If they didn't fix it in .71, you will probably have to wait until Beta 5. They are much more interested in getting the next iteration out than fixing and polishing the current one.
Just repeat to yourself, "It's a game."
In smaller maps, the ideology buildings are essential to progressing past 2 or 3 ideology choices. The problem this creates is that the lines with the buildings in them become necessary, so instead of taking the perks I want or that fit my playstyle, I have to take the perks to get the buildings so I can eventually get the perks I want. I think it would make the ideology system work better if the buildings were unlocked at certain ideology levels regardless of which tree you are climbing.
[quote who="emmagine" reply="8" id="3521000"] Having both options in just muddies down the game with unnecessary gunk. [/quote] It's not "unnecessary gunk" if it works differently and some players prefer it. Maybe Assembly Project isn't your cup of tea, but that's not a good enough reason to take it out of the game. [quote who="charon2112" reply="9" id="3521038"] Is that not better? It seems at first glance that it would be. I must admi
Well, trying to parse your tortured grammar and overwrought word choices is is quite the chore. It seems that you think the game is too simplistic and should therefore have its price lowered or some complex governmental/economic model added. Unless you have some specific examples I have to say I strongly disagree. You complain that the optimal strategy seems to be specialization of planets, which is certainly true, but there are many factors you didn't consider such as the way pop
[quote who="charon2112" reply="6" id="3520980"] Without diving into the xml, how does it work in game? [/quote] Basically, it's a building that you don't have to place on the map. It costs 101 manufacturing and produces 5 Yor. [quote who="androshalforc" reply="4" id="3520976"] i still think theres room to balance this and get it working the fact that the synthetic pop growth bonus's no longer work is definately an oversight that should be fixed soon<
Thanks for the patch, except. . . [quote]Removed the Yor Assembly project (now handled by the fixed duration projects) [/quote] I guess I wasn't successful campaigning against this change. There is so much more micro for the Yor now and they effectively lose most of the bonuses from their most characteristic research line. [e digicons]>:([/e] Ah well, guess I'll just have to mod Assembly Project back in when the game releases.
I think there are two main issues here: one is that ideology needs to scale with map size, and the other is that we need more non-colonizing sources of ideology. The notion that ideology is too cheap is laughable on anything below huge map, which seems to me to be the sweet spot currently. With colonizing being the main driving force behind ideology, it is impossible to explore the system on the smaller maps. The idea of invasion events has been talked about, but that would mean that you woul
.61 Assembly project was .2 per 10 manufacturing (always rounding up) per turn. It scaled very nicely into late game: I could get 15+/turn on manufacturing worlds. .7 Assembly project was 1 per 20 manufacturing (rounded up) per turn, which is essentially the same rate as fast assembly at 101/5 pop. I prefer the project because it gives you better control, but if they are bent on taking it away they could at least make sure fast assembly was enhanced by +synthetic growth and respected
You know, I had a bit of a problem with taking multiple ideologies before the current iteration, but now I don't. I think the reason is that now it feels like 12 trees that just happen to be in three groups, rather than three opposing trees. It didn't make that much sense to be benevolent and malevolent, but I have no problem being enlightened and aggressive or prominent and awe-inspiring. Before I usually stuck to 1 tree, but now I'm enjoying my pragmatic and malevolent Yor and I
I think there's a UP resolution that does that, except for the last part.
I think people overstate how much micro is involved in building a ship and sending it to a place.
That's pretty much it. It's basically to force you to research a bunch of different areas before you can advance too far down one particular tree without having a complex web of prerequisites. I rather like the system in theory, though I don't think they've got the pacing right just yet. The Age of War seems to drag on forever in the current build.
My only question would be where is the production come from? Do you queue up an improvement in your social queue? Does it queue up in your shipyard? Do we add another slider or wheel? Honestly can't find an option that I really like. To me, the best would be that you build the upgrade on planet in your social queue and once complete it gets shipped to the starbase, but even that I don't love.
[quote who="androshalforc" reply="2" id="3520070"] the beta 4.0 "assembly project needs to go its way overpowered [/quote] I really liked the beta 3 Assembly project, beta 4 was crazy because they buffed it by 5x and it had a minimum of 1 pop/turn with even .1 manufacturing. I think it needed to be nerfed, but then again 5 pop for 101 manufacturing also seems crazy to me. [quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="1" id="3520060"] Maybe if I knew what I was that wasn't
[quote who="Franco fx" reply="9" id="3520065"] As Gilmoy pointed out, no matter how much you like the OP's favorite solution, (and I do sort of like it), it is far too radical to be considered at this stage. [/quote] I agree, but I think something similar might be great for an expansion that would also include the oft-requested starbase editor. I really love the idea of fewer, but more involved starbases. Right now I like them, but right now the only interesting decision
Removing the Assembly Project from the Yor has severely hurt their playability for a few reasons: 1) Fast Assembly is bugged - It isn’t effected by +synthetic growth techs and improvements - &n
Please no. The economic model in the current game may not be realistic, bit it is elegant and easy to understand. Lets not add too many variables.
This was planned at least at one point and the techs for it even appeared in the tree but were disabled. I haven't looked in beta 4 to see if they are still there.
Sounds like an easy enough mod to create.
[quote who="alphaprior" reply="3" id="3519912"] no one cares for this graphical disaster? [/quote] I disagree with the degree to which you dislike it and I prefer it to the previous screen, so. . .no.
[quote who="charon2112" reply="8" id="3519948"] Is this how GC2 was? [/quote] No defenses work differently in GCIII than GCII. I think they will need to do some balancing to compensate, but that probably won't come until after beta 5.
[quote who="jpinks" reply="4" id="3520030"] So I shouldn't worry about my planet starving and add Xeno Farms etc? [/quote] No, food is your population cap. Your population will automatically stop growing rather than start starving.
While I agree that it would be good to see the ships act a little smarter, it is important also to avoid cheese tactics. Being able to load up a ship with thrusters and a single laser and auto win against anything with shorter range would be crappy.
The way I would handle these issues is 1) If you come into possession of an extreme world before your have the tech to colonize it you get a severe production penalty; -80% or -90%. 2) Improve AI (pretty sure this will happen anyway)