Should be in GalCiv3GlobalDefs.XML, if I recall correctly. Look for BeamCooldown, KineticCooldown, and MissileCooldown. XAccuracy and XRange are also defined there. Note that there are separate definitions for starbases and starships.
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="7" id="3665745"] Currently, Resistance is used to defend against non physical attacks like information/propaganda. Only 'Defense' which scales with population is used to defend. The basic defense building which i think gives +20% to planetary defense would NOT survive against a transport with a 20% soldiering. [/quote] Unless things have changed since I last looked, this is wrong. The way I understand planetary invasions to work
[quote who="General Pants" reply="29" id="3665269"]Whaaaaaaaaaat? When was this? [/quote] Sometime around 1.0 or 1.1, maybe? I don't recall exactly. If you open up GalCiv3GlobalDefs and look for the PopulationToProductionMultiplier and PopulationToProductionExponent variables, you can see for yourself that population translates to production at a 1:1 ratio. [quote who="SilasOfBorg" reply="30" id="3665277"] recalculate science contributions: make big science
Are you certain that you've researched enough techs to enter the Age of Ascension? Massive-scale Construction is an Age of Ascension tech, and you need to have developed something like 100 techs before you can research any Age of Ascension tech. There's a progress bar at the bottom of the tech tree view which shows your progress to unlocking the next tech era, if I recall correctly.
[quote who="General Pants" reply="26" id="3665206"] Adding another factory or market or lab always adds the same bonus, but the benefit of additional population diminishes as you go above 10. [/quote] In terms of absolute benefit: Every factory, market, and lab you build on a given world offers the same absolute benefit regardless of how many factories, markets, or labs already exist on the planet. However, this is also true for farms - remember that diminishing returns on t
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="8" id="3665197"] First, everyone has different tech trees specifically tailored to, well, each other...a tech that is balanced in the hands of one faction given all of its other techs can be stupidly broken in the hands of another faction...in short, the balance complications of tech brokering do not make it an acceptable solution... [/quote] You cannot acquire a tech which is not in your tree whether or not tech trading and tech brokering are o
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="23" id="3665005"]I'm surprised more people haven't brought this up, as this is a fundamental flaw of GC3's mechanics...I do remember a discussion about population growth early in the alpha stage of the game, and I recall most people simply not appreciating its impact... I would expand on this issue and say that there is too much of an opportunity cost with building farms...giving up a tile for food production cuts into your manufacturing an
Specifically regarding tourism: I suspect that it is not worth building tourism improvements. Last I checked, it appeared as though base tourism income was proportional to the average population on all colonies in the galaxy, and that the constant used was such that the base tourism income was always less than the base standard income that the colony would generate at relatively balanced slider settings. On top of that, most factions can only build one tourism improvement per colony (not coun
If you have X manufacturing points being funneled into a project, then you get a modifier of min([BonusMax], [Value defined within the Bonus tags]*ceiling(X/[ManufacturingPerBonus]) from the project, where ceiling(X) is the function which returns the smallest integer Y such that Y >= X. For example, if you funnel 103 manufacturing points into an Economic Project, you would add min(1, 0.05 * ceiling(103/10) = 0.55 to the colony's income multiplier. At any rate, that was
[quote who="psychoak" reply="6" id="3662562"] The extra fighters most definitely did not join the battle the last time I played, perhaps that has changed recently [/quote] I meant for subsequent engagements. I.e. you send in your carrier fleet of 14 ships which has, say, 100 fighters, so up to 50 fighters in the engagement, and the carrier fleet loses 30 fighters in the engagement. Next engagement you have 70 fighters in the fleet, which means you still get 50 fighters at th
[quote who="Gauntlet03" reply="4" id="3662552"] How so? Obviously you need sufficient defense, but why not have all offense in carriers? I don't do so... but mostly out of habit. [/quote] There's a limit of 64 ships per side per engagement. Hull capacity spent on carrier modules beyond the number necessary to get [real ships in fleet] + [fighters in fleet] = 64 is, as a result, kind of wasted, though if I'm not mistaken the 'extra' fighters do
The Threat, Fortitude, and Value scores for a ship, which are the sums of those values for the components in the design, are used in combination with the hull size to determine its default role. The way it's supposed to work is if Value > Threat + Fortitude the ship gets classed as Support. Otherwise, Tiny hulls get classed as Interceptors if Threat > Fortitude or as Guardians if Fortitude > Threat, Small hulls get classed as Assault if Threat > Fortitude or Escort if
[quote who="lyssailcor" reply="2" id="3662228"] You say "the way it's supposed to work" - does that mean it actually doesn't work like this? [/quote] I believe it does work; at any rate, it did the last time I played, though that was a while ago.
The way it's supposed to work is that the hull capacity required by a component is [first value] + [total hull capacity] * [second value]. Note, however, that this is then multiplied by the component capacity reductions you can get from technologies. One of the first specializations you can get in the weapons branch of the military tree is a 10% reduction in the capacity requirement of all weapons components, and there are additional 20% reductions in capacity requirement availabl
To the OP: The only way you can increase the population of colonies whose population has capped as a synthetic faction using a non-Yor tech tree is to take advantage of the fact that docking a loaded colony or transport ship with a colonized planet adds the population carried by the colony or transport ship to the population of the colony (you can scrap the ships while they're docked if you want to get rid of them, or launch the ships so as to reuse them; if you launch the ships,
[quote]I think the starbase upgrade to assault fighters is broken. When my starbase's get attacked only 3 tiny interceptors launch to defend the starbase, and I have the 2nd upgrade to assault fighters installed (the upgrade you get from researching the last carrier tech). [/quote] Looking at the XML, I would be inclined to agree that the module is broken. As defined, the assault fighter module has exactly the same bonus as the interceptor module, so as module upgrades
The other thing that they changed a while ago is that fighters no longer benefit directly from hull capacity bonuses, as the fighter blueprints no longer have FillerComponentType components defined. They do, of course, benefit indirectly as you'll be able to fit more carrier components onto the carrier.
Create a ship design which has a lot of sensor components on it, and build a few of them and deploy them in a way that gives you good sensor coverage.
[quote who="zuPloed" reply="2" id="3647123"] population doesn't affect influence [/quote] If you run the Cultural Festival project, it can affect influence generation indirectly, but only within certain limits.
[quote] I know that once upon a time, using the thruster ships to evade enemy fire worked very well, because I used that tactic a lot when making my fleets. I understand if the devs thought this was too powerful and nerfed it since the AI opponents are too stupid to use this tactic. But was this an intentional nerf, or just an accidental bug? If intentional that's fine, I will just cross thrusters off my list of useful ship components to use when designing ships. [/quote]
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="3" id="3646259"] Actually they do when you build your ships you pick your roles. Assult is basically blitz. [/quote] Ship roles are at best an extremely poor way of influencing battle tactics; they're extremely rigid sets of targeting priorities that also assign a starting position and a movement type (supports get 'stationary,' which basically means 'sit at spawn point until all ships with attacker or defender movement
[quote who="ForesterSOF" reply="2" id="3645633"] They are both supposed to give adj bonus to influence. [/quote] They give bonuses to improvements that have the Influence type , not necessarily to improvements which do anything with influence or which offer the same kinds of bonuses. Healing Pools have an improvement type of "Approval." Not getting any bonus levels on Healing Pools from being adjacent to things which give levels to Influence improvements is w
[quote who="shevanoquam" reply="6" id="3642781"] In game, you can get multiple special techs by researching the option your trading partner has NOT chosen and then you just trade it in later on. So if you want to have both mass reduction and range increase on your ballistic weapon, you just search for a trading partner that has ONE of those two and you research the other one - then you trade in the missing tech and you have both. It gets a little ugly, if everyone has researched the "che
[quote who="Horemvore" reply="1" id="3642753"]I think only if they have the same GenericName set in your tech trees. (TBH Unsure) [/quote] This won't work, at least not in a way that actually gives you the other faction's unique technology. If your tech tree and the tech tree of your trade partner have techs with the same GenericNames, you can do tech trades, but the way it works is more along the lines of trading slot unlocks than actually trading techs. Basicall
[quote] I've hit a snag though as I'm not sure where the defs for the buildings are, and the xml for the culture traits which award the buildings doesn't show any obvious commands/method for their granting (at least as far as my ad hoc and scatter-brained programming knowledge is concerned). [/quote] It's in ImprovementDefs.XML, in the entry for each improvement; the assignment is done via the Prerequ tag.