joeball123

In addition to the other bits about the trade menu, I really wish that they gave some kind of approximate value of each thing you can offer, or just gave the actual value that the computer places on the items. It's a bit of a pain trying to balance out trade deals when you have no real idea what value the computer places on everything on the table or which could go on the table, and it's not like "click on stuff semi-randomly until the computer says fair deal" improves the game in any

[quote who="Crocell44" reply="3" id="3550639"] By design, you cannot declare war on an ally. However, if you're allied to the last remaining faction, this should automatically trigger an alliance victory. [/quote] You can turn off the Alliance victory, and if mystic has done so it should not be possible for an alliance victory to trigger regardless of whether or not the ally is the only other empire remaining in the game. mystic: Is it poss

Yeah, I know about the starbase spacing thing, I'd just rather leave that alone and make it so that even if a world happens to be within the AoE of two or more economic starbases it'll only get the bonus from one of them. The only thing stacking economic stations adds to the game is even more constructor spam in my opinion, and given that the bonuses from economic stations tend to be more worthwhile than whatever you can do with the one or two resources you might be preventing yoursel

It's not a perfect solution, but you might be able to influence-push your "ally" and culture flip the planets, which will count towards the conquest victory.

Figured we'd have one eventually. I'll start: 1. Is there a way to make it so that certain types of starbases or starbase effects will not stack? I.e. if I wanted to make Economic Starbases individually more powerful but incapable of stacking with one another, how would I do that? 2. Is there a way to scale the tech costs without messing around with colony production or output? 3. Is there a way to use formulas to compute values in the XML rather than going wit

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3550354"] They're super cheap and they have twice the rate of fire. [/quote] Given how much less efficient kinetic weapons are, I'm doubtful that it matters.

If you're talking about the row of icons at the bottom of the box, those are 'threat,' 'fortitude,' and 'value.' I don't know what these do, but I suspect it has something to do with targeting priority in combat and perhaps is a shorthand for the computer to use when evaluating whether or not to engage. These (or more specifically 'value') may also have something to do with how much the computer values the vessel in the trade screen. If you'

[quote who="Bamdorf" reply="12" id="3550321"] namely, the repair of the Lexington carrier after the Coral Sea battle in WW2. The ship took considerable damage and it was estimated that a minimum of two weeks would be required to make it battle worthy. However, the crews at Pearl worked around the clock and pulled off a minor miracle in roughly 48 hours (not sure I remember the exact time) and made the ship ready for the turning point battle of the Pacific war at Midway. [/quote]</p

[quote who="00zim00" reply="11" id="3550272"] always wondered who would win if the Borg fought the Empire. [/quote] Be careful asking questions like these; they are the things that forum wars are made out of. At any rate, my vote goes to the Empire. The Empire has a significantly larger industrial base, Imperial warships appear to me as though they're likely significantly more powerful than Borg ships, there's no evidence transporters can get through Star War

Go into FactionDefs.XML in Galactic Civilizations III/data/Game in wherever Steam installed the game on your computer (by default, C:/Program Files (x86)/Steam/SteamApps/common/). Then look for the lines that have the tag (some ship type here) . It looks like these are defined separately for each faction rather than being something common to all, so you'll need to go through each faction entry. Fortunately (or not), they're all in the

Try using this: Military AreaEffect Colony Flat 5 </

Is there a way to make it so that certain types of starbases or starbase effects will not stack? I.e. if I wanted to make Economic Starbases individually more powerful but incapable of stacking with one another, how would I do that? Is there a way to scale the tech costs without messing around with colony production or output? Is there a way to use formulas to compute values in the XML rather than going with fixed values? Say, if I wanted to subtract 0.001 influence from a col

[quote who="abomination5" reply="5" id="3550162"] Is there anyway to see how population is affecting manufacturing on the planet screen? I see a Raw Manufacturing value [/quote] The sum of your raw manufacturing, raw research, and raw wealth production is your raw production. Population adds a bonus to raw production which may be computed as 2 * (population)^0.7 This bonus adds to any flat production bonuses you have (there's

[quote who="twilight024" reply="6" id="3549869"] I saw the tooltip for moral had changed to no longer include production bonuses. I thought they had changed moral bonuses to include only population growth, influence, and resistance bonuses? I know in previous beta versions moral included production bonuses, are you saying moral still does this and its just not seen? [/quote] Listing: Population, Approval, Approval Modifier to Resistance, Actual Base Production, Expected Bas

[quote who="RavenX" reply="3" id="3549581"] B: Have you ever played "Birth of the Federation"? Even though the Betazoid are part of the Federation, they have a home planet and a very small fleet of a few ships, as do the Vulcans and a few others. I want to say there was even a toggle for if you wanted them as scripted allies or not at the start of the game, but it's been a long time since I've played that. [/quote] While I've never played Birth of the Federation,

Arcea Campaign description: The Terran 1st Fleet, having taken refuge in a mysterious pocket universe at the end of the war of the Dreadlords , have has returned, vowing to cut their its way through across the galaxy and liberate Earth from the Precursor shield that has be

Technically, that system isn't a lease, it's a system which allows you to buy on credit. You're essentially taking out a loan to purchase the ship and then paying it off. If it were a lease, you'd be paying the fee for as long as you had the ship, and you might have a 'security deposit' to pay at the start and a penalty to pay if you lose the ship - after all, if it's a ship that you're leasing, it's not actually your ship. That being said, I'd

[quote who="Larsenex" reply="14" id="3548420"] As far as I am aware you do not take a hit to production at all from 1% to 99% approval. Only when you reach 100% approval do you see an effect, that being a bonus of 50%. [/quote] Looking at the numbers in game, approval does modify the production, and it does come into play within the range 1% to 99%. It seems however that they've changed the system from [production] = [approval multipli

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="124" id="3548434"] I also fail to understand why there are such resistance in acknowledge the fact that stations need to have better sensors than ships for them to be viable in the first place. [/quote] I don't build stations for the sensor coverage they offer; whether or not station sensors are competitive with ship sensors has no bearing on that. I build stations for the economic bonuses and the resources that they offer, and occasionally

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="122" id="3548411"] Did you miss the fact that a tiny ship had better sensor range, was cheaper and maintenance free... that is better in ALL respect than using sensors on stations. [/quote] So what? An AWACS is cheaper than an airfield and generally offers better radar coverage than a ground-based installation. The only issue you bring up that bothers me at all is the lack of a maintenance cost, which I view as more a problem of tiny ships than

I made a slight error in my earlier post, which has been corrected. For some reason, I had treated the current LEP mechanic as though the percentage morale bonus applied before the penalty. The conclusion still stands, however, as the error I made resulted in the current LEP being treated as though it were less of a penalty than it actually is. As far as revisions to the LEP mechanic go, I personally would rather see the penalty moved off of approval and on to something

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="117" id="3548357"] You now get a sensor platform that is cheaper, have better sensor performance AND is mobile?!? [/quote] When exactly did surveillance become a primary function of a starbase? As far as I'm aware, surveillance has always been at best a secondary function of starbases, and the options you get for their sensor suites reflect that. Starbases have adequate sensors for their primary function; if you want better coverage, you can

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="2" id="3548345"] It wasn't really reduced; the mechanic was changed. Now the intention was certainly for it to be reduced. But in my experience, it's actually worse right now. [/quote] The math generally supports the conclusion of it being worse right now. Under the old system, you wanted to have a morale bonus of at least P / (1 - n*0.01 + a) to keep everyone happy, whereas under the current

[quote who="JorgenCAB" reply="110" id="3548305"] Please elaborate on how sensors ARE or ARE NOT balanced between ships and stations in the current game, give me numbers and hard math please? [/quote] I will provide you with numbers because you asked, but I will not endorse any particular balance argument. It is my opinion that sensor ships are perhaps a bit on the strong side but not an issue of the proportions which you and several others in this thread appear to believe. T

[quote who="tesb" reply="1" id="3547998"] i tend to agree. the projects need work, but they are a vast improvement over their earlier incarnation imho. [/quote] I personally much prefer the previous incarnation of the planetary projects. In that form, projects were generally useful and gave me a reason to build mixed planets. Under the current system, there's more or less no incentive to build a mixed planet; the maximum output mulitplier a fully-improved world can have