joeball123

[quote who="XeronX" reply="54" id="3519808"] I know it would never happen but I would love to see hull sizes come with space dedicated to the different classification of weapon sizes. [/quote] Personally, I am opposed to such as it would tend to make everyone's elite battleship more like the elite battleships fielded by everyone else, regardless of the situation in which they find themselves, and prevents them from adapting the elite battleship to perform better in thei

[quote who="erischild" reply="3" id="3519736"] Is that something possible? Click on the three icons and move the prod wheel one notch in that direction? I don't have the eye-hand coordination to do it manually. [/quote] In terms of computer programming? Yes, that's something that's possible. In terms of features included in the game? Not as far as I am aware. I'd appreciate having it, as well, especially if it came with the ability to lock one

It occurs to me that part of the issue might simply be that carriers get their fighters out too rapidly. Having 5 extra ships per hangar bay on the battlefield from the very beginning of the battle might be too much of a good thing; perhaps it would be better if there were only one or two fighters per hangar bay on the field at the start of the battle, with an additional fighter launching from each bay every X rounds up to whatever the end limit on fighters happens to be, or if fighters have

[quote who="markmid" reply="52" id="3514737"]If this is a universal position among players it indicates that military SB's need an upgrade from Galciv II. Did people find them useful, honestly? If useful, efficient? [/quote] Military starbases, especially highly-upgraded military starbases, could be useful, but the problem was that you had to fight within the area of effect, and so you'd probably spend great sums of money and many turns of planetary production building co

[quote who="Exa_Unique" reply="48" id="3514682"] Yet.. I still don't see how the ship can apply its " transversal velocity" to out maneuver the weapons from that data... Some of you are focusing on my " pinpointed 3+ turns away. " and totally ignore the " transversal velocity" part. But by pinpointing, I or We didn't exactly mean they engaged in fighting. But rather that the station has according to your data. <

[quote who="Exa_Unique" reply="43" id="3514467"] Until then, I reckon a massive space station with room for a massive array of weapons will make short work out of any fast moving tiny ships already pinpointed 3+ turns away. [/quote] [quote who="kestlstw" reply="46" id="3514526"] Straight line trajectory with no evasive maneuvers, you could easily hit a ship, even a small ship with a projectile or laser, its all just math, including travel time. [/quote] The

[quote who="Raynman" reply="2" id="3512173"] If only I could hide from myself [/quote] I suggest avoiding mirrors and other reflective surfaces.

Logically speaking, it makes a reasonable amount of sense that when the last remnants of a state are peacefully annexed by another state, apparently by the will of the annexed state's own citizens as theoretically happens when the last remaining worlds of an empire are culture-flipped by another empire, the annexing state acquires non-territorial assets such as warships and military bases (e.g. starbases). It can also be argued that this should be the case in annexations of smaller areas,

I dislike the idea of modifying the planet class by a habitability index. Planet class has always seemed more likely to be related to usable landmass than actual habitability despite the game's claims that class 26 worlds are "like heaven" and class 4 worlds are hell, as habitability doesn't have all that much to do with whether or not I can build something on its surface. However, something that a habitability index would be useful for is as a modifier for the maximum population, the

Looks like an influence border. Maybe you found the perfect arrangement of colonies to have a 1 tile hole in your region of influence.

[quote who="Blue_Oyster" reply="22" id="3501424"] It's not a line of reasoning. It's the direct translation of the Latin. It's a fact that an act can be benevolent or malevolent without knowing the actor's intent. [/quote] Unfortunately, you're missing the point. Actions can be benevolent or malevolent without knowing the actor's intent, but the GCIII alignment system isn't about the actions - it's about the actor, and knowing intent is import

[quote who="Blue_Oyster" reply="20" id="3501372"] The reason or motivation behind the wish has nothing to do with whether or not the act itself is benevolent or malevolent. One's action may be benevolent for the "wrong" reason, or malevolent for the "right" reason. [/quote] The issue with this line of reasoning is that the moral/ethical alignment of Galactic Civilizations III is supposed to reflect the civilization's outlook, not the civilization's image, and sin

[quote who="Vivisector9999" reply="12" id="3501319"] That annoyed me how in GalCiv 2, I could wipe out one race after another, yet still be officially "good". [/quote] I tend to believe that the result of conquering a planet isn't the mass execution of the populace, but rather the mass disenfranchisement of the populace. After all, it's stated that the listed planetary population is the number of your citizens on the planet, not necessarily the true planetary populat

Personally, I would much prefer that the initial colony never shows up on a tile adjacent to any other. Why? Because the bonus it gives is no better than any basic improvement (+1 to adjacent whatever improvement type), and the initial colony itself gains no bonuses from being adjacent to anything else. There are much better things to have in tiles with lots of adjacency, especially if you're focusing the planet's production type. A factory next to another factory is a lot better than

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="1" id="3490939"] you're dinner last night! [/quote] Bit cannibalistic, don't you think? [quote]Is there a way to scuttle a shipyard that I haven't seen? [/quote] Sure. Find something hostile and fly your spare shipyard out that way in the hopes that they'll attack and kill it.

I do not think that under standard GCIII mechanics it will work well (though since diplomacy is still ... negligible ... we'll need to wait and see for that). If the player is restricted to a single world, they will rapidly be outpaced, in technology, in industrial output, and in economy, by every other player on the map unless they start with an absolutely massive lead or unless the other players start with a massive penalty; even if they do start with a sufficiently large lead, the othe

[quote who="twilight024" reply="28" id="3490014"] I wonder if anyone will make a spreadsheet [/quote] You don't seriously believe I've been doing this by hand every time I did one of these calculations, do you? Whether or not it'll get distributed is a different question; with the game only at version 0.41, I don't intend to make it available any time soon. No one will benefit from having a spreadsheet that works out the optimization problem if the optimizati

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="22" id="3489987"] 6 tile limit is to avoid exploits. If you don't have a limit then you can set a planet across the galaxy as a sponsor just to contribute soldiers or colonists. 6 tiles has already been established as the range your shipyard can be from a sponsor without suffering penalties. [/quote] If I can manage to ship materials 200 tiles, I can find a way to ship people the same distance. Beyond that, it's an arbitrary limit tha

[quote who="mormegil" reply="8" id="3489694"] Transports or colony ships launched from Shipyards, will take population evenly from all of its sponsor worlds, that are within 6 tiles. [/quote] A few questions regarding this: How do you define 'evenly'? If I have a transport that requires 6 billion population, and I have 3 planets in range, will each world lose 2 billion people, or will the distribution be weighted by available population? In r

[quote who="peregrine23" reply="25" id="3489582"] I'm not sure where this math is coming from. The formula for getting manufacturing is: [/quote] You need to include the faction-wide, planetary, and starbase bonuses to manufacturing somewhere in that equation, and the location where they appear to be included is an addition to the production multiplier. Unknown_Hero has assumed that DARCA1213's 100% manufacturing is a 100% bonus to manufacturing production rather tha

[quote who="Unknown_Hero" reply="21" id="3489541"] What about no Population and no bonuses then. [/quote] Using a low-population scenario to support your claim that farms are superior to factories is foolish. You can add as many farms as you want to a planet with less people than the population cap, and they'll do less for the near future than any number of production improvements of any kind you want. Let's redo your math with a reasonable number for a low-p

[quote who="DARCA1213" reply="18" id="3489431"] In the end on a class ten planet what is better 9* industrial sectors of +30% (counting whatever super projects in place of the factories if need be) or 9* lossless farms ( super projects can replace some of the nine) so with that done and a 100% growth and 100% production from stuff, what is better farms or factories. (or a bit o both) [/quote] DARCA1213, you're allowed to do simple math for yourself.

In the current version of the game, with this formula, the Population will always be the biggest modification factor. This is entirely false. The farms provide a fixed bonus to the maximum population, which means that the increase to output that they provide declines as you add more and more farms. Once the percentage increase in maximum population due to adding a farm drops below the bonus of a factory, market, or lab, modified by spending allocation

[quote who="quintinparry" reply="38" id="3489356"] A ship with laser is cool but 10000 ships pitted against each other (with lasers) is epic, and EPIC is what we want. [/quote] I just want to point out that 10,000 ships is not "epic," it's pointless. There's no practical way to show a battle between 10,000 ships on the battlefield at a level where the detail is much more than a bunch of little specks and flashing lights. There's a reason why movies, even those de

[quote who="upsurper" reply="19" id="3489357"] But can napalm be efficiently deployed on every inch of the enemy's planet from space, because I want the sky to weep tears of fire, the seas to be filled with waves of fire, the ground to be a infernal hell-fire, and the very air to scorch the life out of any who dare to breath it [/quote] Napalm would probably be a more effective means of attaining your desired result than a nuclear weapon would be, simply because a nuclea