joeball123

[quote who="tid242" reply="7" id="3607110"] Refresh my memory, was end-move-on-attack the way the mechanic worked in GC2? [/quote] No, but insanely high movement rates weren't quite as much of an issue in GC2, either, as the size of the drive components was greater on larger hulls than on smaller ones, and the effective bonus you could get to hull capacity was much more limited (maximum hull capacity bonus was +125% if I'm not mistaken, and there were no component si

Anything that adds fighters to something should be using a *FightersCap EffectType, with the value being the number of fighters granted. Assault and Escort Carrier Modules use AssaultFightersCap, which gives the Assault Fighter designated by the appropriate InitialAssaultFighter line in FactionShipStyleSetDefs.XML; Drone Carrier Modules, starbase fighter modules, the Paranoid ability, and Advanced Transport Modules use InterceptorFightersCap, which gives the Drone Interceptor designated by th

[quote who="drakkos137" reply="2" id="3606785"] Everyone line up, and we march at each other, and shoot, and reload, and shoot, and reload, and shoot, until one side is dead. ... didn't that sort of thing go out of fashion in the 18th century? [/quote] Technically, the ships shown in GCIII's battle viewer continue to maneuver even once they have closed with one another. However, since maneuvers have no impact on whether or not the ships a

Beam weapons do have perfect accuracy against anything that doesn't have jamming. However, if the target has a jamming value, then beam accuracy is reduced by the value of jamming, and that's where accuracy bonuses that apply to beams help.

I suppose the best comparison for a GCIII space battle in SoaSE is if you were to play out a battle in SoaSE completely hands-off. The result of the engagement is determined by what you brought to the fight, and perhaps a bit by when and where you fought, but all it really offers you is a pretty light show. You arguably have a bit more influence over what you bring to the fight in GalCiv than you do in SoaSE since you can design the ships (in GCII and GCIII) and (in GCIII) set the role of the

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="11" id="3605344"] What's the range of missiles again. [/quote] The simple answer is that we don't know, aside from that the unmodified range of a missile weapon is 1100 unspecified range units. We can make guesses based upon the indications we can see of the engagement ranges in the battle viewer; ships being as large as they are relative to one another when they begin firing upon one another would imply that the engagem

I don't believe that there's a way to get literally infinite hull capacity. However, the base hull capacity values are set in ShipHullStatDefs.XML in Galactic Civilizations III\data\Game, and you can certainly increase those values (there is probably a limit on the value you can input, but it's likely somewhere around at least a few hundred thousand). Be warned that ships made up of too many pieces have the potential to slow the game down. The variable you want to edit is MassCap.

[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="4" id="3605325"] First paragraph - that's interesting? It was always pretty hard to get the AI to target a well defended ship in Galciv2,,, it always forces you to limit the weapons of offensive ships, but looks like no such limits anymore?? [/quote] Target prioritization is currently (almost?) entirely dependent upon a ship's role; range to target is the only thing that might take precedence over role-based prioritization, and even the

[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="7" id="3605333"] I considered that point on slugs as well, but currently there is no technology (in real life) to intercept artillery shells as far as i know? [/quote] In principle, intercepting an artillery shell is no different from intercepting a missile, and were it not for the difference in the size of the target might even be easier; most artillery shells are, after all, incapable of adjusting course mid-flight and follow highly-predicta

If you don't mind abusing the target prioritization algorithm a bit: when you design your warships, design a ship with almost only defenses and the drive/life support components you need for your speed and range targets, and set that ship's role to 'escort' when you save the design. Then design a ship with almost only weapons and the drive/life support components you need for your speed and range targets, and set that ship's role to 'capital' when you save the desi

To mrblondini: Natural reproduction is far too slow to cover the population growth rates of planets as seen within the game if the planetary populations are actually reasonably close to the populations given for the planets. The base population growth rate is 0.1 population units per turn, with 1 population unit representing a billion people and 1 turn representing a week. Even if you were to assume an average annual population growth of 10%, you're looking at a base popu

[quote who="SlandeBande" reply="2" id="3604927"] does anyone know if the distance bonus granted to trade routes is based on the map size? [/quote] Sort of. You can have longer trade routes on larger maps, and longer trade routes have a larger distance bonus (up to a certain limit). The actual bonus you gain per tile of route length is unaffected, as far as I am aware. Note that the distance bonus is flat, not a multiplier; a basic or slave trade route earns 0.025 cr

[quote who="trims2u" reply="1" id="3604798"] The fact that they don't right now is dumb; you're telling me that a drive is the same size for moving something that has 10x the mass of another ship? [/quote] What evidence would you care to provide for the supposed dumbness of a space-warping device's size being unrelated to the size of the object which is using said device to propel itself? You are not talking about a drive system which is accelerating an object ac

[quote who="Bruce Hake" reply="5" id="3604767"] 12 or 13 starbases around one planet? I've never managed more than 4. Still, in my current game I have hundreds of those obnoxious structures. [/quote] The key is in how you arrange the starbases. At the default effect radius of 5, you can have up to 5 starbases influencing a single planet if you build all five at maximum distance from the planet. This will prevent you from increasing the number of starbases influencing the

There are a handful of instances where it's useful to build an antimatter power plant, but yes, they're generally useless and only worth building when you can use them to boost a structure that gives a particularly strong level bonus. Hyperion Shrinkers are the main offender; if the level bonus of the Elerium Defense Shield has been corrected or gets corrected so that the level bonus is actually applied (the level bonus hasn't been applied in any version that I can remember, thoug

[quote who="Nilfiry" reply="16" id="3601461"] If you stack engines and life support, you would naturally lose even more capacity to stack carrier modules; therefore, your carriers would naturally be even weaker. [/quote] Relative to what? Neither your carriers nor your targets have engines and life support, and in practical game conditions you'd expect both to have similar amounts of drives and life support. That's going to cost a fleet of battleshi

[quote who="Whytebio" reply="13" id="3600655"] a) This would make support ships more important rather than the waste of time that they are now. Tired of enemy ships retreating from a battle after taking some damage? Bring along ships with Hyperdrive Suppressors, which prevents enemy ships from being able to Retreat. Additionally, the retreat mechanic can be tied in to the ships movement/tactical movement. Perhaps retreating costs 10 movement and takes you away by 1 to 3 square

[quote who="CMDCM" reply="3" id="3600496"] 1) Some sort of espionage system [/quote] I have yet to encounter an espionage system that I actually found enjoyable in any video game I've ever played. The best are the ones that I can ignore without any real issues, the rest are irritating or sometimes infuriating to varying degrees. Pay virtual money to get a coinflip between "nothing happens," "you failed and lost something," "you failed and ticked off your neighbor," "you

Check C:\Users\(user name)\Documents\My Games\GalCiv3\Factions, and look for a *.faction file bearing the name (faction name)_(some alphanumeric characters). Be advised that as far as I know, no member of the community knows how to read or edit *.faction files without using the in-game editor. As such, if you want to edit a custom faction, you have to create the faction "from scratch," unless editing the number of points available for custom faction creation will allow you to

[quote who="EmperorLeto" reply="81" id="3599419"] I must confess, I never did get the point of having to fiddle with planetary or city spending policies in 4X games. I'm the Emperor for Pete's sake not the local bean counter. GalCiv is not the first nor the last game to implement this rather annoying gimmick that forces you to focus more on individual planets than on your empire as a whole. So good reddens to the wheel I say. Why the hell do I have governors then? In no sci-fi bo

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="9" id="3598645"] Right now you can set your wealth creation to 100%. That's 100% taxes. [/quote] No, it's not. Increasing the tax rate increases income but does not necessarily impact spending (and increasing income certainly doesn't necessarily result in reducing expenditures), whereas increasing the wealth setting on the wheel directly cuts spending. If Planet X has 12 rubber ducks worth of income and I set the sliders to t

[quote]The wheel is totally gamey. No civilization functions where last being can be assigned a job by the government. [/quote] So what? A whole lot of the rest of the game is incredibly 'gamey,' too. Need an army? No problem; some random planet has a large population and an attached shipyard, so within a week (turn) I can have a fully-equipped and fully-trained army of a size limited only by the population of the planet and the troop capacity of the transport. Nee

There's a variable in GalCiv3GlobalDefs.XML called FighterTurnRepairRate, which is set to 3 in v1.3 (and probably v1.4, but I haven't opted in). This would suggest that the intention is for fighters to be replaced after 3 turns, though whether or not it works like this and whether or not carriers have a reserve of fighters that must be destroyed before they're out of fighters (and what the limits of said reserve, if it exists, are) is not particularly clear. There's also a var

[quote]Does a fighter or drone ever get replaced when it is lost in battle? [/quote] Mid-battle? No. Post-battle, though? Yes; my experience has been that it seems as though carrier fighters are replaced after every engagement, though I've seen others indicate that it takes a turn or two for carrier fighters to be replaced. [quote]Why not allow resupply or ship fabrication to replace lost fighters and drones. After they are destroyed the carrier is basical

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="6" id="3597018"] make them mining planets instead. [/quote] Unless it's economically viable to move the industry that makes use of the resources you could get out of an uninhabitable planet to the uninhabitable planet or unless it becomes incredibly inexpensive to lift useful quantities of resources out of a large gravity well and ship them to the point of use, it's rather unlikely that mining an uninhabitable planet will be eco