peregrine23

[quote who="Turkwise" reply="9" id="3524997"] If you say "No" when the game asks you if you want to colonize the planet, you'll then have time to look at what planet it is and figure out what you might like for it, then move the ship to colonize the planet. [/quote] Another similar solution is to send your ships to one tile away from a planet rather than to the planet itself. They should make it clearer what planet you are colonizing, but this is a decent work-around.</p

[quote who="IdioticUlt1mara" reply="1" id="3525102"] I am surprised no1 has looked at this? Guess no1 was interested? [/quote] Honestly, you are just late to the conversation. Most of these things have been discussed exhaustively in other threads.

[quote who="Tetrasodium" reply="3" id="3525148"] The first issue I see is that modding a specific core race's tech tree (or worse all) will either make that mod inoperable with any other mod even if both simply add a new item to the tree & do not cause conflicts [/quote] Can you explain where the conflict is? I haven't tried modding GCIII yet, but I don't see why this modded race which uses the Terran tree wouldn't just use a modded Terran tree if y

[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="5" id="3525038"] Now, from what I have read, this is just about the worst abuse of a customer that could possibly happen. The entire game divided into 20 DLCs at day one? Yipes!! [/quote] Actually, I don't think this would bother the anti-dlc crowd that much because it's clear and consistent. Here is the thing that bothers many people: Say Stardock released the GalCiv III with the features we are expecting it to h

[quote who="mrtrevorcooper" reply="33" id="3523905"] But I guess it's safe to assume, from the deafening silence of the devs, that this isn't going to ever be addressed? [/quote] Not safe to assume. Stardock devs tend to watch the community debate these issues rather than inserting themselves. I am sure they have read the thread and are aware of the issue. That doesn't mean they will change anything, but Stardock not commenting doesn't mean they are not cons

So "Neutral" is a tier one pragmatic ideology trait that prevents other civs from declaring war on you for 100 turns. First let me say as a player I like taking this trait. It gives you a giant chunk of time when you can invest in infrastructure without worrying about building up your military. That said I think it is unhealthy for the game. First, the very reason I love it is why it probably needs to go. To be able to focus on social building without any concern for military

+1 This is an excellent suggestion, especially useful on larger maps.

[quote who="erischild" reply="29" id="3524536"] The interesting thing is the multiple Shrinkers. I am convinced it is because I started them all at once and otherwise I wouldn't have gotten away with this. [/quote] known bug that has been in since alpha and probably won't get fixed until beta 6 or so. Wonders (I think they're calling them achievements) can be queued as long as there aren't any finished. Once you finish one you can't build any more,

[quote who="Turkwise" reply="4" id="3524233"] The balance is the Yor tech tree's improvements to adjacency bonuses, along with their 20% production bonus, which makes them very good manufacturers with decent planning. First appearances can be deceiving - they aren't the slightest bit lacking in manufacturing capability.[/quote] - If you take all the manufacturing adjacency bonuses, you get a total of +5 levels to your factories, which gives them +25% manufacturing.

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="28" id="3524342"] The problem is that in endgame 5 star bases alone is enough to hit the roughly 300% threshold where a diversified planet is better than a non diversified planet. [/quote] Not in Beta 4. Starbase modules now replace the module they upgrade from, which means the max manufacturing you are getting out of a single starbase is 20%. That means with 5 you get 100% and even with 12 you only get 240%.

They had talked about some limited tactical options early in the process, but since they've been showing battle viewer on the streams Paul has been clear that there will be no tactical interaction at all.

I disagree.

[quote who="Casorian Emperor" reply="8" id="3524163"] Many good points already posted. Perhaps if colony capitals were required to touch at least two tiles, AND that the player could change the capital location after viewing what was first offered , we could have our cake and eat it too. For those who don't want to have more work to do, they could just go with the location as given. With the must touch 2 tiles rule, at least the capital wouldn't be isolated. But f

[quote who="Simplicity123" reply="12" id="3523275"] Being different from Civ is not a crime. There's nothing wrong with that. What I don't like is the way the design makes non-critical buildings (i.e. non production, research, influence) almost not worth it to build. That's all. And I think Planetary Defense falls into that category. [/quote] I think it is really hard to evaluate this with the current AI and without planetary invasions in

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="11" id="3523694"] So the stardock rep confirmed they want a diversified planet to be many times better than a specialised planet at its own game? That makes literally no sense and will screw up the economy of the game. [/quote] No, they confirmed that projects are working as intended. Split planets will only outperform specialized planets on very high quality planets, and only late game, and even then not by "Many Times."

[quote]4) How useful is +10 production in new capital (Malevolent). I have no idea what it actually does. There is a tech that grants +1 per planet, same question. [/quote] +10 production is awesome. It's basically 10 population that you don't have to feed, keep happy, and doesn't suffer diminishing returns once your planet is growing. Early game it will double the output of your capital and even with 40 population it will be more than a 25% bo

[quote who="Illauna" reply="1" id="3522967"] Basically (Population + additionalRawPoints) * allocationBonusPercentage * (1 + bonusPercentage) [/quote] It should be noted that production is no longer a 1/1 ratio with population and now has diminishing returns at around 15 pop, so below that you will get more production than your population and above you will get less.

[quote who="adamb1011" reply="3" id="3523653"] I did a little analysis based on my understanding of the way the gc3 economy system works as described in the economy 101 post. Based on a planet with 40 pop and 18 available hexes (no capital to simplify things) [/quote] To be fair, you need hexes for farms and approval buildings, and with a capital, you'd need like a quality 24 planet to get to that point. most decent planets fall into the 8-12 range, where it is very dif

I understand the impetus for wanting tourism to be effected by war, but I disagree with it. It may be more realistic, but I don't think it would be more fun. War is fun in this game and taking a chunk out of a player's economy for going to war is a pretty strong disincentive.

[quote who="charon2112" reply="3" id="3522508"] sentry mode wakes up if any ship comes in sensor range guard mode wakes up if an enemy comes in range. Am I right? [/quote] That was how they worked in GCII, but in III ships on guard mode don't wake.

[quote who="Turkwise" reply="4" id="3522616"] Environmental Research . One of three "environmental" options in the "planetary improvement" line that will increase adjacency bonuses. As mentioned above, events can also increase adjacency. Like the motivational speaker who tells everyone to get along. It works like this: If the building gets an adjacency bonus from one or more neighboring tiles, that bonus is increased by the amount of your total addi

Yeah, IMO they have yet to get the pacing quite right. Currently I think the age of expansion is a little too short and the age of war is way too long. I usually hit the age of war pre-turn 50 even without tech trading in the current build.

I'm pretty sure what you're seeing isn't a bug, but confusing UI. When you have finished everything except for ship auto moves, the Shaffer button changes to "turn." When you hit the button, all of your ships with moves queued up will move, but if any ships have moves left over after their auto-move, the turn does not progress and you get an "idle ship" button to move move those ships. After you have used up all the movement of your remaining ships, you get the "turn" button again

Thanks, got follow up support that was great. The problem for me was that the request for the file was at the end of a long list of instructinos for updating drivers, changing settings, and other things that clearly had nothing to do with my ticket. This made it seem like an automatic response that was made without looking at the ticket. Like I said, I trust that you are doing a great job, I just wanted to let you know how it looks from this end.

Asteroid mining will be in the game. It will be done with starbases and add production to a nearby planet much like GC2. As for starbases being underpowered, you must not really be using economy starbases. They are awesome. That said. I never build military or influence starbases as I find the influence ones to be pretty ineffective and I am almost always the aggressor in war and find the stationary nature of military starbases too limiting.