joeball123

Check what role the carriers have, and check what role the fighters are. Then consult BattleBehaviorDefs.XML to see if there's a role that will target the role that the carriers were assigned before they target the fighters. Be aware that your ships may engage the fighters first simply because most fighters are assigned roles which get placed forward whereas many carriers tend to be towards the back, and on top of that the fighters tend to be faster. You may also want to design yo

[quote](4) The UP votes right now do not clearly show the results. Maybe I'm blind but there is not definitive result displayed. [/quote] The option that passed is colored green in the area where you picked out what to vote for.

[quote who="BuckGodot" reply="15" id="3580963"] If ships can "warp away" when they theoretically have no move left do they subtract it on the next turn? And even if so, that just means I track you down with my main fleet and go pew-pew-pew again. [/quote] There's also the issue of defense and fighter post-engagement regeneration abuse if retreats are possible. Defenses are fully restored after an engagement ends, and so are fighters last I checked; if retreating allows m

In my opinion, planetary defense needs a cap (e.g. 80-95% maximum), a change in stacking mechanics (e.g. 1 - product(1 - x_n, n=1:N), where each x_n is the planetary defense bonus from a specific source - and level bonuses should count as separate from the base improvement, at least if the base improvement bonus is high enough that that plus the level bonus is at risk of hitting 100% or more on its own), or a change in role (e.g. planetary defense now acts as a divisor on invader strength, so

[quote]- Call me obsessive, but is anyone else bothered by the occasional typos throughout the game text? I could take a note whenever I see something and make a mention of it if the devs are interested... [/quote] While I have no idea whether or not the developers are particularly interested, a reported typographical error is far more likely to be corrected than an unreported typographical error. You may want to check the forums to see if the errors you've spotted have

I do not know, but my guess is that the formula looks like this: TechCost = BaseCost * (1 + TechInfMult_all * Ntechs_all^TechInfExp_all + TechInfMult_tree * Ntechs_tree^TechInfExp_tree + TechInfMult_spec * Ntechs_spec^TechInfExp_spec) where BaseCost is the cost defined in the tech tree, TechInfMult_all and similar are what you should think they are based upon the XML section you posted, Ntechs_all is the total number of techs you've researched,

[quote who="Crom-" reply="2" id="3587114"] I still find it odd the population of the planet I invaded stayed exactly at 15ish billion. Not even a dent after sending in 54 billion invaders. [/quote] This sounds very much like you've found a planet with 100+% planetary defense. If you haven't already done so, develop or otherwise acquire the other invasion tactics, and next time you invade, pick one that reduces planetary defense rather than going with Conventional War

Building farms on a planet increases raw production on that planet only (well, and the empire's total raw production, of course). Nowheresville IV and Backwater II get no (direct) benefit from the 72 billion people on Overpopulated V, unless you happen to be into the "build a colonizer or transport at a high population planet and land them at low population planets to transfer population around" game. [quote who="TheFunMachine" reply="2" id="3586705"] Therefore, is this a boo

Before bringing in a verisimilitude/'realism' argument, please consider what it is that you're asking for. When you ask for the ability to relocate a starbase, you are not asking for something remotely comparable to shifting the orbit of the ISS slightly. You are talking about moving a massive structure a distance which is at minimum on the order of 1 AU and may well be several lightyears, and while the fact that shipyards can do it does help the case that starbases perhaps could

If the computer's inability to specialize its worlds decently is the issue (and that failure appears to be at least part of the rationale behind the proposed changes, even though it's not really stated to be), here's something to help: A world's overall output under the current model will be maximized when it dedicates 100% of its production to a specific output type. This allows us to reduce the output equation down to a quadratic function in (effectively) one variabl

[quote who="leiavoia" reply="66" id="3585151"] How can we make a "balanced planet" strategy meaningful? [/quote] [quote who="naselus" reply="77" id="3585278"] Only by a considerable reduction in the difference between specialized and non-specialized worlds - i.e., making a manu-specialized world's output only maybe twice as high as a non-specialized world. This would require a substantial reduction in building output. [/quote] It depends on what you mea

[quote]Thus, the direction we are looking to go is where you would recruit governors to run your planets. You would assign it to a planet and they'd have their own special abilities. Maybe one governor IS a micro manager and having him as your governor lets you micro the spending ratios on that particular planet. Another might be really good for managing finances, another at research, and so on. [/quote] While I am opposed to removing the existing planetary management t

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3585183"] Speaking for myself, my biggest issue with GalCiv III's planetary spending system is that it acts as if you, the government, somehow can magically not just control the market but make it turn on a dime. [/quote] A world set to 100% research is just as capable of rushing production as a world set to 100% manufacturing. Given the speeds of the ships portrayed in GCIII (particularly in the early game, at isolated colonies, or in

C:/Program Files (x86)/Steam/SteamApps/common/Galactic Civilizations III/data/ParticleScriptDefs/ has two files (EngineThrustingParticleEffect.XML and EngineIdleParticleEffect.XML) that look like they might have something to do with engine trails, but I have no idea how it'd determine trail colors by faction; there only seems to be a single color entry for each emitter listed, and the files don't define separate emitters for each faction. C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps

[quote who="Director" reply="13" id="3584239"] The problem with incorporating accuracy into sensors and jamming into point defense is that it requires you to research something you may not want or need. So I'd favor separating them out. [/quote] I wasn't suggesting tying jamming into point defense. I was suggesting renaming the chaff and ECM technologies, components, and modules in the point defense line to something else and then using chaff and countermeasures and

I haven't checked to see if this is it, but you might try GC3AppearanceDefs.XML in C:/Program Files (x86)/Steam/SteamApps/common/Galactic Civilizations III/data/Core/, as that file has blocks for each preset color set, with lines in the block for RGB + alpha.

[quote who="Director" reply="9" id="3584073"] The other variable currently available to us is accuracy... which I still think could use a tech line all to itself. [/quote] As far as components boosting accuracy go, I'd tend to suggest adding that to sensor components, or at least to the sensor technology line. It's natural that a counter to jamming is better sensors, after all, and this would also provide an actual reason to put a sensor component on something other

[quote who="rputran" reply="5" id="3583960"] how do you stack 12 constructors on a planet? the max one I could fit was 5. [/quote] Well, if it's constructors you want to stack on the planet, I'd suggest docking them at the planet. Much easier than placing them in individual tiles around the planet, and doesn't have issues with accidentally fleeting up with something that passes through the area. Stacking twelve starbases at the planet requires careful pla

If all you want to do is get fighters of your own design to be used, then edit the fighter blueprints in ShipBlueprintDefs.XML. If you want a specific faction to use a specific fighter design, then the process is somewhat more involved, and you will need to edit the class entries in ShipClassDefs.XML to point to different blueprints (so if I wanted the Terran Guardian Fighter to be a beam design while the Thalan Guardian Fighter were a missile design, I'd need to get the Terran Guardian F

[quote who="Ser_JuJoo_Guppy" reply="23" id="3574042"] I realize this is a bit of a necro.. so apologies. But I thought I would throw my two cents in, and ask a question. Question is, does the Malevolence perk that grants +1 morale per planet conquered only applied through planetary invasions, or does colonizing count? [/quote] It should be per planet conquered, unless there's a bug. Culture flips might count as conquering the planet, though I've never really checked.

[quote]Open borders does nothing, because borders are meaningless already. [/quote] The treaty removes relations penalties for having ships and starbases within the area of influence of another empire. The treaty also carries its own relations bonus. If diplomatic bonuses are worthless to you, then sure, open borders "does nothing." If you are going after a diplomatic victory, you may instead find the open borders treaty to be worthwhile as a stepping stone towards a full a

As far as I know, there is not at present any research cost dependency upon empire size. There has been some talk of such, but for the moment I don't believe such has been implemented. There are two potential sources for indirect impact, however, as each planet's research output is to some degree dependent upon its population, and empires which lack the patriotic trait have a morale penalty that scales with the number of colonies in the empire if you aren't running a mod t

If what you want to do is change the appearance of the fighters launched by your carriers rather than change what the fighters carry, then you're going to want to play with the fighter's entry in ShipClassDefs.XML or the equivalent file for your mod. This is the ShipClassDefs.XML entry for the Terran Alliance Assault Fighter: TerranAssaultFighter <DisplayName&gt

C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Galactic Civilizations III\data\Game, at least if you installed in the default directory.

Only starbases around the planet where the trade route originates matter.