in-between space can have that, and those that want some empt
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="76" id="3760509"] You are only dealing with about a dozen colonies. The other planets are, effectively, just resources. [/quote] One concern I have, and maybe it's unfounded, is that the galaxy will lose some character/interest. In GCIII, I enjoy managing colonies, and each colony or system takes on a certain... personality. I often use this "personality" to name hypergates, and it helps me keep my bearings in the galactic map. The w
[quote who="Horemvore" reply="74" id="3760507"] Yep as we thought, choke points. Well I wish you well on that project. (I will not be seeing it). [/quote] I'm not convinced that the map system Frogboy is proposing is bad because of "choke points"--as long as there is a way around them, which he has already mentioned. In real geography and historic military fortification, choke points exist. The whole point of building in certain places was to create choke points that
[quote who="DivineWrath" reply="46" id="3760300"] While you could do auto-resolve, I find that it gets results that are significantly worse than what you could get if you fought the battle yourself. On a related thought, fighting the battles yourself might not mix well on large maps, especially the insane ones. Bigger maps would mean more fleets, which in turn mean more battles, which then will slow turns down to a crawl. I think it'll make any game a real chore to play, or th
Great post, Gauntlet. And great mod, as always. [quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="1382" id="3759671"] Some of it was a failure though. Mod support never came... and the remnants of that broken promise lie forgotten in tiny corners of the floor, having been swept away by exciting prospects... that also never truly materialized... Mod support on steam A working map editor A campaign editor Fleet editor A Flavor Text editor Most of these were deli
When you get down to it, few ideas are truly original. It is how the ideas come together and are executed that matters, as has been said. As far as I know, drawing upon ideas from other games is, essentially, what has been happening from the beginning. And the games that did something "first" were probably just borrowing the idea from something else (e.g., real life, fiction, a board game, etc.). Even ideas that feel original you can say, "It's kind of like this, and kind of like that
This has been a bug for a while. Unless I'm missing something, the game should be reading the file from the DLC folder of Crusade (if you have that expansion), and if so, there are more issues than just the one planet. The production for PrecursorTreasury, PrecursorQuarantine, and PrecursorExperimentalWorld go from 1 to 5 to 3. (I have a folder for DLC4 in Retribution, but no files in it... so I'm pretty sure the Crusade version is the one the game uses rather than the DL
Lol, Publius. Enter key get stuck? As to your post... I haven't got to any surrenders in 3.9, yet, but in my last game, an ally surrendered and awarded me about a dozen planets. Some were very nice. It would be a shame to lose them. (I think I was playing on Normal difficulty.) I'm not sure if 3.9 also changed the point at which factions surrender, and if not, then I could see a large number of planets being lost. And I do play with stars on rare and planets/habitable planets
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="6" id="3759450"] I firmly believe GC3 has the greatest ship designer ever (from a aesthetic point of view) but the number of valid ship designs is relatively low. There is little in-game reward for spending time in the editor and combat basically boils down to producing a greater number of ships with a greater number of weapons and a single meat-shield ship to tank everything that can game the system's simplistic mechanics. [/quote] Gauntlet's
When I think of GCIV, I wonder what should be changed to make it a new game and not just an expansion of GCIII. Don't get me wrong, I think it should expand on what is best in GCIII, but my thoughts go to what makes it a newer, better game. And in that, I generally agree with the OP here. [quote]1) Change how the map functions.[/quote] The entire feel--and strategic depth--of the game could be improved with changes to how the map works. More than jus
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="11" id="3759397"] Yes and no... a lot can be done with the rendering and textures of the ship parts. For one thing, making them have a universal material quality (shinyness/etc.) and then have that modified by the fleet editor. Currently the fleet editor applies an overlay but each ship style of parts has it's own material properties, making ships very incongruous looking if you are not careful about selecting parts. [/quote] This is one of my
[quote who="Horemvore" reply="7" id="3759390"] Military Alliance grants 25% Ship Construction... [/quote] I suspected it was something like that--that it was the Ship Construction equivalent of the research treaty. [quote who="DMF" reply="6" id="3759389"] Non-Aggression Pact seems more meaningful, and it's terms are not a subset of alliance. [/quote] Good point. I'm not sure what the differences are between a non-aggression pact and an alliance (oth
I'm not positive when or why alliances changed--though I'm not recalling any point in GCIII's development to date in which a faction expected its allies to declare war when it went to war (or when it received a declaration of war). If I recall correctly, something like that was present in GCII. I'm not sure about Military Alliances.
So, in light of the 3.9 update, a long-time (but not oft stated) gripe of mine resurfaced. The alliance mechanism in the game seems virtually meaningless. If I'm allied with another faction and they are attacked, big deal. Doesn't mean anything for me. But shouldn't it? I'm not sure how much more the game is slated to change, but it'd be great if the devs could make alliances more nuanced and require a little more effort than just, "Hey, we like each other, let's be allies and keep li
Well, I was going to post here last night, got distracted with... work... and then never got back to it. Now, another 15 posts later, and I think I can be a lot more concise. I agree with the majority of what has been said about the surrender mechanism. I didn't see this as a problem. If I did, I'd either make commonwealths or destroy the colonies myself--or turn off surrenders. But to automatically have the colonies destroyed feels like a cheap solution. Easy, maybe. But cheap. And I
[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="5" id="3746051"] Yup - all I say is that it doesn't match the tech description. [/quote] The tooltips are somewhat confusing, I agree. [quote who="lyssailcor" reply="5" id="3746051"] Also: if I observe a ship traveling a 900% hyperlane it moves about twice its normal movement allowance, then it teleports quite a distance and appears a couple of hexes besides the hyperlane. [/quote] I've not witnessed that behavior myse
[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="3" id="3746037"] I think the percentage value is also wrong. After researching "Hyperlane Streaming" the hyperlanes themselves show "Hyperlane +900% Moves". [/quote] That sounds right if you have all the tech and the planetary improvement that boosts hyperlane speed...
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="1319" id="3745563"] Well if they are custom anomalies they might be under a different category than the normal ship-graveyards... I suspect the AI identifies that category and avoids them... auto-survey commanded survey ships also avoid them. [/quote] Again, I'm not sure what criteria the AI uses... and the auto-survey issue is something I wish could be changed (give the option to have a fleet with a survey ship survey defended anomalies).
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="1315" id="3745519"] 1) No the AI never goes for defended anomalies. Including the Precursor anomalies. [/quote] I have seen them go for defended anomalies--but I'm not sure what criteria must be met for this to happen. It seems to be rare. For example, when I tested my defended anomalies mod and all anomalies were defended, the AI definitely surveyed them--and without facing the encounter. And unless I'm mistaken, I've seen this behavio
Hey Publius. The AnomalyDefs.xml in the mod was copied from the original, and the only change was to remove the chance for encounters on those anomalies that had encounters (Ship Graveyards). It appears this file was changed... "WeaponModuleTech_Name" and "_Dec" were changed (sensibly) to "WeaponKeyModule_Name" and "_Dec". I'll correct this and post an update. Thanks for the heads up!
I would like to echo Gauntlet and Horemvore generally but emphasize two items that are key to me (and a third that would be icing on the cake). 1) Documentation : Specifically, documentation about what is possible (particularly what triggers/actions pair with which targets/scopes, etc.) would be helpful. Also documentation for what files are changed in an update. 2) Append/Replace : I'm not sure this is simple... maybe it is. Allow data with dup