tesb

and some q&a

I hope this game does well, it deserves it, together with some major expansions :) Don't make the mistake of working too hard short of release: major bugs can creep in that way. As for post release: I hope you do slow down the patch cycles so i can finish a game on gigantic maps for once :)

Disclaimer: based the current opt-in beta 6.2 I am currently in a game in a game on a gigantic map with 7 other civilizations on though difficulty (i.e. every a.i. is genius). I am currently the second best civ score wise. The leading civilization declared war on me, so i bribed every other civ to declare war on the leading a.i. (not that i care much because the a.i. is not good at waging a decisive short war of conquest*). It then struck me that doing so would

playing with the latest 6.2 opt in: -max population is still bugged and does nothing -i tried patriotic instead of prolific: together with the malevolent eager (approval for every conquered world) i am currently up to 40+ population with 100% approval. all in all, the more i play with synthetic the more i wish it was implemented differently. synthetic is basically an early game problem, but a huge late game bonus (more tiles

i agree, that is why i like my suggestion so much. it is independent on the number of your colonies, does not change the early game but scales with map size and has it's biggest impact in the late game.

hm i tried a new run, this time not focusing on malevolent. it is much harder this way. imho malevolent makes or brakes a synthetic civilization in the early phase of the game.

In my games i usually get to a point where i do not need more research world (especially on larger maps) and end up with a lot of wealth worlds and i usually play on slowest research speed. the main problem is that technologies do not scale with map size (afaik). However just increasing tech cost based on map size would severely slow down the early game. So my simple suggestion would be a scaling factor (or at least an option for it) that works like this:

are you using colonizers to rush shipyards -> focus manufacturing -> colony ship? you should add prolific to that and you have an incredible advantage, i.e. the population of the first colony ship of every world is free too :)

[quote]It is a little hilarious that when projects were powerful, people complained that it was better to have diversified planets[/quote] i do not recall this. to me diverse planets are defined in their outcomes, e.g. a planet that produces a lot of science, influence and a bit of credits is a diverse planet. a planet that just produces science is a specialized planet. whether you construct factories + labs + conversion project

afaik gifted ai currently get's some hefty bonuses (i.e. it's cheating) (with 6.2 opt in patch).

you need to keep ship movement and weapon range in mind. if you want a tank ship, here is a suggestion: -give it tactical movement speed -give it tons of defense -role assault -kinetic weapons (shortest range) all other ships: -role capital/support or any other role that stays in the back -only missile weapons (highest range) however you should always keep in mind that enemy ships have

you just need to play a race with +1 speed and all your pirate problems are gone (they have a movement of 2 tiles, i.e. with +1 speed you can always outmaneuver and outrun them). just make sure to pay attention to automatic ship movement.

[Quote]Planetary Projects are useless. +5% per 10 Manufacturing is a terrible joke. No matter what, you will never want to use this. You will always have better options. +5% for the first 0.1 Manufacturing is easily abused, but not even worth the effort . There is no reason to diversify planets anymore. Planets should always be specialized now.[/quote] true. I look at the projects in their current form as way to differentiate fully

i tend to agree, in the end conversions complicate THIS economic system (where allocation is done via sliders) too much. i'll give feedback on the new system once played with it for a while.

@joaball, your are right with the statement that under certain conditions a balanced world can (vastly) outproduce a specialized world and the formula is the reason why this is changed: it is simply too complicated and unintuitive in a 4x where you are space emperor of a vast galactic empire. i am not so sure if the changes will make for a better game (i'll reserve judgment until i can test it extensively), but the current conversion p

[quote]"K illbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down. " -Zapp Brannigan [/quote] I played a lot with Yor and custom synthetic races, so this is a thread to discuss them. 1) Race creation: -You do not need population growth, which gives you 2 free design points. (Infertile) -the base po

i have to (sadly) agree with the op. I made the same observations, especially reading it's economy.

yeah changing this, at least for ships would be really nice. i want to set up fleet templates, e.g. lots of small ships + one "buff" ship = fleet and order that fleet. instead i have to build every ship at a time merging them when they are ready and so on.

[quote]I think the economic system is fine except for the ongoing projects thing. I don't like that.[/quote] the easiest way would be a simple a change of the current system, i.e. [img]http://i59.tinypic.com/6eek9i.png[/img] to [img]http://i57.tinypic.com/123nkb4.png[/img] i.e. you no longer run raw production through two modifier pipelines, thus preventing double dipping and weird outcomes as described in reply 15 (page 1) &n

that is good to know :) thanks from saving me of playtesting this

[quote]Another big problem is that the AI never use the sliders it just keep them at 33/33/33[/quote] if true, this would explain a lot. This should really be looked at, else ai will never be competitive. My first suggestion actually was to just dump the governance panel/system, now i am thinking more in the direction of removing/changing the conversion projects. [quote]Apologize if this was already mentioned as these p

as long as the obvious issues are fixed the game will probably get around 83 in the press. the biggest mention will probably be no tactical combat, although i would agree with frogboy that tactical combat would be insane in this game. my personal rating (assuming bugs get fixed): 75, with QoL improvements: 80, with balance and QoL and polish: 85, with new cool features (expansion content) like espionage, admirals, good mods, deeper diplomacy and so on: 90+

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="67" id="3544705"] My thought is that maybe the projects should simply give a % boost to their target. [/quote] the base concept of the economy is not that bad, i.e. [img]https://stardock.cachefly.net/adam/GalCiv3/journals/econchart.png[/img] however the conversion projects complicate this picture, as well as the the raw production, i.e. the true picture of the economy is something like t

@Unknown_Hero i can not reproduce that: e.g. population: 13, happiness: 100%, raw science: 27.5 according to the tooltip my colony capital gives me 5 total production, i.e. using the above formula 2*(population)^0.7 + 5 = 17.04... != 27.5 i know from ingame data that happiness is a direct multiplier to raw science/manufacturing/credits, but the population effect on the raw outputs is not

[quote] In your screenshot you're doj g a research project. That is, you're comvering some of your manufacturing to research. [/quote] i am aware of that. here is the core question: what buildings and governance setting yield the optimum output of X (manufacturing, research or credits)? in most games this answer is very simple, not so in gal civ3, e.g. the simple assumption if i want to build a